Yes, You Can Forgive Unilaterally
Image
![](/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/2023/media_images/forgive-900dreamstime_m_55940351.jpg?itok=DgFfjOGd)
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.)
- 865 views
Dan: Yes, “gained” is a reference to reconciliation. But without “forgive” you can’t get there.
I agree. Though reconciliation is a step beyond forgiveness, you can’t do it without forgiving first. (This does not argue for repentance being required for forgiveness, though. To illustrate: an office building might have a secure second floor you need a badge to enter. So I could say, “You need a badge to enter the 2nd floor.” You can’t get to the 2nd floor without going into the first, but “You need a badge to enter 2nd floor” doesn’t mean you need a badge to enter the first floor.” … logically, it also doesn’t mean you don’t need a badge to enter floor 1, but most people would take that as implied.)
I came across some notes I on the topic I had stashed years ago, and I had link to “The Problem of Forgiveness” by RC Sproul. Here’s an excerpt:
There is another issue to look at, and that is our obligation to forgive others who sin against us. If such people confess their sin and repent, it is our moral obligation to forgive. However, if they don’t repent, we are not required to forgive. We may forgive, as Jesus did for those who killed Him (Luke 23:34). But in doing that, Jesus didn’t command that we must always forgive those who don’t repent.
I had totally forgotten about “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Unilateral forgiveness, of a sort. I don’t think Jesus meant “Send them all to Heaven without repentance” though! So… that’s a challenge for any of the three views.
So in the the ‘3 views’ list a couple comments up, it looks like he’d be view 2.
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.
Which way do you see Jesus’s prayer pushing us?
In asking God to forgive them, I believe Jesus was asking for their salvation, which requires their eventual repentance.
Jesus didn’t announce His forgiveness; He asked that the Father would forgive.
I tend to believe that every unqualified prayer Jesus prayed was granted. Which would mean all those who had a part in His death were saved.
Another thing to consider is that forgiveness is boolean. You either forgive or you don’t. You can’t partially forgive.
But reconciliation is nearly always partial. Simply announcing forgiveness automatically brings a level of restoration. Before you counted the person guilty and after you don’t. Even if all your relationship can recover is him hearing that you don’t hold him guilty any more and you won’t badmouth him and you won’t glare at him, that’s a dose of reconciliation.
So I would say that forgiveness always brings at least a little reconciliation. And there are deeper levels of friendship that won’t happen, meaning there’s always reconciliation not achieved.
I lean towards “It’s boolean, but it’s not always obvious,” so… fuzzy boundaries? Objectively, we either have or haven’t forgiven. Subjectively, it can be hard to tell, because what often happens is that we forgive, then later we find ourselves wrestling with all that resentment, hurt, anger, etc., all over again. So it can definitely be a prolonged struggle.
It’s probably not realistic to expect there to be a “one and done” moment on the first try—especially for really grievous wrongs. Lots of things are easy to forgive instantly and move on. Lots of things are not.
I think that reconciliation is similar with respect to a specific offense. What I mean is that a lot of relationships are complicated. So maybe Jan forgives Marsha for stealing her hairbrush, but she continues to wrestle with that time Marsha falsely accused her of something and she got in big trouble.
So are they reconciled or not? Well, it seems possible that they could reconcile conflict A and still be at odds over problem B… or problems B through Z!
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.
We probably should say truly Boolean, but not generally feeling like it.
Thus, “Why are accusing me of that? You already forgave me for that.”
We probably should say truly Boolean, but not generally feeling like it
Fair enough, but the boolean-ness and permanence would be separate questions in that case… unless we define permanence into it. Which maybe is appropriate.
If I forgive, then later find myself still cycling in resentment and anger, did I forgive then fail or did I simply not really forgive? I lean toward “forgave then failed.” So I guess I’m not inclined to attach permanence as an essential attribute.
Otherwise, you can get stuck in “How do I really forgive? I can’t seem to find the switch to turn that on?” It’s better to not overthink that. Rather, take it a day at a time or moment at a time. “I forgive him/her and it’s my intention to live that” = I have forgiven. If I later fail in some way, it just means I failed. So there needs to be some prayer and a fresh start. Is that “trying again to forgive, because I really didn’t before” or just “trying to faithfully live out my forgiveness”?
I think that pattern is pretty common with lots of aspects of Christian living. What’s important is getting back on track, not searching for some magical permanence. We may eventually reach a point where we no longer fail in reference to this person or offense. Or we may continue to wrestle on and off, sometimes living it, sometimes not. “Let us run the race with patience.”
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 think in those times that we struggle to forgive, this helps: we must remember that for any Christian who has hurt us, at the end Jesus will stand over him/her and say that he/she was perfect. A perfect friend, mother, wife, father, husband, teacher, etc. And we will all rejoice to see him/her called perfect.
And knowing that, we should call him/her perfect now. Our forgiveness is built on God’s forgiveness. Or maybe our hope that God will forgive them, if they are not a believer.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t notice sin. Sin still hurts the sinner and those around him/her.
That’s a great challenge.
I don’t often think of people in terms of “an eventually perfect person” or an “already perfect (positionally) person.” But this is where justification is and where sanctification eventually goes.
So we can take some of the “forgiveness resistance” out of the mix in at least two ways: a) remembering how imperfect we ourselves are and 2) remembering how perfect the offender will eventually be (assuming the person is in Christ).
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.
Discussion