Yes, You Can Forgive Unilaterally
Image
Dan Darling recently wrote a blog post on the topic of forgiveness. As usual with Darling, it’s thoughtful, clear, and helpful. I also agree with him. I want to expand a bit on why I believe he’s right, but first some background.
Some may not be aware that there is a debate on the nature of our obligation to forgive our fellow human beings who wrong us. The central question is this: Does Scripture require us to forgive only when a person is repentant, or can we/ought we to forgive, regardless of the attitude of the offender?
The repenters-only view
A key passage in the debate is Matthew 18, where we find two situations:
- Situation 1: A “brother” does wrong, is unrepentant, and eventually is disciplined by the ekklesia (usually translated “the church”)—Matthew 18:15-20.
- Situation 2: A brother offends multiple times—Matthew 18:21-35.
Another relevant passage is Colossians 3:13, containing the phrase “as the Lord has forgiven you, so you must forgive” (ESV).
Taken together, these passages are understood to teach that Christians are not to forgive unless the wrongdoers are repentant: God forgives sins only in response to repentance.
The unilateral forgiveness view
Darling expresses the view that believers not only can, but must, forgive—even if the wrongdoer is not repentant.
His argument begins with a key distinction:
Forgiveness is not the same thing as reconciliation, which requires two parties willing to come together.
As an example, Darling draws from the interaction between Joseph and his brothers at the end of Genesis. It’s worth noting, though, that reconciliation is also a concept between people in Matthew 5:24 and 1 Corinthians 7:11.
Later, contrasting forgiveness and reconciliation, Darling writes,
And yet, forgiveness is only the first level of engagement with those who have hurt us. The next level, I believe, is reconciliation. But this is often more complicated. In Joseph’s case, it happened because his brothers also engaged and were willing to embrace repentance and restitution. This is not always possible.
Darling has more supporting reasoning in his post, but also a good bit of practical application. His focus is on the heart of the believer and the need to lay aside a spirit of vengeance and bitterness. Throughout the piece, he considers the relationship side of forgiveness from a “levels of engagement” perspective (forgiveness → reconciliation → trust).
To summarize, Darling’s view is that forgiveness is one thing, fixing the relationship (reconciliation, trust) is another. We need to do the former, regardless of the offender’s attitude, in order to reject bitterness. We should seek the latter (Rom 12:18), but the offender may make it impossible.
In support of unilateral forgiveness
I believe Darling is correct that forgiveness can be granted with or without repentance. I’m going to get a little analytical here. Don the cogitation cap.
As I see it, there are at least three variables in play, when an offense has occurred:
- Variable 1: Our personal grievance against the offender
- Variable 2: Our relationship with the offender
- Variable 3: The offender’s status/standing before other parties (other victims, authorities such as church and government, God)
(In reality, that third variable is several, lumped together for simplicity).
Darling alludes briefly to a portion of the third variable:
Forgiveness doesn’t erase the demands of justice, it merely takes the instruments of vengeance out of our hands and releases our perpetrators to “the judge of the earth who deals justly” (Genesis 18:25).
I would qualify “forgiveness” there as personal forgiveness, but otherwise agree.
Three factors mean multiple combinations can occur when someone wrongs me. Eight are possible. Here’s three, to illustrate.
| I forgive | Offender unrepentant, we remain estranged | Offender owes a group, authorities, God |
| I forgive | Offender repentant, we reconcile | Offender owes a group, authorities, God |
| I forgive | Offender repentant, we reconcile | Offender satisfies requirements of others |
By now, readers may be thinking, “This is all very tidy but what about Matthew 18 and Colossians 3:13?”
I’ll get to that; first, a principle that may clarify: Forgiveness is something that can only occur within the context of a specific relationship. An offense can only be forgiven by the wronged party.
For example, suppose Raphael gets tired of hearing his neighbor Donatello’s dog bark all night. The restless dog, enchained in the back yard, yearns to be free. Raphael sneaks over after dark and releases the dog, who then gleefully heads for the nearest highway and is killed.
Thanks to a digital device, Donatello discovers the dastardly deed! He calls the police, reports the incident, then confronts Raphael.
Raphael insists that he has rid the neighborhood of a public nuisance and should be thanked.
In Dan Darling’s view—and my own on this point—Donatello can forgive Raphael. This means he chooses to let go of anger, resentment, and bitterness and to continue to be courteous toward his neighbor. Reconciliation, though, is not possible until Raphael repents.
What about the law? If there are criminal charges, the matter is between Raphael and the authorities. Donatello shouldn’t hesitate to act as a witness, even though he has forgiven Raphael. He can forgive Raphael’s offense against him personally, but he doesn’t have the authority to forgive Raphael’s offense against the law and society.
Donatello also lacks authority to forgive Raphael’s offense against Donatello’s children (who cared for the dog). Least of all can he forgive Raphael’s offense against God.
What if there are no criminal penalties, but a civil suit is possible for the cost of replacing the dog, plus emotional suffering?
That’s less simple, because civil suits are inherently personal, with the idea of restoring a debt to the injured party. Donatello could make the argument that if Raphael doesn’t suffer consequences, he’s more likely to wrong others in the future. Donatello might also observe that even though it’s not a criminal case, violations of law are involved and justice should be served. Or he might sue just to get some needed cash to buy a new dog. In theory, Donatello could forgive Raphael on a personal level but still take him to civil court.
But maybe Donatello decides his personal forgiveness extends to not pressing charges.
Regardless, his personal forgiveness is separate from reconciliation and, in some ways separate from matters of law.
What about Matthew 18 and Colossians 3:13?
Are these passages compatible with the idea that forgiveness is distinct from reconciliation and can be granted unilaterally? They are.
In the case of Matthew 18:21-22, we are told to forgive one who sins against us. The passage does not state “if they ask.” Even if it did, there would need to be some evidence that the if condition is exclusive, as in, “if, and only if.” This evidence is absent, and the parable that follows (18:23-35) includes examples of forgiveness both with and without any indication of repentance.
The sequence from Matthew 18:15-17 contains a lot of “ifs.” What it does not contain is any reference to “forgiveness.” Rather, it talks about “gaining” your brother. This is reconciliation.
For our purposes, the key word in Colossians 3:13 is “as” (kathos) in the phrase “as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.” Does this “as” mean “in exactly the same way”?
Reasoning answers the question. If “as” means “in exactly the same way,” that would have to include:
- after personally atoning for their sins on a cross
- comprehensively forgiving all their sins—past, present, and future
- forgiving only those who are repentant and believe in you
That’s clearly not Paul’s intent. Kathos indicates a comparison, with at least one point of similarity. Since the similarity is not comprehensive here, we have to ask, “In what way do we forgive like Christ did?”
The question has multiple possible answers: generously, fully, promptly, or possibly undeservedly.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 854 views
The Bible teaches that repentance is necessary for forgiveness:
1. Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Jesus commanded that forgiveness be granted if the brother who trespasses repents. He did not command to forgive whether he repents or he does not repent.
2. Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Peter commanded Simon to repent so that he might receive forgiveness. If he would not repent, he would not be forgiven.
Thanks for two passages I hadn’t included.
These, however, fall into the same category as Matthew 18:21-35.
The presence of “if” doesn’t always mean “if, and only if.” Sometimes the intent is closer to “especially if.”
Some examples:
- It could be unpleasant outside if it rains. (This is not a claim that rainless 95 degrees with 95% humidity is pleasant…. or 30mph sleet instead of rain, etc.)
- “If anyone’s looking for me, I’ll be in the shop.” (This is not a claim that if nobody is looking for me I won’t be in the shop.)
- “Send news if you hear from Mom.” (This is not a claim that you should not send news if you hear from Dad.)
- Let the dog out if she whines. (This is not a command to keep the dog inside if she barks and scratches at the door—or a prohibition against taking the dog out if she is quiet.)
Examples could be multiplied.
I would add that words have semantic ranges. It’s possible that in some contexts “forgive” might be meant more expansively than in others. Especially when someone is repentant, the other side of the coin—reconciliation—is almost automatically part of the scene also.
I also haven’t lately done a study of the underlying Greek terms translated ‘forgive,’ and I don’t recall if there is a strong case for any differences in meaning that would be relevant to the question of forgiveness vs. reconciliation.
What’s clear is that in some passages the two are described as different things, and certainly this fits experience. Anyone who has lived a couple of decades among humans either learns to unilaterally forgive or becomes a very bitter, resentful, cranky person. We often just have to erase the debts people owe us, whether they’re sorry or not. … but this is also biblical, as I’ve shown.
Edit: I lumped those two passages together, but the Acts one is not really relevant. That God forgives sinners only when they repent is not in dispute. Humans’ offenses against one another are ‘sinner against sinner’ offenses. Forgiving one another is not the same thing as obtaining salvation, so we should not be surprised that the process isn’t exactly parallel to the ‘sinner against God’ situation.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
- It could be unpleasant outside if it rains. (This is not a claim that rainless 95 degrees with 95% humidity is pleasant…. or 30mph sleet instead of rain, etc.)
- “If anyone’s looking for me, I’ll be in the shop.” (This is not a claim that if nobody is looking for me I won’t be in the shop.)
- “Send news if you hear from Mom.” (This is not a claim that you should not send news if you hear from Dad.)
- Let the dog out if she whines. (This is not a command to keep the dog inside if she barks and scratches at the door—or a prohibition against taking the dog out if she is quiet.)
Examples could be multiplied.
I feel like you're letting outside knowledge inform the meaning of these. Like the dog. Yes, we know that you ought to let a dog more than just when it whines. We know that. But the command, "Let the dog out if she whines," only requires letting-out if the dog whines.
I think we've all encountered this question many times: Can/must I forgive someone who is unrepentant?
For me, the answer is to define bitterness as unwillingness to forgive. Avoiding bitterness is a must - meaning that you must have willingness and even eagerness to forgive.
I can have something that I want to give you, but you won't accept. I'm left willing to give it. That's as much as I can do.
Jacob and Esau, Gen 27ff - Jacob steals the birthright. Esau doesn't forgive and tries to kill Jacob. They are estranged by these mutual wrongs.
Jacob and Esau are reconciled in Gen 32-33. Jacob feels the need to give Esau a bunch of gifts. Esau refuses, saying he's got enough possessions. Jacob explains that the gifts are a necessary part of their reconciliation.
Then, in Gen 33:12ff, Esau says, "This is great. We're friends now! Let's travel together!" And Jacob says, "Nah. You go on. We're good, but I still don't want to hang with you."
To me this suggests that reconciliation doesn't require close fellowship.
It's telling that the unilateral forgiveness position relies on descriptive narrative to defend its position. Whereas, the conditional forgiveness position comes from the didactic and imperative passages of the NT.
Also, those who hold to conditional forgiveness would say that you can "lay aside a spirit of vengeance and bitterness" without granting forgiveness to the unrepentant. So, I don't see that as a plus for the unilateral forgiveness position.
Regardless of position, though, I do agree that extending forgiveness is not the same as reconciliation.
Dan: I feel like you’re letting outside knowledge inform the meaning of these.
Yes. For sure. I think we always do, and it’s not avoidable. The trick is to be aware of it and test for whether that damages the argument or not.
Dan: the command, “Let the dog out if she whines,” only requires letting-out if the dog whines.
This is true. I didn’t really want to examine the thesis that we must forgive unilaterally. So I focused on can. It is clearly permitted. It’s a bit harder to make the case for it being an obligation. (Though I think that case can be made. I didn’t try to make it here. Your bitterness argument looks strong to me.)
Dan: To me this suggests that reconciliation doesn’t require close fellowship.
I agree. Reconciliation has to do with removing barriers to fellowship/friendship. So, if I forgive a guy for driving into the back of my car at a stoplight, I harbor no resentment, bitterness, anger. But that only removes the barrier on one side of the relationship. If he is blaming me for “stopping too fast” or some such, a barrier remains on his side. He is unrepentant. If he apologizes in addition to my forgiveness, we are reconciled, even though we may never see each other again. But if we met in the future, those barriers would be out of the way.
This is how I understand it at present, at least.
THoward: It’s telling that the unilateral forgiveness position relies on descriptive narrative to defend its position. Whereas, the conditional forgiveness position comes from the didactic and imperative passages of the NT.
The narrative portions are examples to illustrate. The case is mostly made by reasoning from truths that are clear in NT passages like Matthew 5:24 and 1 Corinthians 7:11 and the “gained your brother” references in Matthew 18, among others.
I do believe in “preponderance of evidence” interpretation, though, and the narratives are evidence. I have yet to see a better explanation of why Joseph behaves the way he does in reference to his brothers at the end of Genesis. Darling’s take has strong explanatory power. But it doesn’t stand alone.
In summary, I see the case for unilateral forgiveness as inductive, with a good bit of pieces of evidence working together to point to a highly probable conclusion + the absence of any strong contrary evidence.
I hesitate to say unilateral forgiveness is a must do. But it’s clear to me that there are huge benefits to doing that (some of them for unbelievers just as well as believers), and it’s hard to see an upside to not doing it.
THoward: Also, those who hold to conditional forgiveness would say that you can “lay aside a spirit of vengeance and bitterness” without granting forgiveness to the unrepentant
I would be interested in hearing more about how that would work. If the unforgiving attitudes are gone, what’s left? (I do think there is one more thing left, but that it’s still a can-be-unilateral thing.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I would be interested in hearing more about how that would work. If the unforgiving attitudes are gone, what’s left? (I do think there is one more thing left, but that it’s still a can-be-unilateral thing.)
Both Jay Adams and Chris Brauns (among others) address this in their respective works. See here for a helpful overview and summary.
Regarding Dan's comment about forgiveness not necessarily leading to reconciliation and restoration, the story in Acts 16, where Paul requires the magistrate to enter a fetid, sordid prison to personally release the men he'd whipped without a trial, comes to mind. Paul does that, I'm guessing, because he knew that if the magistrate got away with it that time, he'd be doing the same to others. Paul's pronouncements on men like Alexander and Hymeneaus come to mind as well, not to mention John's comments on Diotrephes. If we believe it is mandatory or wise to have personal forgiveness of these wrongdoers, we have to assume that Paul and John did exactly that, but in doing so, the punishments they insisted on are recorded for all time.
(and a bunch of other situations in Scripture, methinks)
Suffice it to say I've wrestled with this one for a while, especially with the sundry wrongs that occur to a man as he goes from youth to a touch of gray hair.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
From the article above:
In the case of Matthew 18:21-22, we are told to forgive one who sins against us. The passage does not state “if they ask.”
This understanding seems to be based on an argument from silence about what the passage does not state. If so, where are the outcries about the supposedly "fallacious" nature of arguing in such a way?
It is valid to argue that a passage does not teach what it does not say.
Reasoning always has context. The principle is that ‘silence is not a substitute for evidence.’
You then have to look at the claim being made and what sort of evidence would be required to support it. If the claim is that Passage A teaches B, that claim requires evidence. It is valid to counter-argue that the necessary evidence is not there.
This article is helpful
This logical fallacy essentially takes an appeal to authority and flips it around. The appeal to authority says that because an authority A says x, then x must be true; the argument from silence says that because an authority A didn’t say x, then x must be false. In effect, the silence of the authority regarding some particular claim is taken as evidence against the claim itself.
It is invalid in that context to say “x must be false.” It is valid to say “there is no evidence to show x is true.”
In the case at hand, it would be invalid to say Matthew 18:15ff doesn’t discuss forgiveness, therefore you can forgive unilaterally.” This is why argument from silence fallacy has sometimes been termed a ‘weak induction fallacy.’ Induction requires multiple evidences stacking up/interlocking.
Here, I’m not arguing from the silence of Matt 18:15ff alone. The question is, does Scripture teach someone must repent before you can forgive them?
It’s fair to say that if you take down all the proposed evidence that Scripture teaches this you haven’t proved the opposite is true. But that’s not how Darling argued and not how I’ve argued either.
There are two sets of arguments in my post: positive evidence for forgiving unilaterally, and contrary evidence against the claim that this cannot be done. The absence argument is one of the latter.
I did focus mostly on the latter, though, because we generally assume that if the Bible doesn’t forbid something (directly or indirectly), it’s permitted.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I was pondering this yesterday and my inner dialog went something like this,
“Of course, we know God doesn’t forgive unless there is repentance first, but it’s different between sinners.”
“Wait a second. Are you sure God never ‘forgives’ in some sense unilaterally? What if, in one of the prophets, He says to a nation ‘You’re guilty of this. But I’m not going to destroy you yet.’”
It’s not quite ‘forgiveness,’ but it got me thinking. Entering into justification and eternal life are a special kind of forgiveness, as well as being part of a unique relationship (God←→man). I can’t quite articulate the qualitative difference yet, but I’m pretty sure it’s there.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Dan: the command, “Let the dog out if she whines,” only requires letting-out if the dog whines.
Aaron: This is true. I didn’t really want to examine the thesis that we must forgive unilaterally. So I focused on can. It is clearly permitted. It’s a bit harder to make the case for it being an obligation. (Though I think that case can be made. I didn’t try to make it here. Your bitterness argument looks strong to me.)
This is a very interesting question.
In the case that one can forgive, must one forgive?
The case for no: Forgiveness is a release from a debt of justice. Without that release, justice ought to be enforced. Therefore, one doesn't have to forgive.
The case for yes: Since we have received forgiveness from our Heavenly Father, so we must forgive others.
Jesus is super clear on that. He said so in the Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 6:14 "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." He concluded the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, (Matthew 18:35) "So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”
Therefore, we are generally free from a requirement to forgive. However, every forgiven Christian has a special duty to mimic God and forgive freely.
Getting back to Aaron's focus on can instead of must, I believe that whenever we can, we must.
Jesus seems to see this difference also. Luke 17:3 "Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, 4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
If your brother sins --> rebuke him.
If he repents --> forgive him ("you must forgive him.")
So, as I see it, if your brother hasn't repented, forgiveness isn't really apropos. Once he repents, it becomes a possibility and, for the Christian, obligation.
Aaron: “Wait a second. Are you sure God never ‘forgives’ in some sense unilaterally? What if, in one of the prophets, He says to a nation ‘You’re guilty of this. But I’m not going to destroy you yet.’”
Common Grace. Interesting to think of common grace as a form of forgiveness.
This is a very interesting question.
In the case that one can forgive, must one forgive?
This looks beyond debate to me. The debatable part is “forgive unilaterally.” So I think probably everyone agrees that we must forgive; but some believe we must only applies when the offender is repentant (or asks, which, let’s be honest, isn’t the same thing… but for sake of argument, we’ll say it is).
So I suppose three views are really in the mix in this conversation:
- always forgive if, and only if, the offender is repentant
- always forgive if the offender is repentant, and it’s allowed also if they’re not
- always forgive regardless of the attitude of the offender
Because I was mainly interested in arguing against view 1 (and also about 1300 words), I only went as far as claiming view 2. But view 3 fully overlaps with view 2—so the arguments for view 2 are like half way to 3 and not at all against it. (And I think my language in a few places probably leaks over into view 3 also, unintentionally.)
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I disagree with view 3.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I agree that 2 and 3 overlap completely.
Aaron(article): The sequence from Matthew 18:15-17 contains a lot of “ifs.” What it does not contain is any reference to “forgiveness.” Rather, it talks about “gaining” your brother. This is reconciliation.
It’s true that Jesus didn’t mention the step of forgiveness in Ma18:15-17. But…
1. The whole process Jesus commanded depends on forgiveness. Sin(15)…go to him(15)…he listens(15)…you forgive(unsaid)…gained brother(15).
Yes, “gained” is a reference to reconciliation. But without “forgive” you can’t get there.
2. Peter, at least, clearly understood that forgiveness was demanded by Jesus's words. Right away Peter asked how many times he had to forgive. Jesus replied 70x7…Parable Unforgiving Servant.
Discussion