Forgiveness
VIEW:39 DATA:01-04-2020
FORGIVENESS.Like many other words employed to convey ideas connected with the relations of God and man, this covers a variety of thoughts. In both OT and NT we have evidences of a more elastic vocabulary than the EV [Note: English Version.] would lead us to suppose. 1. The OT has at least three different words all tr. [Note: translate or translation.] forgiveness or pardon, referring either to Gods actions with regard to men (cf. Exo_34:7, Psa_86:5, Neh_9:17) or to forgiveness extended to men by each other (cf. Gen_50:17, 1Sa_25:28). At a very early period of human, or at least of Jewish, history, some sense of the need of forgiveness by God seems to have been felt. This will be especially evident if the words of despairing complaint put into the mouth of Caln be tr. [Note: translate or translation.] literally (see Driver, The Book of Genesis, on Gen_4:13, cf. RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). The power to forgive came to be looked on as inherent in God, who not only possessed the authority, but loved thus to exhibit His mercy (Dan_9:9, Neh_9:17, Jer_36:3). In order, however, to obtain this gift, a corresponding condition of humiliation and repentance on mans part had to be fulfilled (2Ch_7:14, Psa_86:5), and without a conscious determination of the transgressor to amend and turn towards his God, no hope of pardon was held out (Jos_24:19, 2Ki_24:4, Jer_5:1; Jer_5:7). On the other hand, as soon as men acknowledged their errors, and asked God to forgive, no limit was set to His love in this respect (1Ki_8:36; 1Ki_8:50, Psa_103:3; cf. Deu_30:1-10). Nor could this condition be regarded as unreasonable, for holiness, the essential characteristic of the Divine nature, demanded an answering correspondence on the part of man made in Gods image. Without this correspondence forgiveness was rendered impossible, and that, so to speak, automatically (cf. Lev_19:2, Jos_24:19; see Num_14:18, Job_10:14, Nah_1:3).
According to the Levitical code, when wrong was done between man and man, the first requlsite in order to Divine pardon was restitution, which had to be followed up by a service of atonement (Lev_6:2-7). Even in the case of sins of ignorance, repentance and its outward expression in sacrifice had to precede forgiveness (Lev_4:13 ff., Num_15:23 ff. etc.). Here the educative influence of the Law must have been powerful, inculcating as it did at once the transcendent holiness of God and the need of a similar holiness on the part of His people (Lev_11:44). Thus the Pauline saying, The law hath been our tutor to bring us to Christ (Gal_3:24), is profoundly true, and the great priestly services of the Temple, with the solemn and ornate ritual, must have given glimpses of the approach by which men could feel their way and obtain the help indispensable for the needs adumbrated by the demands of the Mosaic institutions. The burden of the prophetic exhortations, Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die? (Eze_33:11; cf. Isa_44:22, Jer_35:15; Jer_18:11, Hos_14:1, Joe_2:13 etc.), would be meaningless if the power to obey were withheld, or the way kept hidden. Indeed, these preachers of moral righteousness did not hesitate to emphasize the converse side of this truth in dwelling on the repentance of God and His returning to His afflicted but repentant people (Jon_3:9, Mal_3:7 etc.). The resultant effect of this mutual approach was the restoration to Divine favour, of those who had been alienated, by the free act of forgiveness on the part of God (Psa_85:4, Isa_55:7; Isa_59:20, Jer_13:17; Jer_13:24 etc.).
2. We are thus not surprised to learn that belief in the forgiveness of sins was a cardinal article of the Jewish faith in the time of Jesus (Mar_2:7 = Luk_5:21, cf. Isa_43:25). Nor was the teaching of Jesus in any instance out of line with the national belief, for, according to His words, the source of all pardon was His Father (Mar_11:25 f., Mat_6:14 f.; cf. His appeal on the cross, Father, forgive them, Luk_23:34). It is true that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins (Mar_2:10 = Mat_9:6 = Luk_5:24), but the form of the expression shows that Jesus was laying claim to a delegated authority (cf. Luk_7:43, where, as in the case of the palsied man, the words are declaratory rather than absolute; see Plummer, ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , in loc.). This is more clearly seen by a reference to NT epistolary literature, where again and again forgiveness and restoration are spoken of as mediated in or through Christ (Eph_4:32, Col_2:12 ff., 1Pe_5:10; cf. Eph_1:7, Rev_1:5, 1Jn_2:12 etc.). Here, as in OT, only more insistently dwelt on, the consciousness of guilt and of the need of personal holiness is the first step on the road to Gods forgiveness (1Jn_1:9, cf. Psa_32:5; Psa_51:3 etc.); and the open acknowledgment of these feelings is looked on as the natural outcome of their existence (Act_19:18; cf. Rom_10:10, 1Jn_1:9). The hopelessness which at times seemed to have settled down on Jesus, when confronted by Pharisaic opposition, was the result of the moral and spiritual blindness of the religious teachers to their real position (Joh_9:40 f.).
3. Again, following along the line we have traced in the OT, only more definitely and specifically emphasized, the NT writers affirm the necessity for a moral likeness between God and man (cf. Mat_5:48). It is in this region, perhaps, that the most striking development is to be seen. Without exhibiting, in their relations to each other, the Divine spirit of forgiveness, men need never hope to experience Gods pardon for themselves. This, we are inclined to think, is the most striking feature in the ethical creations of Jesus teaching. By almost every method of instruction, from incidental postulate (Mat_6:12=Luk_11:4, Mar_11:25) to deliberate statement (Mat_18:21 ff; Mat_6:15, Mar_11:25, Luk_17:4) and elaborate parable (Mat_18:23-35), He sought to attune the minds of His hearers to this high and difficult note of the Christian spirit (cf. Col_3:13, 1Jn_4:11). Once more, Jesus definitely asserts the limitation to which the pardon and mercy even of God are subjected. Whatever may be the precise meaning attaching to the words an eternal sin (Mar_3:29), it is plain that some definite border-line is referred to as the line of demarcation between those who may hope for this evidence of Gods love and those who are outside its scope (Mat_12:32). See art. Sin, iii. 1.
4. We have lastly to consider the words, recorded only by St. John, of the risen Jesus to His assembled disciples (Joh_20:23). It is remarkable that this is the only place in the Fourth Gospel where the word tr. [Note: translate or translation.] forgive (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) occurs, and we must not forget that the incident of conferring the power of absolution on the body of believers, as they were gathered together, is peculiar to this writer. At the same time, it is instructive to remember that nowhere is St. John much concerned with a simple narrative of events as such; he seems to be engaged rather in choosing those facts which he can subordinate to his teaching purposes. The choice, then, of this circumstance must have been intentional, as having a particular significance, and when the immediately preceding context is read, it is seen that the peculiar power transmitted is consequent upon the gift of the Holy Spirit. On two other occasions somewhat similar powers were promised, once personally to St. Peter as the great representative of that complete faith in the Incarnation of which the Church is the guardian in the world (Mat_16:19), and once to the Church in its corporate capacity as the final judge of the terms of fellowship for each of its members (Mat_18:18). In both these instances the words used by Jesus with regard to this spiritual power differ from those found in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, and the latter is seen to be more definite, profound, and far-reaching in its scope than the former. The abiding presence of the living Spirit in the Church is the sure guarantee that her powers in judging spiritual things are inherent in her (cf. 1Co_2:12-15) as the Body of Christ. Henceforth she carries in her bosom the authority so emphatically claimed by her Lord, to declare the wondrous fact of Divine forgiveness (Act_13:38) and to set forth the conditions upon which it ultimately rests (see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, in loc.). Closely connected with the exercise of this Divinely given authority is the rite of Baptism, conditioned by repentance and issuing in the remission of sins (Act_2:38). It is the initial act in virtue of which the Church claims to rule, guide, and upbuild the life of her members. It is symbolic, as was Johns baptism, of a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness (Mar_1:4=Luk_3:3; cf. Rom_6:4, Col_2:12). It is more than symbolic, for by it, as by a visible channel, the living and active Spirit of God is conveyed to the soul, where the fruition of the promised forgiveness is seen in the fulness of the Christian life (Act_2:38, cf. Act_10:43; Act_10:47; Act_19:5 f.).
5. On more than one occasion St. Paul speaks of the forgiveness of sins as constituting the redemption of the human race effected by the death of Christ (through his blood Eph_1:7, cf. Col_1:14); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes this aspect of the atoning work of Jesus by showing its harmony with all with which previous revelation had made us familiar, for apart from shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb_9:22). The same writer, moreover, asserts that once this object has been accomplished, nothing further remains to be done, as there is no more offering for sin (Heb_10:18) than that which the blood of Jesus (Heb_10:19) has accomplished. The triumphant cry of the Crucified, It is finished (Joh_19:30), is for this writer the guarantee not only that the Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted (Dale, The Atonement, p. 430 f.); it is also the assurance that forgiveness of sin is the goal of the life and death of Him whose first words from the cross breathed a prayer for the forgiveness of His tormentors.
J. R. Willis.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
Since wrongdoing spoils a relationship, forgiveness is necessary if the relationship is to be restored. Forgiveness does not mean pretending that some wrongdoing did not happen. It means recognizing the wrongdoing for what it is, and then in love forgiving it, forgetting it, and restoring the relationship with the forgiven person (Heb_10:17-18).
The basis of forgiveness
Men and women, being sinners, have more than spoiled their relationship with God; they have also fallen under Gods judgment. They are therefore in need of Gods forgiveness if they are to escape that judgment (Exo_32:32; Rom_3:23-24). God alone can grant this forgiveness (Mar_2:7; Mar_2:10; Act_5:31), but sinners are in no position to demand it of him. No person has a right to forgiveness. Forgiveness is possible only because of the grace of God the mercy that he exercises towards people even though they do not deserve it (Num_14:19; Psa_78:38; Rom_5:20; Tit_3:4-7).
God wants to forgive (Neh_9:17; Mic_7:18) but he requires repentance and faith in those who seek his forgiveness (Psa_32:5; Psa_51:17; Luk_7:36-50; Act_3:19; Act_10:43; Act_20:21; 1Jn_1:9). There is no mechanical way of gaining forgiveness, such as by offering a sacrifice or reciting a formula. Sinners are dependent entirely upon Gods mercy (Psa_51:1-4; Col_2:13).
This was so even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. There was no thought of bribing God by offering him sacrifices. On the contrary the sacrificial system was something God graciously gave as a means by which repentant sinners might approach him and obtain forgiveness (Lev_17:11; cf. Psa_130:3).
In the sacrifices, God provided a way whereby people could demonstrate their repentance, faith and obedience. Without such attitudes, they benefited nothing from their sacrifices (Psa_50:9; Psa_50:13-14; Psa_51:16-17; Isa_1:11; Isa_1:16-20).
The death of the animal in the place of the sinner also showed the sinner clearly that forgiveness of sin was possible only when the penalty of sin had justly been carried out. Forgiveness was costly. Without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness (Heb_9:22; cf. Lev_4:2-7; Lev_16:15-19; see SACRIFICE). Christs death is the basis on which God forgives all sins, past, present or future (Mat_26:28; Act_13:38; Rom_3:24-26; Eph_1:7; Heb_9:11-14; Heb_9:26). And once God has forgiven sins, they are removed for ever (Psa_103:12; Isa_43:25; Col_2:13-14; Heb_8:12; Heb_10:17-18).
Forgiveness in practice
Christs followers have the responsibility to preach the forgiveness of sins, and because of this they become the means by which people either believe the gospel and are forgiven, or reject it and remain in their sins (Joh_20:22-23; Act_13:38). Jesus on one occasion referred to the deliberate rejection of him as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, a sin for which there could be no forgiveness (Mat_12:31-32; for further discussion see BLASPHEMY).
Once people have been forgiven by God, they have the responsibility to forgive any who sin against them. This is more than a sign of their gratitude to God. It is a requirement laid upon them if they want to experience Gods continued forgiveness of their own failures (Mat_6:12; Mat_18:21-35; Mar_11:25; Luk_6:37; Luk_7:47; Luk_17:4; Eph_4:32). (Concerning the forgiven persons subsequent wrongdoings and their relationship to salvation see JUSTIFICATION, sub-heading Justification and forgiveness.)
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
for-giv?nes (כּפר, kāphar, נשׂא, nāsā', סלח, ṣālaḥ; ἀπολύειν, apolúein χαρίζεσθαι, charı́zesthai, ἄφεσις, áphesis πάρεσις, páresis):
1. Etymology
2. Pagan and Jewish Ideas
3. The Teaching of Christ
4. Conditions of Forgiveness
5. The Offended Party
6. Divine and Human Forgiveness
7. Forgiveness and Justification
8. Old Testament Teaching
9. Limitations of Forgiveness
10. Christ's Power to Forgive Sins
11. The Need of An Atonement
12. The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement
1. Etymology
Of the seven words, three Hebrew and four Greek, which are used to express the idea of forgiveness, the last two occur in this sense only once each. Apoluein (Luk_6:37) is used because of the analogy of sin to debt, and denotes the release from it. It has the meaning ?forgiveness? in 2 Macc 12:45 also, in which passage the word for sin is expressed. In Rom_3:25 Paul uses paresis instead of the usual aphesiš. The former means ?putting aside,? ?disregarding,? ?pretermission?; the latter, ?putting away? completely and unreservedly (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, section xxxiii). It does not mean forgiveness in the complete sense, and in the King James Version is incorrectly translated ?remission.? Nor does it mean that God had temporarily suspended punishment which at some later date He might inflict (Sanday on Rom_3:25). It was apparent that God had treated sins as though He had forgiven them, though in fact such an attitude on the part of God was without such a foundation as was later supplied by an adequate atonement, and so the apostle avoids saying that God forgave them. This passing over of sins had the tendency of destroying man's conception of God's righteousness, and in order to avert this Christ was set forth as a propitiation and God's disregard of sin (paresis) became a real forgiveness (aphesis); compare Act_14:16; Act_17:30. Charizesthai is not found outside of the writings of Luke and Paul, and in the sense ?to forgive sins? is peculiarly Pauline (2Co_2:7; 2Co_12:13; Eph_3:2; Col_2:13; Col_3:13). It expresses, as no other of these words does, his conception of the graciousness of God's pardon. Kāphar (Deu_21:8; Psa_78:38; Jer_18:23) and ṣālah (Num_30:5, Num_30:8, Num_30:12; 1Ki_8:30, 1Ki_8:34, 1Ki_8:36, 1Ki_8:39, 1Ki_8:50, etc.) are used only of Divine forgiveness, while nāsā' is used in this sense (Exo_32:32; Num_14:19; Jos_24:19; Psa_25:18; Psa_32:1, Psa_32:5; Psa_99:8; Isa_2:9), and also of human forgiveness (Gen_50:17; Exo_10:17; 1Sa_25:28). Remission (Mat_26:28; Mar_1:4; Luk_1:77; Luk_24:47; Act_2:38; Act_10:43; Heb_9:22; Heb_10:18) and blotting out (Psa_51:1, Psa_51:9; Isa_43:25; Jer_18:23; Act_3:19) are synonyms of forgiveness, and to understand it fully such words as save, justify, reconcile and atonement should also be considered.
2. Pagan and Jewish Ideas
Forgiveness was not a pagan virtue. The large-souled man might disregard offenses in cases where he considered them beneath his notice, but to forgive was weak-spirited (F. W. Robertson on 1Co_4:12). Even in the Old Testament, man's forgiveness of his fellow-man is infrequently mentioned. In every case the one asking forgiveness is in a position of subserviency, and is petitioning for that to which he has no just right (Gen_50:17; Exo_10:17; 1Sa_15:25; 1Sa_25:28). The Imprecatory Psalms attest the fact that forgiveness of enemies was not esteemed as a virtue by Israel. They could appeal to the law which enjoined upon them to seek neither the peace nor the prosperity of their avowed enemies (Deu_23:6; compare Ezr_9:12). Jesus gave the popular summing-up of the law and not its exact words when he said, ?Ye have heard that it was said ... hate thine enemy? (Mat_5:43), and this certainly does represent their attitude and their understanding of the teaching of the Scriptures.
3. The Teaching of Christ
Christ taught that forgiveness is a duty. No limit can be set to the extent of forgiveness (Luk_17:4) and it must be granted without reserve. Jesus will not admit that there is any wrong so gross nor so often repeated that it is beyond forgiveness. To Him an unforgiving spirit is one of the most heinous of sins (Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, 376ff). This is the offense which God will not forgive (Mat_18:34, Mat_18:35). It is the very essence of the unpardonable sin (Mar_3:22-30). It was the one blemish of the elder son which marred an otherwise irreproachable life (Luk_15:28-30). This natural, pagan spirit of implacability Jesus sought to displace by a generous, forgiving spirit. It is so far the essence of His teaching that in popular language ?a Christian spirit? is not inappropriately understood to be synonymous with a forgiving disposition. His answer to Peter that one should forgive not merely seven times in a day, but seventy times seven (Mat_18:21, Mat_18:22), not only shows that He thought of no limit to one's forgiveness, but that the principle could not be reduced to a definite formula.
4. Conditions of Forgiveness
Jesus recognized that there are conditions to be fulfilled before forgiveness can be granted. Forgiveness is part of a mutual relationship; the other part is the repentance of the offender. God does not forgive without repentance, nor is it required of man. The effect of forgiveness is to restore to its former state the relationship which was broken by sin. Such a restoration requires the co?peration of both parties. There must be both a granting and an acceptance of the forgiveness. Sincere, deep-felt sorrow for the wrong which works repentance (2Co_7:10) is the condition of mind which insures the acceptance of the forgiveness. Hence, Jesus commands forgiveness when the offender turns again, saying, ?I repent? (Luk_17:3, Luk_17:1). It was this state of mind which led the father joyfully to welcome the Prodigal before he even gave utterance to his newly formed purpose (Luk_15:21).
5. The Offended Party
It is not to be supposed, however, that failure to repent upon the part of the offender releases the offended from all obligation to extend forgiveness. Without the repentance of the one who has wronged him he can have a forgiving state of mind. This Jesus requires, as is implied by, ?if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts? (Mat_18:35). It is also implied by the past tense in the Lord's Prayer: ?as we also have forgiven our debtors? (Mat_6:12). It is this forgiving spirit which conditions God's forgiveness of our sins (Mar_11:25; Mat_6:14, Mat_6:15). In such a case the unforgiving spirit is essentially unrepentance (Mat_18:23-35). ?Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most Divine??
The offended is to go even farther and is to seek to bring the wrongdoer to repentance. This is the purpose of the rebuking commanded in Luk_17:3. More explicitly Jesus says, ?If thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone? (Mat_18:15-17). He is to carry his pursuit to the point of making every reasonable effort to win the wrongdoer, and only when he has exhausted every effort may he abandon it. The object is the gaining of his brother. Only when this is evidently unattainable is all effort to cease.
The power of binding and loosing, which means forbidding and allowing, was granted to Peter (Mat_16:19) and to the Christian community (Mat_18:18; Joh_20:23). It clearly implies the possession of the power to forgive sins. In the case of Peter's power it was exercised when he used the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mat_16:19). This consisted in the proclamation of the gospel and especially of the conditions upon which men might enter into relationship with God (Act_2:38; Act_10:34). It was not limited to Peter only, but was shared by the other apostles (Mat_16:19; Mat_18:18). Christ left no fixed rules the observance or non-observance of which would determine whether one is or is not in the kingdom of God. He gave to His disciples principles, and in the application of these principles to the problems of life there had to be the exercise of discriminating judgment. The exercise of this judgment was left to the Christian community (2Co_2:10). It is limited by the principles which are the basis of the kingdom, but within these principles the voice of the community is supreme. The forgiveness here implied is not the pronouncing of absolution for the sins of individuals, but the determination of courses of conduct and worship which will be acceptable. In doing this its decisions will be ratified in heaven (Westcott on Joh_20:23).
That there is a close analogy between human and Divine forgiveness is clearly implied (Mat_5:23, Mat_5:14; Mat_6:12; Mar_11:25; Luk_6:37; Col_1:14; Col_3:13). God?s forgiveness is conditional upon man's forgiveness of the wrongs done him, not because God forgives grudgingly but because forgiveness alone indicates that disposition of mind which will humbly accept the Divine pardon.
6. Divine and Human Forgiveness
Repentance is a necessary ingredient of the fully developed forgiveness. There is no essential difference between the human and the Divine pardon, though the latter is necessarily more complete. It results in the complete removal of all estrangement and alienation between God and man. It restores completely the relationship which existed prior to the sin. The total removal of the sin as a result of the Divine forgiveness is variously expressed in the Scriptures: ?Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back? (Isa_38:17); ?Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea? (Mic_7:19); ?I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more? (Jer_31:34); ?I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions? (Isa_43:25); ?As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us? (Psa_103:12). Ideally this same result is attained in human forgiveness, but actually the memory of the sin remains with both parties as a barrier between them, and even when there is a complete restoration of amity the former state of alienation cannot entirely be removed from memory. When God forgives, however, He restores man to the condition of former favor. Release from punishment is involved, though Divine forgiveness is more than this. In most cases the consequences, which in some instances are spoken of as punishment, are not removed, but they lose all penal character and become disciplinary. Nor does the forgiveness remove from human mind the consciousness of sin and the guilt which that involved, but it does remove the mistrust which was the ground of the alienation. Mistrust is changed into trust, and this produces peace of mind (Psa_32:5-7; Rom_5:1); consciousness of the Divine love and mercy (Psa_103:2); removes fear of punishment (2Sa_12:13); and awakens love to God.
7. Forgiveness and Justification
Paul rarely uses the term ?forgiveness,? but in its place prefers justification. They are to his understanding practically synonymous (Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, 418). He preferred the latter, however, because it was better fitted to express the idea of secure, present and permanent acceptance in the sight of God. It connoted both a complete and a permanent state of grace. In popular thought forgiveness is not so comprehensive, but in the Biblical sense it means no less than this. It removes all of the guilt and cause of alienation from the past; it assures a state of grace for the present; and promises Divine mercy and aid for the future. Its fullness cannot adequately be conveyed by any one term or formula.
Divine, like human, forgiveness is always contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions. It must be preceded by repentance and a firmly fixed intention not to repeat the offense. In addition to this, one was required to conform to certain legal or formal acts before the assurance of pardon was his. These acts were expressive of the sinner's state of mind. They consisted of certain acts of sacrifice in the pre-Christian times and of baptism during the ministry of John the Baptist (Mar_1:4; Luk_3:3) and under Christ (Act_2:38; Act_22:16). These acts are never regarded as in any sense a quid pro quo in return for which the benefit of forgiveness is granted. It is an act of pure grace on God's part, and these acts are required as expressions of the man's attitude toward God. The state of mind required in order to obtain the gift of forgiveness is that to which the Prodigal Son came (Luk_15:17-19), and that of the sinner who went to his house justified rather than the Pharisee (Luk_18:9-14), because he realized that forgiveness was to him an act of pure favor.
There was real and actual forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament times as well as since Christ. Certain passages have been construed to teach that the Law provided only for a passing over or rolling back of sins, and that there was not then an actual forgiveness.
8. Old Testament Teaching
The sacrifices prescribed by the Law were not adequate atonements, so that there was constant necessity of yearly remembrance of sin (Heb_10:3; compare Lev_16:21). The atonement of Christ is, however, of permanent adequacy, and became retroactive in the sense that it unified in Christ the Divine arrangement for saving mankind in all ages (Heb_11:40). ?The passing over of the sins done aforetime? (Rom_3:25) does not imply a partial or apparent forgiveness, but means that they were forgiven, though seemingly without adequate recognition on the part of God of their heinous character. In view of God's righteous character men might naturally have expected punishment, but instead the offenders were spared (compare Act_14:16; Act_17:30). No expression in the Old Testament suggests any inadequacy of the forgiveness extended to Israel, but on the other hand many passages may be quoted to show how rich and full it was deemed to be (Ps 103; Mic_7:19; Isa_38:17, Jer_31:34).
9. Limitations of Forgiveness
Two passages seem to limit God's forgiveness. They are Christ's discussion of the unpardonable sin (Mat_12:31, Mat_12:32; Mar_3:28-30; Luk_12:10), and the one which mentions the sin unto death (1Jo_5:16; compare Heb_6:4-6). In the former passage there is mentioned a sin which has no forgiveness, and in the latter, one on behalf of which the apostle cannot enjoin prayer that it be forgiven, though he does not prohibit it. In both cases the sin is excluded from the customary forgiveness which is extended to sins of all other classes.
The act of the Pharisees which led Jesus to speak of the unpardonable sin was the attributing of a good deed wrought by Him through the Spirit of God (Mat_12:28) to Beelzebub. No one could do such a thing unless his moral nature was completely warped. To such a person the fundamental distinctions between good and evil were obliterated. No ordinary appeal could reach him, for to him good seemed evil and evil seemed good. The possibility of winning him back is practically gone; hence, he is beyond the hope of forgiveness, not because God has set an arbitrary line of sinfulness, beyond which His grace of forgiveness will not reach, but because the man has put himself beyond the possibility of attaining to that state of mind which is the essential condition of Divine forgiveness. It is practically certain that John did not have any particular sinful act in mind when he spoke of the sin which is unto death. See BLASPHEMY.
There is no possible way of determining what specific sin, if any, he refers to. Probably the same principle applies in this case as in that of the unpardonable sin. God's forgiveness is limited solely by the condition that man must accept it in the proper spirit.
There are some passages which seem to imply that forgiveness was the principal Messianic task. This is suggested by the name given to the Messiah during His earthly career (Mat_1:21), and by the fact that He was the Saviour. The remission of sins was the preparation for the advent of the Messiah (Luk_1:77), and repentance and remission of sins were the prerequisites to a state of preparation for the kingdom.
10. Christ's Power to Forgive Sins
It is not surprising, therefore, that we find Jesus laying claim to the power to forgive sins. This provoked a bitter controversy with the Jews, for it was axiomatic with them that no one could forgive sins but God only (Mar_2:7; Luk_5:21; Luk_7:49). This Jesus did not question, but He would have them infer from His power to forgive sins that He was the possessor of Divine power. Jesus asserted His possession of this power on two occasions only, though it has been insufficiently inferred from Joh_5:14; Joh_8:11 that He was accustomed to pronounce absolution upon all of those He healed. On one of these occasions He not merely asserted that He possessed the power, but demonstrated it by showing Himself to be the possessor of the Divine gift of healing. The impostor might claim some such intangible power as the authority to forgive sins, but he would never assert the possession of such easily disproved power as the ability to heal the sick. But Jesus claimed both, and based His claim to be the possessor of the former on the demonstration that He possessed the latter. God would not support an impostor, hence, his aid in healing the paralytic proved that Jesus could forgive sins. The multitude accepted this logic and ?glorified God, who had given such authority unto men? (Mat_9:2-9; compare Mar_2:3-12; Luk_5:18-26).
On the other occasion when His possession of this power was under discussion (Luk_7:36-50), He offered no other proof than the forgiven woman's deep gratitude and love. One expression that He uses, however, has raised some discussion as to the relative order in time of her love and forgiveness (Luk_7:47). Did she love because she was forgiven, or vice versa? Manifestly the forgiveness precedes the love, in spite of the fact that Luk_7:47 seems to assert the opposite, for this is the bearing of the parable of the Two Debtors (Luk_7:41-43), and the latter part of Luk_7:47 has the same implication. It is clear that she had previously repented and had been accepted, and the anointing of Jesus was an outpouring of her gratitude. The phrase of Luk_7:47, ?for she loved much,? is proof of the greatness of her sin rather than a reason why she was forgiven. In both cases where Jesus forgave sins, He did so because the state of mind of the person forgiven showed worthiness of the blessing. To this as a condition of forgiveness there is no exception. Christ's prayer on the cross (Luk_23:34) would not avail to secure the pardon of His murderers without their repentance.
11. The Need of an Atonement
Though forgiveness is on God's part an act of pure grace prompted by His love and mercy, and though He forgives freely all those who comply with the condition of repentance and abandonment of sin, yet this does not dispense with the necessity of an atonement. The parable of the Prodigal Son was spoken to teach the freedom of God's forgiveness and acceptance of returning sinners, and the duty of men to assume the same attitude toward them. This much it teaches, but it fails to set forth entirely God's attitude toward sin. With reference to the sinner God is love and mercy, but with reference to sin He is righteous, and this element of God's nature is no less essential to Him than His love, and must be considered in any effort to set forth completely the doctrine of God's forgiveness of sinners. The atonement of Christ and the many atonements of the Law were manifestations of this phase of God's nature.
12. The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement
The idea of an atonement is fundamental in the teachings of the New Testament (Rom_5:10; 2Co_5:18-21; Col_1:21). It is very clearly implied in such terms as reconciliation and propitiation, and is no less present in pardon, remission and forgiveness. The doctrine of the atonement is not developed by Jesus, but it is strongly hinted at and is unmistakably implied in the language of Mat_20:28; Mat_26:28; Mar_10:45; Luk_24:46, Luk_24:47. John the Baptist's salute, ?Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!? (Joh_1:29), also implies it. In the writings of the apostles it is repeatedly and clearly affirmed that our forgiveness and reconciliation to God is based upon the death of Christ. ?In none other is there salvation? (Act_4:12); through Him is the redemption (Rom_3:24); God set Him forth to be a propitiation (Rom_3:25); through Him ?we have now received the reconciliation? (Rom_5:11); ?God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself? (2Co_5:19); ?Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf? (2Co_5:21); and ?Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us? (Gal_3:13). Such citations might be greatly multiplied. That which was so perfectly accomplished by the offering of Christ was in an analagous though imperfect way accomplished by the sacrifices required by the Law. It had ?a shadow of the good things to come? (Heb_10:1).
The unvarying effect of sin is to produce an estrangement between the injurer and the wronged. The nature of God is such and the relationship between Him and man is of such a character that sin brings about an alienation between them. It is this presupposition of an estrangement between them which renders the atonement necessary before forgiveness can be extended to man. This estrangement must be removed, and the alienation be transformed into a reconciliation. In what then does the alienation consist?
The sin of man produces a changed attitude toward each other on the part of both God and man. God holds no personal pique against man because of his sin. The New Testament language is very carefully chosen to avoid any statement which would seem to convey such a conception. Yet God's holy righteousness is such that He cannot be indifferent to sin. His wrath must rest upon the disobedient (Joh_3:36; Rom_1:18). It is not merely impersonal. It is not enough to say He hates the sin. Man's unrighteousness has not merely alienated him from God, but God also from him. The word ?enemies? (echthroı́) of Rom_5:10 is passive, and means the object of God's enmity (Sunday, at the place). It was because of this fact that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation to show His righteousness because of the passing over of sins done aforetime (Rom_3:25, Rom_3:26). God's passing over, without inflicting punishment, the sins of pre-Christian times had placed in jeopardy His righteousness; had exposed Him to the implication that He could tolerate sin. God could not be true to Himself while He tolerated such an imputation, and so instead of visiting punishment upon all who sinned - which would have been one way of showing His righteousness - He set forth Christ to death (?in his blood?), and in this way placed Himself beyond the imputation of unrighteousness while it enabled Him to show mercy to sinners. The effect of sin upon man was to estrange him from God, to lead him farther and farther away from his Maker. Each successive sin produced a greater barrier between the two. Now the atonement was designed to remove the cause of this estrangement and restore the former relationship between God and man. This too, it has been observed, is the purpose of forgiveness, so that the atonement finds its completion in forgiveness. It should be noted that the reconciliation originates with God and not with man (Rom_3:25; 2Co_5:19). God woos man before the latter seeks God. The effect of the atonement on man is to reconcile him, attract him, to God. It shows him God's love for man, and the forgiveness, in that it removes sin completely, takes away the estranging factor between them and so wins man back to God. ?We love, because he first loved us.? At the same time the atonement is such a complete expression of both the love and the righteousness of God that, while on the one hand it exhibits his yearning for man, on the other it shows that He is not tolerant toward sin. In the atonement of Christ, therefore, is the meeting-place and the reconcilement of God's holy horror of sin and the free bestowal of forgiveness upon penitent believers.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
Forgiveness
the pardon of any offense committed against us. We are not apt to entertain any permanent or incurable ill will against the author of injuries to others, and why should we be irreconcilable when injuries have been done to ourselves? To love our enemies, or rather not to hate our enemies, is a duty which no guilt can annul, no injury efface. We are not required to love our enemies as our friends; but, when any injury has been done us, we are to endeavor to regard it with so much resentment as any just and impartial person would feel on hearing it related, and no more. To revenge injuries is to retaliate evil for the sake of retaliation. We are, all weak, frail, and sinful creatures. None of us passes through one day without feeling that he requires forgiveness from his God, and too often also from his fellow- creatures. Mercy is all our hope, forgiveness our constant prayer. In such a state, should we not pity and assist each other? Does not mutual weakness call for mutual forbearances? Weak, frail, and sinful as we are, we all hope, through the merits of Christ, to attain the happiness of heaven; and can creatures who, after a few short years, expect to, be forever united in the presence of God, to be liberated from all unruly passions, and to live together forever in heavens, in peace, and joy, and everlasting love can such creatures hate each other on earth? can they add to the sorrows of this state of trial, and spread more thorns in the path of life by acts of malice and revenge? can they risk their own eternal happiness by denying to each other that forgiveness without which they must not dare to hope that they shall be themselves forgiven? We know, from the express declaration of our Savior, that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will our heavenly Father forgive us. Christ estimated virtues by their solid utility, and not by their fashion or popularity, and hence he prefers the duty of forgiveness to every other. He enjoins it more frequently, with more earnestness, and under a greater variety of forms and he adds this weighty and peculiar circumstance, that the forgiveness of others is the sole condition on which we are to expect or even ask from God forgiveness for ourselves. This preference is justified by the superior importance of the virtue itself. The feuds and animosities which exist in families and among neighbors, which disturb the intercourse of human life, and collectively compose half its misery, have their foundation in the want of a forgiving temper, and can never cease except by the exercise of this virtue. Let us endeavor to forgive, that we may not be afraid to ask forgiveness. Let us take care so to pray for forgiveness, that our prayers may not justify and increase our condemnation. Let us remember the amazing condescension of the Son of God, in taking upon him the form of a servant,' and thence learn humility. Let us represent to our minds the terms of our salvation, in order to excite us to repentance. Let us adore the infinite love of our Redeem, who laid down his life for his enemies,' and let this be the pattern of our charity (Fellowes, Body of Theology, 2:210-213; Paley, Moral and Polit. Philosophy, 1:269; Warner, System of Divinity and Morality, 2:356). Robinson, Theological Dictionary, s.v.; American Presbyterian Review, October 1867, art. 2.
Some confound things that are separate and different the act of forgiving with the act of loving with approbation. Repentance and confession are indispensable, when one has intentionally injured us in any way, to restore him to our fellowship and approbation. But what is a necessary condition of this is not a necessary condition of forgiving. Blending these two things together, and thinking of them as if they were one and inseparable, has doubtless caused some to differ in opinion from others who clearly discern the proper distinctions. It is a mistaken idea that in the matter of forgiveness we are strictly to imitate God the Father, and not forgive those who trespass against us until they repent and ask our pardon. God is clothed with the responsibilities of moral government over his creatures, while we are not. If he had made it our duty to revenge our own wrongs, and administer just punishment to the doers of the wrong, then it would be right and wise to follow his example in that particular. But the case is far otherwise. The Lord not only relieves us of that responsibility, but has commanded us not to usurp his prerogatives: Avenge not yourselves.' No doubt there are certain cases in civil and family governments in. which the outward acts of forgiveness. should be held in abeyance until forgiveness is duly sought. The offender in himself has no right to forgiveness until he seeks it in the true spirit of repentance. In the outward expressions of this, parents should often wait for the outward signs of penitence in their children. The same. may be true sometimes in other relations as between brothers and sisters and other domestic and civil relations. Hence there is an objective and a subjective view to be taken of the duty of forgiveness an act in the heart, and an appropriate outward and formal expression of it. The former should be performed at once, to prevent greater evil to ourselves, while the latter may wisely be delayed until the proper occasion for it arrives. One may say he forgives, when in reality he does not forgive from the heart; so we may forgive from the heart long before we proclaim it to the parties concerned (Zion's Heralds, January 2, 1867).
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
According to the Levitical code, when wrong was done between man and man, the first requlsite in order to Divine pardon was restitution, which had to be followed up by a service of atonement (Lev_6:2-7). Even in the case of sins of ignorance, repentance and its outward expression in sacrifice had to precede forgiveness (Lev_4:13 ff., Num_15:23 ff. etc.). Here the educative influence of the Law must have been powerful, inculcating as it did at once the transcendent holiness of God and the need of a similar holiness on the part of His people (Lev_11:44). Thus the Pauline saying, The law hath been our tutor to bring us to Christ (Gal_3:24), is profoundly true, and the great priestly services of the Temple, with the solemn and ornate ritual, must have given glimpses of the approach by which men could feel their way and obtain the help indispensable for the needs adumbrated by the demands of the Mosaic institutions. The burden of the prophetic exhortations, Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die? (Eze_33:11; cf. Isa_44:22, Jer_35:15; Jer_18:11, Hos_14:1, Joe_2:13 etc.), would be meaningless if the power to obey were withheld, or the way kept hidden. Indeed, these preachers of moral righteousness did not hesitate to emphasize the converse side of this truth in dwelling on the repentance of God and His returning to His afflicted but repentant people (Jon_3:9, Mal_3:7 etc.). The resultant effect of this mutual approach was the restoration to Divine favour, of those who had been alienated, by the free act of forgiveness on the part of God (Psa_85:4, Isa_55:7; Isa_59:20, Jer_13:17; Jer_13:24 etc.).
2. We are thus not surprised to learn that belief in the forgiveness of sins was a cardinal article of the Jewish faith in the time of Jesus (Mar_2:7 = Luk_5:21, cf. Isa_43:25). Nor was the teaching of Jesus in any instance out of line with the national belief, for, according to His words, the source of all pardon was His Father (Mar_11:25 f., Mat_6:14 f.; cf. His appeal on the cross, Father, forgive them, Luk_23:34). It is true that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins (Mar_2:10 = Mat_9:6 = Luk_5:24), but the form of the expression shows that Jesus was laying claim to a delegated authority (cf. Luk_7:43, where, as in the case of the palsied man, the words are declaratory rather than absolute; see Plummer, ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , in loc.). This is more clearly seen by a reference to NT epistolary literature, where again and again forgiveness and restoration are spoken of as mediated in or through Christ (Eph_4:32, Col_2:12 ff., 1Pe_5:10; cf. Eph_1:7, Rev_1:5, 1Jn_2:12 etc.). Here, as in OT, only more insistently dwelt on, the consciousness of guilt and of the need of personal holiness is the first step on the road to Gods forgiveness (1Jn_1:9, cf. Psa_32:5; Psa_51:3 etc.); and the open acknowledgment of these feelings is looked on as the natural outcome of their existence (Act_19:18; cf. Rom_10:10, 1Jn_1:9). The hopelessness which at times seemed to have settled down on Jesus, when confronted by Pharisaic opposition, was the result of the moral and spiritual blindness of the religious teachers to their real position (Joh_9:40 f.).
3. Again, following along the line we have traced in the OT, only more definitely and specifically emphasized, the NT writers affirm the necessity for a moral likeness between God and man (cf. Mat_5:48). It is in this region, perhaps, that the most striking development is to be seen. Without exhibiting, in their relations to each other, the Divine spirit of forgiveness, men need never hope to experience Gods pardon for themselves. This, we are inclined to think, is the most striking feature in the ethical creations of Jesus teaching. By almost every method of instruction, from incidental postulate (Mat_6:12=Luk_11:4, Mar_11:25) to deliberate statement (Mat_18:21 ff; Mat_6:15, Mar_11:25, Luk_17:4) and elaborate parable (Mat_18:23-35), He sought to attune the minds of His hearers to this high and difficult note of the Christian spirit (cf. Col_3:13, 1Jn_4:11). Once more, Jesus definitely asserts the limitation to which the pardon and mercy even of God are subjected. Whatever may be the precise meaning attaching to the words an eternal sin (Mar_3:29), it is plain that some definite border-line is referred to as the line of demarcation between those who may hope for this evidence of Gods love and those who are outside its scope (Mat_12:32). See art. Sin, iii. 1.
4. We have lastly to consider the words, recorded only by St. John, of the risen Jesus to His assembled disciples (Joh_20:23). It is remarkable that this is the only place in the Fourth Gospel where the word tr. [Note: translate or translation.] forgive (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) occurs, and we must not forget that the incident of conferring the power of absolution on the body of believers, as they were gathered together, is peculiar to this writer. At the same time, it is instructive to remember that nowhere is St. John much concerned with a simple narrative of events as such; he seems to be engaged rather in choosing those facts which he can subordinate to his teaching purposes. The choice, then, of this circumstance must have been intentional, as having a particular significance, and when the immediately preceding context is read, it is seen that the peculiar power transmitted is consequent upon the gift of the Holy Spirit. On two other occasions somewhat similar powers were promised, once personally to St. Peter as the great representative of that complete faith in the Incarnation of which the Church is the guardian in the world (Mat_16:19), and once to the Church in its corporate capacity as the final judge of the terms of fellowship for each of its members (Mat_18:18). In both these instances the words used by Jesus with regard to this spiritual power differ from those found in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, and the latter is seen to be more definite, profound, and far-reaching in its scope than the former. The abiding presence of the living Spirit in the Church is the sure guarantee that her powers in judging spiritual things are inherent in her (cf. 1Co_2:12-15) as the Body of Christ. Henceforth she carries in her bosom the authority so emphatically claimed by her Lord, to declare the wondrous fact of Divine forgiveness (Act_13:38) and to set forth the conditions upon which it ultimately rests (see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, in loc.). Closely connected with the exercise of this Divinely given authority is the rite of Baptism, conditioned by repentance and issuing in the remission of sins (Act_2:38). It is the initial act in virtue of which the Church claims to rule, guide, and upbuild the life of her members. It is symbolic, as was Johns baptism, of a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness (Mar_1:4=Luk_3:3; cf. Rom_6:4, Col_2:12). It is more than symbolic, for by it, as by a visible channel, the living and active Spirit of God is conveyed to the soul, where the fruition of the promised forgiveness is seen in the fulness of the Christian life (Act_2:38, cf. Act_10:43; Act_10:47; Act_19:5 f.).
5. On more than one occasion St. Paul speaks of the forgiveness of sins as constituting the redemption of the human race effected by the death of Christ (through his blood Eph_1:7, cf. Col_1:14); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes this aspect of the atoning work of Jesus by showing its harmony with all with which previous revelation had made us familiar, for apart from shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb_9:22). The same writer, moreover, asserts that once this object has been accomplished, nothing further remains to be done, as there is no more offering for sin (Heb_10:18) than that which the blood of Jesus (Heb_10:19) has accomplished. The triumphant cry of the Crucified, It is finished (Joh_19:30), is for this writer the guarantee not only that the Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted (Dale, The Atonement, p. 430 f.); it is also the assurance that forgiveness of sin is the goal of the life and death of Him whose first words from the cross breathed a prayer for the forgiveness of His tormentors.
J. R. Willis.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
Since wrongdoing spoils a relationship, forgiveness is necessary if the relationship is to be restored. Forgiveness does not mean pretending that some wrongdoing did not happen. It means recognizing the wrongdoing for what it is, and then in love forgiving it, forgetting it, and restoring the relationship with the forgiven person (Heb_10:17-18).
The basis of forgiveness
Men and women, being sinners, have more than spoiled their relationship with God; they have also fallen under Gods judgment. They are therefore in need of Gods forgiveness if they are to escape that judgment (Exo_32:32; Rom_3:23-24). God alone can grant this forgiveness (Mar_2:7; Mar_2:10; Act_5:31), but sinners are in no position to demand it of him. No person has a right to forgiveness. Forgiveness is possible only because of the grace of God the mercy that he exercises towards people even though they do not deserve it (Num_14:19; Psa_78:38; Rom_5:20; Tit_3:4-7).
God wants to forgive (Neh_9:17; Mic_7:18) but he requires repentance and faith in those who seek his forgiveness (Psa_32:5; Psa_51:17; Luk_7:36-50; Act_3:19; Act_10:43; Act_20:21; 1Jn_1:9). There is no mechanical way of gaining forgiveness, such as by offering a sacrifice or reciting a formula. Sinners are dependent entirely upon Gods mercy (Psa_51:1-4; Col_2:13).
This was so even in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. There was no thought of bribing God by offering him sacrifices. On the contrary the sacrificial system was something God graciously gave as a means by which repentant sinners might approach him and obtain forgiveness (Lev_17:11; cf. Psa_130:3).
In the sacrifices, God provided a way whereby people could demonstrate their repentance, faith and obedience. Without such attitudes, they benefited nothing from their sacrifices (Psa_50:9; Psa_50:13-14; Psa_51:16-17; Isa_1:11; Isa_1:16-20).
The death of the animal in the place of the sinner also showed the sinner clearly that forgiveness of sin was possible only when the penalty of sin had justly been carried out. Forgiveness was costly. Without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness (Heb_9:22; cf. Lev_4:2-7; Lev_16:15-19; see SACRIFICE). Christs death is the basis on which God forgives all sins, past, present or future (Mat_26:28; Act_13:38; Rom_3:24-26; Eph_1:7; Heb_9:11-14; Heb_9:26). And once God has forgiven sins, they are removed for ever (Psa_103:12; Isa_43:25; Col_2:13-14; Heb_8:12; Heb_10:17-18).
Forgiveness in practice
Christs followers have the responsibility to preach the forgiveness of sins, and because of this they become the means by which people either believe the gospel and are forgiven, or reject it and remain in their sins (Joh_20:22-23; Act_13:38). Jesus on one occasion referred to the deliberate rejection of him as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, a sin for which there could be no forgiveness (Mat_12:31-32; for further discussion see BLASPHEMY).
Once people have been forgiven by God, they have the responsibility to forgive any who sin against them. This is more than a sign of their gratitude to God. It is a requirement laid upon them if they want to experience Gods continued forgiveness of their own failures (Mat_6:12; Mat_18:21-35; Mar_11:25; Luk_6:37; Luk_7:47; Luk_17:4; Eph_4:32). (Concerning the forgiven persons subsequent wrongdoings and their relationship to salvation see JUSTIFICATION, sub-heading Justification and forgiveness.)
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
for-giv?nes (כּפר, kāphar, נשׂא, nāsā', סלח, ṣālaḥ; ἀπολύειν, apolúein χαρίζεσθαι, charı́zesthai, ἄφεσις, áphesis πάρεσις, páresis):
1. Etymology
2. Pagan and Jewish Ideas
3. The Teaching of Christ
4. Conditions of Forgiveness
5. The Offended Party
6. Divine and Human Forgiveness
7. Forgiveness and Justification
8. Old Testament Teaching
9. Limitations of Forgiveness
10. Christ's Power to Forgive Sins
11. The Need of An Atonement
12. The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement
1. Etymology
Of the seven words, three Hebrew and four Greek, which are used to express the idea of forgiveness, the last two occur in this sense only once each. Apoluein (Luk_6:37) is used because of the analogy of sin to debt, and denotes the release from it. It has the meaning ?forgiveness? in 2 Macc 12:45 also, in which passage the word for sin is expressed. In Rom_3:25 Paul uses paresis instead of the usual aphesiš. The former means ?putting aside,? ?disregarding,? ?pretermission?; the latter, ?putting away? completely and unreservedly (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, section xxxiii). It does not mean forgiveness in the complete sense, and in the King James Version is incorrectly translated ?remission.? Nor does it mean that God had temporarily suspended punishment which at some later date He might inflict (Sanday on Rom_3:25). It was apparent that God had treated sins as though He had forgiven them, though in fact such an attitude on the part of God was without such a foundation as was later supplied by an adequate atonement, and so the apostle avoids saying that God forgave them. This passing over of sins had the tendency of destroying man's conception of God's righteousness, and in order to avert this Christ was set forth as a propitiation and God's disregard of sin (paresis) became a real forgiveness (aphesis); compare Act_14:16; Act_17:30. Charizesthai is not found outside of the writings of Luke and Paul, and in the sense ?to forgive sins? is peculiarly Pauline (2Co_2:7; 2Co_12:13; Eph_3:2; Col_2:13; Col_3:13). It expresses, as no other of these words does, his conception of the graciousness of God's pardon. Kāphar (Deu_21:8; Psa_78:38; Jer_18:23) and ṣālah (Num_30:5, Num_30:8, Num_30:12; 1Ki_8:30, 1Ki_8:34, 1Ki_8:36, 1Ki_8:39, 1Ki_8:50, etc.) are used only of Divine forgiveness, while nāsā' is used in this sense (Exo_32:32; Num_14:19; Jos_24:19; Psa_25:18; Psa_32:1, Psa_32:5; Psa_99:8; Isa_2:9), and also of human forgiveness (Gen_50:17; Exo_10:17; 1Sa_25:28). Remission (Mat_26:28; Mar_1:4; Luk_1:77; Luk_24:47; Act_2:38; Act_10:43; Heb_9:22; Heb_10:18) and blotting out (Psa_51:1, Psa_51:9; Isa_43:25; Jer_18:23; Act_3:19) are synonyms of forgiveness, and to understand it fully such words as save, justify, reconcile and atonement should also be considered.
2. Pagan and Jewish Ideas
Forgiveness was not a pagan virtue. The large-souled man might disregard offenses in cases where he considered them beneath his notice, but to forgive was weak-spirited (F. W. Robertson on 1Co_4:12). Even in the Old Testament, man's forgiveness of his fellow-man is infrequently mentioned. In every case the one asking forgiveness is in a position of subserviency, and is petitioning for that to which he has no just right (Gen_50:17; Exo_10:17; 1Sa_15:25; 1Sa_25:28). The Imprecatory Psalms attest the fact that forgiveness of enemies was not esteemed as a virtue by Israel. They could appeal to the law which enjoined upon them to seek neither the peace nor the prosperity of their avowed enemies (Deu_23:6; compare Ezr_9:12). Jesus gave the popular summing-up of the law and not its exact words when he said, ?Ye have heard that it was said ... hate thine enemy? (Mat_5:43), and this certainly does represent their attitude and their understanding of the teaching of the Scriptures.
3. The Teaching of Christ
Christ taught that forgiveness is a duty. No limit can be set to the extent of forgiveness (Luk_17:4) and it must be granted without reserve. Jesus will not admit that there is any wrong so gross nor so often repeated that it is beyond forgiveness. To Him an unforgiving spirit is one of the most heinous of sins (Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, 376ff). This is the offense which God will not forgive (Mat_18:34, Mat_18:35). It is the very essence of the unpardonable sin (Mar_3:22-30). It was the one blemish of the elder son which marred an otherwise irreproachable life (Luk_15:28-30). This natural, pagan spirit of implacability Jesus sought to displace by a generous, forgiving spirit. It is so far the essence of His teaching that in popular language ?a Christian spirit? is not inappropriately understood to be synonymous with a forgiving disposition. His answer to Peter that one should forgive not merely seven times in a day, but seventy times seven (Mat_18:21, Mat_18:22), not only shows that He thought of no limit to one's forgiveness, but that the principle could not be reduced to a definite formula.
4. Conditions of Forgiveness
Jesus recognized that there are conditions to be fulfilled before forgiveness can be granted. Forgiveness is part of a mutual relationship; the other part is the repentance of the offender. God does not forgive without repentance, nor is it required of man. The effect of forgiveness is to restore to its former state the relationship which was broken by sin. Such a restoration requires the co?peration of both parties. There must be both a granting and an acceptance of the forgiveness. Sincere, deep-felt sorrow for the wrong which works repentance (2Co_7:10) is the condition of mind which insures the acceptance of the forgiveness. Hence, Jesus commands forgiveness when the offender turns again, saying, ?I repent? (Luk_17:3, Luk_17:1). It was this state of mind which led the father joyfully to welcome the Prodigal before he even gave utterance to his newly formed purpose (Luk_15:21).
5. The Offended Party
It is not to be supposed, however, that failure to repent upon the part of the offender releases the offended from all obligation to extend forgiveness. Without the repentance of the one who has wronged him he can have a forgiving state of mind. This Jesus requires, as is implied by, ?if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts? (Mat_18:35). It is also implied by the past tense in the Lord's Prayer: ?as we also have forgiven our debtors? (Mat_6:12). It is this forgiving spirit which conditions God's forgiveness of our sins (Mar_11:25; Mat_6:14, Mat_6:15). In such a case the unforgiving spirit is essentially unrepentance (Mat_18:23-35). ?Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most Divine??
The offended is to go even farther and is to seek to bring the wrongdoer to repentance. This is the purpose of the rebuking commanded in Luk_17:3. More explicitly Jesus says, ?If thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone? (Mat_18:15-17). He is to carry his pursuit to the point of making every reasonable effort to win the wrongdoer, and only when he has exhausted every effort may he abandon it. The object is the gaining of his brother. Only when this is evidently unattainable is all effort to cease.
The power of binding and loosing, which means forbidding and allowing, was granted to Peter (Mat_16:19) and to the Christian community (Mat_18:18; Joh_20:23). It clearly implies the possession of the power to forgive sins. In the case of Peter's power it was exercised when he used the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mat_16:19). This consisted in the proclamation of the gospel and especially of the conditions upon which men might enter into relationship with God (Act_2:38; Act_10:34). It was not limited to Peter only, but was shared by the other apostles (Mat_16:19; Mat_18:18). Christ left no fixed rules the observance or non-observance of which would determine whether one is or is not in the kingdom of God. He gave to His disciples principles, and in the application of these principles to the problems of life there had to be the exercise of discriminating judgment. The exercise of this judgment was left to the Christian community (2Co_2:10). It is limited by the principles which are the basis of the kingdom, but within these principles the voice of the community is supreme. The forgiveness here implied is not the pronouncing of absolution for the sins of individuals, but the determination of courses of conduct and worship which will be acceptable. In doing this its decisions will be ratified in heaven (Westcott on Joh_20:23).
That there is a close analogy between human and Divine forgiveness is clearly implied (Mat_5:23, Mat_5:14; Mat_6:12; Mar_11:25; Luk_6:37; Col_1:14; Col_3:13). God?s forgiveness is conditional upon man's forgiveness of the wrongs done him, not because God forgives grudgingly but because forgiveness alone indicates that disposition of mind which will humbly accept the Divine pardon.
6. Divine and Human Forgiveness
Repentance is a necessary ingredient of the fully developed forgiveness. There is no essential difference between the human and the Divine pardon, though the latter is necessarily more complete. It results in the complete removal of all estrangement and alienation between God and man. It restores completely the relationship which existed prior to the sin. The total removal of the sin as a result of the Divine forgiveness is variously expressed in the Scriptures: ?Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back? (Isa_38:17); ?Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea? (Mic_7:19); ?I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more? (Jer_31:34); ?I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions? (Isa_43:25); ?As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us? (Psa_103:12). Ideally this same result is attained in human forgiveness, but actually the memory of the sin remains with both parties as a barrier between them, and even when there is a complete restoration of amity the former state of alienation cannot entirely be removed from memory. When God forgives, however, He restores man to the condition of former favor. Release from punishment is involved, though Divine forgiveness is more than this. In most cases the consequences, which in some instances are spoken of as punishment, are not removed, but they lose all penal character and become disciplinary. Nor does the forgiveness remove from human mind the consciousness of sin and the guilt which that involved, but it does remove the mistrust which was the ground of the alienation. Mistrust is changed into trust, and this produces peace of mind (Psa_32:5-7; Rom_5:1); consciousness of the Divine love and mercy (Psa_103:2); removes fear of punishment (2Sa_12:13); and awakens love to God.
7. Forgiveness and Justification
Paul rarely uses the term ?forgiveness,? but in its place prefers justification. They are to his understanding practically synonymous (Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, 418). He preferred the latter, however, because it was better fitted to express the idea of secure, present and permanent acceptance in the sight of God. It connoted both a complete and a permanent state of grace. In popular thought forgiveness is not so comprehensive, but in the Biblical sense it means no less than this. It removes all of the guilt and cause of alienation from the past; it assures a state of grace for the present; and promises Divine mercy and aid for the future. Its fullness cannot adequately be conveyed by any one term or formula.
Divine, like human, forgiveness is always contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions. It must be preceded by repentance and a firmly fixed intention not to repeat the offense. In addition to this, one was required to conform to certain legal or formal acts before the assurance of pardon was his. These acts were expressive of the sinner's state of mind. They consisted of certain acts of sacrifice in the pre-Christian times and of baptism during the ministry of John the Baptist (Mar_1:4; Luk_3:3) and under Christ (Act_2:38; Act_22:16). These acts are never regarded as in any sense a quid pro quo in return for which the benefit of forgiveness is granted. It is an act of pure grace on God's part, and these acts are required as expressions of the man's attitude toward God. The state of mind required in order to obtain the gift of forgiveness is that to which the Prodigal Son came (Luk_15:17-19), and that of the sinner who went to his house justified rather than the Pharisee (Luk_18:9-14), because he realized that forgiveness was to him an act of pure favor.
There was real and actual forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament times as well as since Christ. Certain passages have been construed to teach that the Law provided only for a passing over or rolling back of sins, and that there was not then an actual forgiveness.
8. Old Testament Teaching
The sacrifices prescribed by the Law were not adequate atonements, so that there was constant necessity of yearly remembrance of sin (Heb_10:3; compare Lev_16:21). The atonement of Christ is, however, of permanent adequacy, and became retroactive in the sense that it unified in Christ the Divine arrangement for saving mankind in all ages (Heb_11:40). ?The passing over of the sins done aforetime? (Rom_3:25) does not imply a partial or apparent forgiveness, but means that they were forgiven, though seemingly without adequate recognition on the part of God of their heinous character. In view of God's righteous character men might naturally have expected punishment, but instead the offenders were spared (compare Act_14:16; Act_17:30). No expression in the Old Testament suggests any inadequacy of the forgiveness extended to Israel, but on the other hand many passages may be quoted to show how rich and full it was deemed to be (Ps 103; Mic_7:19; Isa_38:17, Jer_31:34).
9. Limitations of Forgiveness
Two passages seem to limit God's forgiveness. They are Christ's discussion of the unpardonable sin (Mat_12:31, Mat_12:32; Mar_3:28-30; Luk_12:10), and the one which mentions the sin unto death (1Jo_5:16; compare Heb_6:4-6). In the former passage there is mentioned a sin which has no forgiveness, and in the latter, one on behalf of which the apostle cannot enjoin prayer that it be forgiven, though he does not prohibit it. In both cases the sin is excluded from the customary forgiveness which is extended to sins of all other classes.
The act of the Pharisees which led Jesus to speak of the unpardonable sin was the attributing of a good deed wrought by Him through the Spirit of God (Mat_12:28) to Beelzebub. No one could do such a thing unless his moral nature was completely warped. To such a person the fundamental distinctions between good and evil were obliterated. No ordinary appeal could reach him, for to him good seemed evil and evil seemed good. The possibility of winning him back is practically gone; hence, he is beyond the hope of forgiveness, not because God has set an arbitrary line of sinfulness, beyond which His grace of forgiveness will not reach, but because the man has put himself beyond the possibility of attaining to that state of mind which is the essential condition of Divine forgiveness. It is practically certain that John did not have any particular sinful act in mind when he spoke of the sin which is unto death. See BLASPHEMY.
There is no possible way of determining what specific sin, if any, he refers to. Probably the same principle applies in this case as in that of the unpardonable sin. God's forgiveness is limited solely by the condition that man must accept it in the proper spirit.
There are some passages which seem to imply that forgiveness was the principal Messianic task. This is suggested by the name given to the Messiah during His earthly career (Mat_1:21), and by the fact that He was the Saviour. The remission of sins was the preparation for the advent of the Messiah (Luk_1:77), and repentance and remission of sins were the prerequisites to a state of preparation for the kingdom.
10. Christ's Power to Forgive Sins
It is not surprising, therefore, that we find Jesus laying claim to the power to forgive sins. This provoked a bitter controversy with the Jews, for it was axiomatic with them that no one could forgive sins but God only (Mar_2:7; Luk_5:21; Luk_7:49). This Jesus did not question, but He would have them infer from His power to forgive sins that He was the possessor of Divine power. Jesus asserted His possession of this power on two occasions only, though it has been insufficiently inferred from Joh_5:14; Joh_8:11 that He was accustomed to pronounce absolution upon all of those He healed. On one of these occasions He not merely asserted that He possessed the power, but demonstrated it by showing Himself to be the possessor of the Divine gift of healing. The impostor might claim some such intangible power as the authority to forgive sins, but he would never assert the possession of such easily disproved power as the ability to heal the sick. But Jesus claimed both, and based His claim to be the possessor of the former on the demonstration that He possessed the latter. God would not support an impostor, hence, his aid in healing the paralytic proved that Jesus could forgive sins. The multitude accepted this logic and ?glorified God, who had given such authority unto men? (Mat_9:2-9; compare Mar_2:3-12; Luk_5:18-26).
On the other occasion when His possession of this power was under discussion (Luk_7:36-50), He offered no other proof than the forgiven woman's deep gratitude and love. One expression that He uses, however, has raised some discussion as to the relative order in time of her love and forgiveness (Luk_7:47). Did she love because she was forgiven, or vice versa? Manifestly the forgiveness precedes the love, in spite of the fact that Luk_7:47 seems to assert the opposite, for this is the bearing of the parable of the Two Debtors (Luk_7:41-43), and the latter part of Luk_7:47 has the same implication. It is clear that she had previously repented and had been accepted, and the anointing of Jesus was an outpouring of her gratitude. The phrase of Luk_7:47, ?for she loved much,? is proof of the greatness of her sin rather than a reason why she was forgiven. In both cases where Jesus forgave sins, He did so because the state of mind of the person forgiven showed worthiness of the blessing. To this as a condition of forgiveness there is no exception. Christ's prayer on the cross (Luk_23:34) would not avail to secure the pardon of His murderers without their repentance.
11. The Need of an Atonement
Though forgiveness is on God's part an act of pure grace prompted by His love and mercy, and though He forgives freely all those who comply with the condition of repentance and abandonment of sin, yet this does not dispense with the necessity of an atonement. The parable of the Prodigal Son was spoken to teach the freedom of God's forgiveness and acceptance of returning sinners, and the duty of men to assume the same attitude toward them. This much it teaches, but it fails to set forth entirely God's attitude toward sin. With reference to the sinner God is love and mercy, but with reference to sin He is righteous, and this element of God's nature is no less essential to Him than His love, and must be considered in any effort to set forth completely the doctrine of God's forgiveness of sinners. The atonement of Christ and the many atonements of the Law were manifestations of this phase of God's nature.
12. The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement
The idea of an atonement is fundamental in the teachings of the New Testament (Rom_5:10; 2Co_5:18-21; Col_1:21). It is very clearly implied in such terms as reconciliation and propitiation, and is no less present in pardon, remission and forgiveness. The doctrine of the atonement is not developed by Jesus, but it is strongly hinted at and is unmistakably implied in the language of Mat_20:28; Mat_26:28; Mar_10:45; Luk_24:46, Luk_24:47. John the Baptist's salute, ?Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!? (Joh_1:29), also implies it. In the writings of the apostles it is repeatedly and clearly affirmed that our forgiveness and reconciliation to God is based upon the death of Christ. ?In none other is there salvation? (Act_4:12); through Him is the redemption (Rom_3:24); God set Him forth to be a propitiation (Rom_3:25); through Him ?we have now received the reconciliation? (Rom_5:11); ?God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself? (2Co_5:19); ?Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf? (2Co_5:21); and ?Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us? (Gal_3:13). Such citations might be greatly multiplied. That which was so perfectly accomplished by the offering of Christ was in an analagous though imperfect way accomplished by the sacrifices required by the Law. It had ?a shadow of the good things to come? (Heb_10:1).
The unvarying effect of sin is to produce an estrangement between the injurer and the wronged. The nature of God is such and the relationship between Him and man is of such a character that sin brings about an alienation between them. It is this presupposition of an estrangement between them which renders the atonement necessary before forgiveness can be extended to man. This estrangement must be removed, and the alienation be transformed into a reconciliation. In what then does the alienation consist?
The sin of man produces a changed attitude toward each other on the part of both God and man. God holds no personal pique against man because of his sin. The New Testament language is very carefully chosen to avoid any statement which would seem to convey such a conception. Yet God's holy righteousness is such that He cannot be indifferent to sin. His wrath must rest upon the disobedient (Joh_3:36; Rom_1:18). It is not merely impersonal. It is not enough to say He hates the sin. Man's unrighteousness has not merely alienated him from God, but God also from him. The word ?enemies? (echthroı́) of Rom_5:10 is passive, and means the object of God's enmity (Sunday, at the place). It was because of this fact that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation to show His righteousness because of the passing over of sins done aforetime (Rom_3:25, Rom_3:26). God's passing over, without inflicting punishment, the sins of pre-Christian times had placed in jeopardy His righteousness; had exposed Him to the implication that He could tolerate sin. God could not be true to Himself while He tolerated such an imputation, and so instead of visiting punishment upon all who sinned - which would have been one way of showing His righteousness - He set forth Christ to death (?in his blood?), and in this way placed Himself beyond the imputation of unrighteousness while it enabled Him to show mercy to sinners. The effect of sin upon man was to estrange him from God, to lead him farther and farther away from his Maker. Each successive sin produced a greater barrier between the two. Now the atonement was designed to remove the cause of this estrangement and restore the former relationship between God and man. This too, it has been observed, is the purpose of forgiveness, so that the atonement finds its completion in forgiveness. It should be noted that the reconciliation originates with God and not with man (Rom_3:25; 2Co_5:19). God woos man before the latter seeks God. The effect of the atonement on man is to reconcile him, attract him, to God. It shows him God's love for man, and the forgiveness, in that it removes sin completely, takes away the estranging factor between them and so wins man back to God. ?We love, because he first loved us.? At the same time the atonement is such a complete expression of both the love and the righteousness of God that, while on the one hand it exhibits his yearning for man, on the other it shows that He is not tolerant toward sin. In the atonement of Christ, therefore, is the meeting-place and the reconcilement of God's holy horror of sin and the free bestowal of forgiveness upon penitent believers.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
Forgiveness
the pardon of any offense committed against us. We are not apt to entertain any permanent or incurable ill will against the author of injuries to others, and why should we be irreconcilable when injuries have been done to ourselves? To love our enemies, or rather not to hate our enemies, is a duty which no guilt can annul, no injury efface. We are not required to love our enemies as our friends; but, when any injury has been done us, we are to endeavor to regard it with so much resentment as any just and impartial person would feel on hearing it related, and no more. To revenge injuries is to retaliate evil for the sake of retaliation. We are, all weak, frail, and sinful creatures. None of us passes through one day without feeling that he requires forgiveness from his God, and too often also from his fellow- creatures. Mercy is all our hope, forgiveness our constant prayer. In such a state, should we not pity and assist each other? Does not mutual weakness call for mutual forbearances? Weak, frail, and sinful as we are, we all hope, through the merits of Christ, to attain the happiness of heaven; and can creatures who, after a few short years, expect to, be forever united in the presence of God, to be liberated from all unruly passions, and to live together forever in heavens, in peace, and joy, and everlasting love can such creatures hate each other on earth? can they add to the sorrows of this state of trial, and spread more thorns in the path of life by acts of malice and revenge? can they risk their own eternal happiness by denying to each other that forgiveness without which they must not dare to hope that they shall be themselves forgiven? We know, from the express declaration of our Savior, that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will our heavenly Father forgive us. Christ estimated virtues by their solid utility, and not by their fashion or popularity, and hence he prefers the duty of forgiveness to every other. He enjoins it more frequently, with more earnestness, and under a greater variety of forms and he adds this weighty and peculiar circumstance, that the forgiveness of others is the sole condition on which we are to expect or even ask from God forgiveness for ourselves. This preference is justified by the superior importance of the virtue itself. The feuds and animosities which exist in families and among neighbors, which disturb the intercourse of human life, and collectively compose half its misery, have their foundation in the want of a forgiving temper, and can never cease except by the exercise of this virtue. Let us endeavor to forgive, that we may not be afraid to ask forgiveness. Let us take care so to pray for forgiveness, that our prayers may not justify and increase our condemnation. Let us remember the amazing condescension of the Son of God, in taking upon him the form of a servant,' and thence learn humility. Let us represent to our minds the terms of our salvation, in order to excite us to repentance. Let us adore the infinite love of our Redeem, who laid down his life for his enemies,' and let this be the pattern of our charity (Fellowes, Body of Theology, 2:210-213; Paley, Moral and Polit. Philosophy, 1:269; Warner, System of Divinity and Morality, 2:356). Robinson, Theological Dictionary, s.v.; American Presbyterian Review, October 1867, art. 2.
Some confound things that are separate and different the act of forgiving with the act of loving with approbation. Repentance and confession are indispensable, when one has intentionally injured us in any way, to restore him to our fellowship and approbation. But what is a necessary condition of this is not a necessary condition of forgiving. Blending these two things together, and thinking of them as if they were one and inseparable, has doubtless caused some to differ in opinion from others who clearly discern the proper distinctions. It is a mistaken idea that in the matter of forgiveness we are strictly to imitate God the Father, and not forgive those who trespass against us until they repent and ask our pardon. God is clothed with the responsibilities of moral government over his creatures, while we are not. If he had made it our duty to revenge our own wrongs, and administer just punishment to the doers of the wrong, then it would be right and wise to follow his example in that particular. But the case is far otherwise. The Lord not only relieves us of that responsibility, but has commanded us not to usurp his prerogatives: Avenge not yourselves.' No doubt there are certain cases in civil and family governments in. which the outward acts of forgiveness. should be held in abeyance until forgiveness is duly sought. The offender in himself has no right to forgiveness until he seeks it in the true spirit of repentance. In the outward expressions of this, parents should often wait for the outward signs of penitence in their children. The same. may be true sometimes in other relations as between brothers and sisters and other domestic and civil relations. Hence there is an objective and a subjective view to be taken of the duty of forgiveness an act in the heart, and an appropriate outward and formal expression of it. The former should be performed at once, to prevent greater evil to ourselves, while the latter may wisely be delayed until the proper occasion for it arrives. One may say he forgives, when in reality he does not forgive from the heart; so we may forgive from the heart long before we proclaim it to the parties concerned (Zion's Heralds, January 2, 1867).
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags