SHOULD FORGIVENESS BE UNCONDITIONAL? John Duffy (Colin Glen Christian Fellowship)

3 October 2014 (updated 23/12/14)

Introduction1

In a paper on forgiveness, Stephen Graham opens his discussion by noting the controversy surrounding one

victim’s response to the Enniskillen bombing in 1987.2 While Gordon Wilson was buried along with his daughter

in the rubble, he survived while she sadly died later in hospital. However, in contrast to how many victims had

responded on both sides throughout the ‘troubles’, Wilson said that he bore no ill will or grudges against those

who killed his daughter. However, some Christian ministers publicly criticised him for doing what they said the

Bible does not allow, asserting that he cannot forgive, that there is absolutely no forgiveness without

repentance. Wilson nevertheless became a shining example of Christian loving forgiveness to the watching

world.

Was Gordon Wilson justified in forgiving the bombers? Should he have waited until they repented before

granting forgiveness, as some have claimed? This controversial case serves as a vivid example of the dilemma

facing those who suffer at the hands of others.

Yet, empirical evidence shows that unforgiveness can easily accumulate and turn into bitterness and even

hatred. This can sometimes be hidden behind the mask of seeking to be ‘biblical’ by waiting until those

concerned come and repent. In practice, though, most people would wait a lifetime and never see such

repentance. In the meantime, they can very easily become bitter and resentful. Instead of withholding a

blessing from their offender, they are the ones who may suffer the most by not granting forgiveness. The

positive therapeutic benefits for those who forgive are clear to secular psychologists.3 It was also evident to

Corrie Ten Boom as she helped victims of Nazi atrocities after World War II.4 It is also at the heart of Christian

life and discipleship because of the importance of teaching on this topic in the New Testament. This is therefore

not a mere theoretical point, but a deeply pastoral one which affects the spiritual, emotional and mental

wellbeing of many, quite apart from the witness is has to the wider community.

Yet, the topic of forgiveness is not only emotive at a personal level, but somewhat difficult from a theological

perspective. There are opposing views as to whether forgiveness should be conditional on repentance or not

– and if so, under what circumstances. This study focuses primarily on whether forgiveness ought to be

conditional on repentance by the offender, or unconditional. Pastoral aspects of the process of forgiving others

are beyond the scope of this study, but are abundantly available elsewhere. At the same time, the difficult and

emotional practical challenges of forgiving are significant, and are never far from mind.

1 The initial (and short) concept draft behind this article was originally intended to be summarised in a sidebar to the article ‘Healing for victims’ in the Winter 2014 edition of ‘Crosstalk’ (http://cgcf.ie/crosstalk20). However, due to space constraints which did not allow for a thorough discussion of the topic in a compact outreach magazine, it is provided here in much more detail. 2 Stephen Graham, Forgiveness, Guilt and Repentance (vol. 10, 15 vols.; Embodying Forgiveness; Belfast: Centre for Contemporary Christianity in Ireland, 2003), 2. 3 Benefits include improved physical and mental health, psychological healing, increased hope, greater chance of reconciliation; Merry Bullock, ed., Forgiveness: A Sampling of Research Results (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2006), 5–6, n.p. [cited 23 December 2014]. Online: http://www.apa.org/international/resources/forgiveness.pdf 4 Corrie Ten Boom wrote poignantly about the victims she helped; “Those who were able to forgive their former enemies were able to return to the outside world and rebuild their lives, no matter what the physical scars. Those who nursed their bitterness remained invalids. It was as simple and as horrible as that.” Corrie Ten Boom, Tramp for the Lord (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975), 53–55

What is forgiveness

God’s merciful forgiveness to sinners

Forgiveness is at the heart of the gospel message. It reflects the merciful character of a just and loving God,

who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but

have eternal life.” (John 3:16, NIV) “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and

purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9, NIV) God is a forgiving God, and wants people to receive

forgiveness by admitting their sin and turning from it, trusting in Jesus Christ’s atonement on the cross in their

place.

All sin is ultimately transgression of God’s moral law (the Ten Commandments), not transgression of the laws

of one individual over another. Even the laws of the land are only valid if they are in line with God’s law and

purposes (Romans 13:4). People can receive forgiveness from God's eternal judgment only on the condition of

repentance with faith, based on Jesus atoning death on the cross for sin. Since there is no such law or judgment

applicable from one person to another, independent from God’s law, repentance from one person to another

is not a fundamental requirement of forgiveness.

However, since God’s forgiveness of sinners by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone is well-

discussed and documented elsewhere, the topic of Christians forgiving others is the focus of this article.

Forgiveness means to let go

Before proceeding, it may be helpful to consider what forgiveness is. To ‘forgive’ is to ‘let go’ or ‘release’. It is

as simple as that. This can be seen from the definitions of the Greek words used to translate forgive/forgiveness

in the relevant passages. In Mark 11:25, Luke 17:3-4, Matthew 6:12-15, 18:21-35, these are: (i) “aphiēmi let

go, leave, leave alone, release, forgive”; (ii) “aphesis release (noun), liberation, forgiveness”. Similarly in Luke

6:37; “apolyō set free, release; dismiss.”5

This shows that forgiveness does not inherently, on its own, include matters of atonement, reconciliation,

repentance, confession, etc. Forgiveness is not simply forgetting on its own, throwing justice out the window

in order to do so. Neither is it saying “it doesn’t matter”, because it all too often does matter very much. To

forgive is simply to let go or release something or someone.

Nevertheless, forgiveness is not often on its own – forgiveness before God goes hand in hand with atonement,

repentance, faith, and so on. God forgives or ‘releases’ repentant sinners from the guilt of their sin, when they

place their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

While forgiveness between people can often be the start of a process which leads to reconciliation, it can

nevertheless be as straightforward as ‘letting go’ of a wrong while leaving matters of justice to God and the

courts. That is not to say that it is easy – not at all. The simplicity of letting go is masked by the emotional

difficulty in actually doing so.

Forgiveness and reconciliation are different

Nevertheless, there is a common misunderstanding that forgiveness is to be equated with, or conflated with,

reconciliation. For example, in David Augsburger’s definition;

“Authentic forgiveness is the mutual recognition that repentance is genuine and right

relationships are achieved. … Forgiveness is not finally complete until the severed friendship is

mended.” 6

5 Horst Robert; Schneider Balz, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 181, 140. 6 David Augsburger, The Freedom of Forgiveness. (Harpenden: Scripture Press, 1989), 31.

Yet, this more properly describes both forgiveness and reconciliation, not forgiveness on its own. While

reconciliation is not complete until the severed friendship is mended, forgiveness can be offered even when

the offended party does not even know the identity of who has offended them. Forgiveness can be offered

long before reconciliation is experienced.7

Forgiveness between two people is the act by which an offence or offences are waived and no longer present

a relationship barrier between them.

Reconciliation is the end result of a process which involves (i) the offended party to forgive and be willing to

be reconciled to the offender, and (ii) the offender to acknowledge their guilt, to repent of it, to apologise to

the offended party, and their relationship to be restored. When this occurs between believers, (i) the

offender’s repentance must not only be towards the offended party, but be primarily towards God, (ii) the

offended party must recognise that they are both sinners who have been saved and forgiven by God’s grace

alone, and (iii) the offender must be restored into the centre of fellowship within church.8 Aspects of this

process may need to be repeated often. For example, forgiveness often needs to be given repeatedly to avoid

recurring memories fostering bitterness and unforgiveness.

Partial reconciliation can also be achieved between those who rub shoulders, where an offender who is not a

believer does not repent, but the offended believer forgives and relates graciously with their offender in a

loving manner, in the hope that they will one day be more fully reconciled.

Forgiveness is a step which may eventually lead to reconciliation, but which is distinct from it.

Forgiveness – conditional or unconditional?

Two main approaches Forgiving others unconditionally

Christians are told to forgive others. If we bear grudges, seek revenge or are unforgiving of others, this is clearly

going against the Jesus’ command; “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will

not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37, NIV) Forgiveness is not optional, but part of

the calling of each believer; “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this

you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:9, NIV)

Jesus not only tells us to forgive others in order to have a good relationship with God; “And when you stand

praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your

sins” (Mark 11:25–26, NIV). He also assumes that his followers will have already forgiven others when they

pray to the Father, “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12, NIV). He even

goes so far as to say that forgiveness of others is an inherent characteristic of his followers – one which the

Father will use to identify who are truly his children on the judgment day; “For if you forgive men when they

sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matthew 6:14, NIV).

Christ’s words from the cross are also sometimes quoted as the divine example in support of unconditional

forgiveness; “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34, NIV).

7 There is difference of opinion on the definition of forgiveness, particularly in relation to reconciliation; “Some theorists view reconciliation, or the restoration of a relationship, as an integral part of the forgiveness process (9, 17), and others as independent processes because forgiveness may occur in the absence of reconciliation and reconciliation may occur in the absence of forgiveness (4, 10, 21, 25, 39).” Bullock, Forgiveness, 5. 8 While their sin must be remembered no more in terms of being a barrier between both parties, pastoral leadership must still remember the weakness of the offender and do what they can to ensure that they are not led astray by being given the opportunity to offend repeatedly in the same way.

Forgiving others on the condition of repentance

Yet, there are some places in the Bible which indicate that forgiveness is conditional on repentance. Jesus

taught;

If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times

in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him. (Luke 17:3–4, NIV)

This passage seems to clearly indicate that forgiveness should not be unconditional, but only given on the

condition that someone repents.

Taking an either/or approach When discussing the topic of forgiveness, it is often approached in a one-dimensional manner. Writers seek to

show that one view on forgiveness is right in all circumstances, or that another view should be applied in all

circumstances. They seek to show that forgiveness of others should be either conditional on their repentance,

or that it should be given unconditionally, regardless of whether the person is willing or able to repent. It is

one view or the other. There is no room for a combination of the two approaches, in relevant situations.

To illustrate this, consider one author’s approach which takes Luke 17:3-4 as its starting point.

So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins

against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive

him. (Luke 17:3–4, NIV)

Among the helpful points which Jay Adams makes in his book ‘From forgiven to forgiving’, he nevertheless

takes an approach which is one-dimensional regarding whether forgiveness should be conditional or not. He

is clearly of the view that if someone does not repent, they ought not to be forgiven:

What if the other person won’t seek forgiveness or, after having been confronted with his or her

sin, refuses to confess it?... Today, many Christian leaders erroneously teach that we must forgive

another, even when that person clearly does not intend to ask for forgiveness.9

The problem is that this is not all that the Bible teaches on forgiveness, especially in the New Testament:

And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your

Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. (Mark 11:25, NIV)

While Luke 17:3-4 indicates that forgiveness ought to be conditional, Mark 11:25 indicates that it ought to be

unconditional.

To overcome this apparent contradiction, Adams interprets forgiveness in Mark 11:25 to be not actual

forgiveness, but the willingness to forgive if the circumstances permit (that is, if the offender repents); “the

word “forgive” must be used by extension to express the willingness to forgive another.”10 One can imagine a

believer taking this approach as they are about to pray; “I’m willing to forgive them, if the offender will come

to me and repent – but since they won’t, I’m not going to actually forgive them, yet!”

The problem is that no matter how much a person has a good heart and is willing to forgive in the right

circumstances, unless they have forgiven, the fact is that they have not forgiven. It is problematic to interpret

Jesus such that when he says “forgive”, that he actually means “be willing to forgive, but don’t forgive unless

certain conditions are in place”. This seems very far from the spirit of what Jesus taught in Mark 11:25.

9 Jay Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving (Amityville NY: Calvary Press, 1994), 26 He cites; David Augsburger, The Freedom of Forgiveness. (Chigago: Moody Press, 1970), 36. 10 Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving, 31.

Nevertheless, Adams is undoubtedly coming from the right direction when he comments on Mark 11:25;

“Certainly, we can be sure of this much, that it is a prayer to take all resentment and bitterness from the heart

of the supplicant.”11

In practice, there are two problems which can often be seen. On the one hand, there are many situations

where Christians or believers in Jesus Christ are not challenged on their actions or attitudes – they are forgiven

unconditionally, resulting in patterns of unbiblical behaviour becoming entrenched and not properly

addressed, if at all, in church. On the other hand, there is much hurt which is unforgiven because the offender

has not fulfilled the condition of having repented or asked for forgiveness – over time, this burden of

unforgiveness accumulates and can result in ingrained bitterness and lack of love, robbing the believer of much

joy in their heart and mind.

How can we avoid falling into one of these traps or the other? Is it possible to find a way forward which does

justice to both sets of biblical texts, those which teach or imply that forgiveness ought to be conditional, and

those which teach or imply that it ought to be unconditional?

Two main interpretive solutions to the dilemma At face value, neither unconditional forgiveness, nor forgiveness which is conditional on repentance, seem

compatible with each other. That is, Luke 17:3-4 and Mark 11:25 seem contradictory, at face value.

One solution is to use the unconditional forgiveness model as the lens through which the repentance passages

are interpreted. Another solution is to use the repentance model as the lens through which passages of

unconditional repentance are understood.

View all through the lens of unconditional forgiveness

With unconditional forgiveness as the paradigm, passages such as Luke 17:3-4 are interpreted as descriptive,

and not prescriptive.12 When dealing with passages that mention repentance or indicate that there are

occasions when forgiveness can or should be withheld, these are seen to ‘describe’ contexts, rather than

‘prescribe’ them.

That is, repentance is merely described incidentally, while the focus is seen to be on the number of times one

should forgive, not on the condition of repentance while asking for forgiveness. If taken from a descriptive

perspective, repentance is not necessary and forgiveness should be unconditional.

Yet, it seems reasonable to interpret that Jesus would not have given the clear impression that repentance

was a condition for forgiveness, if he patently did not want any barriers to forgiveness. If the number of times

someone has sinned is not a barrier to their forgiveness, then why would Jesus allow himself to be

misunderstood by mentioning repentance so explicitly, and twice at that in Luke 17:3-4? But what appears

reasonable to one person may appear unreasonable to another. It would be better to be able to consider

whether there is formal logical support for one position or the other.

Logically, ‘presuming’ that these passages should be taken in a ‘descriptive’ manner results in a circular

argument. It is stated something like this; Jesus cannot have meant that there should be no forgiveness where

there is no repentance, because we believe that he did not mean to be understood to make repentance a

condition of forgiveness in this passage. The assertion is indirectly a restatement of the presupposition, and

does not have formal logical support.

Is the argument in Luke 17:3 prescriptive or descriptive?

11 Ibid. 12 This is the view that the author took before embarking on this more detailed study of the topic.

From a formal logical perspective, it has been argued that repentance is not a logical condition for forgiveness

in Luke 17:3-4:

Nowhere does Jesus say, “If your brother does not repent you are wrong to forgive him.” To use

these verses in this way is patently illogical. We cannot make such a negative inference from a

positive statement.13

Graham’s argument infers that the descriptive approach is the only proper or logical one. This is because the

prescriptive approach cannot be validly logically inferred from the biblical text. His argument is that it is an

invalid argument or logical fallacy of ‘denying the antecedent’ to argue that lack of repentance should result

in lack of forgiveness (where repentance is the antecedent in Luke 17:3). This logical fallacy is well documented

elsewhere, but is worth outlining here also.

If Peter has slept in, then he is running late for work.

Peter did not sleep in. Therefore, he is not running late for work.14

This is a logical fallacy. It is not logically valid or true to say that Peter is not late for work simply because he

did not sleep in, because there may be many other reasons that could have also made him late (e.g. flat tyre

on his car delayed him, a burst water pipe at home stopped him leaving the house, etc.).

At face value, this argument of the logical fallacy of ‘denying the antecedent’ appears to apply to Luke 17:3.

That is, that it is not logical to infer that lack of repentance should result in lack of forgiveness. However, the

argument that ‘denying the antecedent’ is always a logical fallacy, while common, is nevertheless not always

valid. It is valid where there are multiple possible scenarios that can also result in the same state (e.g. Peter is

running late for work). But, there is one exception where denying the antecedent is not a logical fallacy. In the

case where there are only two possible states for the antecedent and consequent, then denying the

antecedent is logical and valid.15 For example, denying the antecedent is not fallacious in this example:

If a number can be divided by two and still be a whole number, then it is an even number.

When a number is divided by two and is ‘not’ a whole number, then it is ‘not’ an even number.

Cohen et al. helpfully states that just because an argument fits the pattern of denying the antecedent (DA), it

does not necessarily follow that it is always invalid (as Graham does) nor valid. Instead, this pattern of

argument is inherently neutral or “neutrovalid”, sometimes being valid and sometimes (often) being invalid or

fallacious, depending on the actual contents of the argument and not its pattern.16

Valid arguments which fit the pattern of denying the antecedent have biblical precedence. When Jesus was

speaking to Nicodemus about entering into eternal life, and not perishing for eternity, he used this form of

argument:

If a person is born from above, then they can see the kingdom of God.

If a person has not been born from above, then they cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

In this case, both the antecedent (being born from above) and consequent (seeing the kingdom of God) are

either true or untrue. A person is either born from above or not. A person also will either see the kingdom of

God or will not.

Similarly, in the case of Luke 17:3, there is either repentance or there is not; there is either forgiveness or it is

withheld.

13Graham, Forgiveness, Guilt and Repentance, 4. 14 Formally, this argument is of the form: “If A, then B. Not A, therefore Not B.” A is the antecedent, B is the consequent. Denying A (Not A) usually does not mean that B is denied also (Not B). 15 Elsewhere, this is described as Boolean logic in which both antecedent and consequent have binary (either/or) states. 16 Morris Raphael Cohen, Morris R. Cohen, and Ernest Nagel, An Introduction to Logic (Hackett Publishing, 1993), xxxv.

If there is repentance, forgive (Luke 17:3 NLT)

If there is no repentance, do not forgive.

Jesus presents repentance as a necessary and sufficient condition for forgiveness by use of the term ‘if’.17

So, it is valid to conclude from Jesus’ statement in Luke 17:3 that is it right to withhold forgiveness where there

is no repentance. In Jesus’ statement, he prescribes forgiveness on the condition of repentance – he does not

simply describe one instance of forgiveness where there happens to be repentance also.

View all through the lens of repentance as a condition for forgiveness

The view which sees forgiveness as conditional on repentance in ‘all’ cases is different from seeing that Luke

17:3 in isolation should be understood as conditional. Passages where there are no conditions on forgiveness

present a problem for the view that forgiveness should ‘always’ be on the condition of repentance, even when

there is no condition stated. One approach around this difficulty is to interpret passages such as Luke 6:37, 1

Peter 3:9, Mark 11:25 and Matthew 6:12-15 as describing the context where repentance is already in place,

and where all that is left required to do is to forgive. But these commands to forgive are not qualified or

conditional, and at face value seem to apply to all situations, regardless of whether repentance has or has not

been forthcoming. To teach that they ‘must’ be conditional is invalid, inserting a condition where there is none

stated.

Another approach, mentioned previously, is to interpret the command to forgive in Mark 11:25 instead to be

a command to be willing to forgive, but not actually to forgive unless repentance is already in place. However,

this makes such verses appear to mean the opposite of what they indicate at face value.

If one single approach is used to interpret all passages on forgiveness, using either of these approaches is at

best problematic, and at worst significantly flawed.

Conclusion: neither approach is completely satisfactory

On the one hand, the ‘descriptive’ approach to Luke 17:3-4 is the only approach that at face value seems to be

compatible with the command in Mark 11:25 to forgive unconditionally. Yet, the descriptive approach to Luke

17:3-4 has been shown to be flawed.

On the other hand, while the ‘prescriptive’ approach to Luke 17:3-4 fits the argument there, making

forgiveness always conditional on repentance is contrary to the basic teaching that Christians always ought to

forgive, unconditionally, in Mark 11:25.

There is some truth evident in the argument for unconditional forgiveness, and also in the argument for

conditional forgiveness, each finding support from different passages. Yet, with neither the unconditional nor

conditional interpretations on forgiveness being completely satisfactory on their own, another approach must

be found to reconcile or harmonise them.

An alternative contextual approach

In cases like this, where there is (or appears to be) truth on both sides of an argument, it is often the case that

the solution can be found through considering the contexts of each passage instead of viewing them in

isolation. The truths contained in Bible verses must be considered within their contexts, in order to more

accurately know their scope. When interpretations differ, they can often be resolved by limiting their

application to that of their context. That is, not making universal statement if they are only valid within certain

contexts. Texts which appeared initially to have overlapping contexts and be in conflict with each other can

17 “ἐάν (Hom.+) fundamentally introduces a situation in which given X, Y will follow.” William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 267.

instead be seen as having distinct contexts and be complementary, no longer not in conflict. This approach can

be helpfully applied to the matter of whether forgiveness of others ought to be conditional or unconditional.

The contexts of Luke 17:1-10 and Matthew 18:1-35 Teaching on forgiveness falls within a larger context

Luke 17:1-10 and Matthew 18:1-35 are in many respects parallel passages. Both appear to support forgiveness

only on the condition of repentance. Yet, the context in both is that the argument on forgiveness is preceded

by a warning to those who would cause others to sin:

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that

person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a

millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. (Luke 17:1–2,

NIV)

And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one

of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone

hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Matthew 18:5–6, NIV)

This context is crucial, as it sets the scene for what follows. While Luke 17:3-4 is often quoted in isolation from

Luke 17:1-2, Arndt and Hendriksen are among those who argue that Luke 17:1-10 should be considered as a

whole, rather than four disconnected and isolated sayings. Their position is summarised well by Darrell Bock:

The warning about sin leads naturally into the issue of forgiving the one who has done wrong.

Jesus’ insistence that forgiveness be granted continually is a hard teaching, so hard in fact that

the disciples ask for an increase in faith. Jesus responds that such faith, even though small in size,

can accomplish great things. But these great works can lead to another danger: attributing our

great works before God to personal achievement. In fact, some might think that what the disciple

does for God obligates him to honor the disciple. Jesus warns the disciple to regard service as

strictly that—service. What the disciple does for God is simply fulfilling a duty.18

This connected argument is more visible and more detailed in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus goes further there,

preceding the command in Matthew 18:15-20 with the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:10-14. This is

in turn followed by the exhortation to forgive from the heart in the parable of the unforgiving servant in

Matthew 18:21-35. In Matthew 18, Jesus discusses the context of those within the Church. It is pastoral

teaching with exhortation to maintain the holiness of fellowship of God’s people, as well as being a warning to

those who would sin and cause others to sin. Ultimately, those who are unrepentant should be formally

excluded from fellowship.

Yet, the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:10-14 can sometimes (mistakenly) be seen to be a digression

from this pastoral theme throughout Matthew 18. This parable is often seen as parallel to the related parable

of the lost sheep in Luke 15:3-7. Yet, Darrel Bock notes that Matthew 18:10-14 refers to “wayward believers”

already within the Church, not “lost sinners” or those outside Church as in Luke 15:3-7:

“In Matthew, the parable illustrates pastoral care among believers and the issue is the sheep of

the community that go astray, since it is in a set of passages that deal with the behavior of

believers (Matt. 18:6–11, 15–18). Almost none of the vocabulary of the two passages overlaps,

though the images are similar. [Footnote:] Only the reference to the ninety-nine appears in the

18 William Arndt, Bible Commentary: The Gospel according to St. Luke. (Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1956), 367; William Hendriksen and Simon Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (vol. 11; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), 794; Darrell L Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1996), 1380

same place; a few other terms appear in a different order. The conscious difference between the

use of “lost sinners” in Luke and “wayward believers” in Matthew is significant.” 19

With Matthew 10-14 seen as applying to believers wandering from fellowship with God and church, the whole

chapter of Matthew 18:1-35 can then be seen as addressing holiness and accountability within church. This

chapter can then be more easily seen to uninterruptedly parallel Luke 17:1-10.

Outline of Matthew 18:1-35 and Luke 17:1-10

Summary Teaching Matthew Luke

Innocence of children and

warning to sinners

Believers should be innocent like children. 18:1-4

Warning and condemnation for those who sin,

but especially towards those who cause God’s

children to sin.

18:5-9 17:1-2

God’s will is that none of his children go astray

into sin and perish, but that they return to him.

18:10-14

Confront sinners in church – if

repentant, forgive – if not

exclude from fellowship

If anyone does sin, confront them, with a view

toward their forgiveness and reconciliation

into the holy fellowship of the church.

18:15-17 17:3

If they do not repent, the church has God’s

authority to exclude them from fellowship.

18:16-20

Question and answer on how

often to forgive

Personally

Peter’s interjection on how often to forgive

someone who sins against him personally.

18:21

Believers must forgive repeatedly, personally,

when people repent.

18:22 17:4

Call and response on the need

for more faith

The apostles interject with a call for more faith. 17:5

Jesus replies that even a little faith is sufficient

to do great things.

17:6

Forgiving others is simply the

duty of believers

Jesus teaches the parable of the unforgiving

servant to show that believers should forgive

others an innumerable number of times. This is

their duty in response to their having received

much greater forgiveness form God. He

concludes with a warning against

unforgiveness in believers’ hearts.

18:21-35

Jesus continues by teaching that doing what is

required does not merit special

commendation, but essential and basic service

towards the master.

17:7-10

Not one teaching, but two

Note the similarity between (i) Jesus’ teaching on corporate forgiveness in Matthew 18:15-17 and Luke 17:3,

and (ii) his response to Peter’s interjection on how many times to forgive personally in Matthew 18:22 and

Luke 17:4. There is a reasonable argument for understanding that Luke’s account is a summarised form of

Matthew’s. Jesus’ teaching on the unworthy servants may well have been told on the same occasion, included

by Luke while Matthew preferred to document the longer parable of the unforgiving servant. On the other

hand, Luke’s account may have been Jesus’ teaching on a later occasion, summarising his initial teaching on

corporate accountability as well as Peter’s question and its associated response. Jesus may well have

reinforced this teaching on the later occasion with the ‘unworthy servants’ instead of the ‘unforgiving servant’.

19 Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, 1300.

The point of noting that Matthew and Luke record the either the same encounter, or a later summary of the

same teaching, is that while Luke 17:3 and 4 appear as if originally said in one uninterrupted saying, they are

simply a concatenation of two points which were originally separate and distinctly different, as apparent in

Matthew’s account.

In Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus teaches on the need for corporate accountability within church. In

Luke 17:4 and Matthew 18:22, he responds to his Peter’s query on putting this into practice at a personal level.

Jesus is presenting us with not simply one teaching on forgiveness, but two. The first is that church has a

responsibility for corporate accountability. The second is that individuals have a personal responsibility to

forgive repeatedly.

The main issue is not personal forgiveness, but corporate church holiness and unity

Joel Green writes on Luke 17:1-4:

Sin is an obstacle to full membership in the community of God’s people, so repentance is

necessary (cf. 15:8, 10). What Jesus counsels is, first, confrontation, and, second, readiness to

forgive. Unlike the elder brother in the parable of the lost son (15:11–32), then, Jesus’ followers

are not to stand at a distance from the sinner, but to seek actively for his or her restoration.20

Yet, the topic of forgiveness is most often dealt with as being in the context of one individual having been

wronged by another. The issue is whether or not the person wronged should forgive the other person. This

interpretation suits the very individualistic attitude of western Christians, who generally think of their faith in

a personal rather than corporate manner. It’s about the victim’s feelings, not how the offender can be restored

to fellowship, with church fellowship overall being far from mind. The perspective is often from the viewpoint

of the one wronged, not out of concern and focus on restoring the one who has sinned, or the unity in holiness

of God’s people corporately.21

The context of Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15 is therefore not that someone who is wronged should seek their

offender to repent and then be forgiven. Instead, it is where one believer happens to see another believer sin,

regardless of who that sin happens to be committed against. The focus is on bringing the offender back to

repentance. It is not primarily to seek personal resolution for the offended party. There may even be occasions

where the offended party is unaware of the sin, or the challenge by a third party within the church, or even

that resolution and restoration has taken place.22

There are also situations where the sin committed is not against any particular human individual or group at

all, but between the wayward believer and God – in such cases, believers are still mandated to approach the

person who has sinned, to facilitate their repentance and restoration within the fellowship of church.

But doesn’t Jesus initially say “against you”?

One reason for the persistence of the ‘personal’ approach instead of the ‘corporate’ concern, is the

unfortunate inclusion of the words “against you” in Matthew 18:15 in many translations. Some also include

these words in Luke 17:3. This tends to put the focus of Jesus’ initial saying on a one-to-one relationship

between the offended and the offender.

20 Joel B Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 613. 21 For example, Marshall takes this ‘personal’ perspective on Luke 17:3-4: “Here one particular kind of sin, namely personal offence, is discussed.” I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke : A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 641. 22 For example, in a small group context if one believer says something both unkind and untrue about another believer who is not present, someone else there could challenge the person who made the comment to retract it, and to ask forgiveness of those present for their outburst. With repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation in place, the matter can be resolved without even the need for the person spoken about to be informed of the hurtful comment. This would avoid causing further hurt and the need for more repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Yet, the inclusion of “against you” in Matthew 18:15 is likely a later insertion, based on Peter’s words in 18:21

where he focuses only on the implications of Jesus’ teaching for him personally. It seems that Peter, in his self-

centred interpretation, could not see the corporate implications of what Jesus was saying, but only the

personal one. This is understandable, since at that time Peter probably had little idea of the structure and

workings of the forthcoming New Testament Church, which had still not been established at that point in time.

It would not be the first time Peter misinterpreted Jesus’ teaching (c.f. Matthew 16:21-23).

Peter’s personal (and mistaken) interpretation of Jesus’ teaching is also the same perspective of many readers

today. Whenever Luke 17:3-4 or Matthew 18:15-17 are discussed, it is generally within the context of how a

person who has been sinned against should forgive or deal with the offender.

Yet, there is a good argument for concluding that Jesus’ words are a scribal insertion to harmonise or parallel

Matthew 18:15 with Matthew 18:21. Some more recent English language translations omit this phrase

completely in Matthew 18:15, while others include it in a footnote, or refer to its questionable authenticity in

a footnote.23

When omitted, the flow of thought in Matthew 18 can be seen to be corporate, not personal, up until the point

where Peter interjects in Matthew 18:21. Nolland concludes that the flow of Jesus’ teaching supports omitting

this phrase in 18:21:

More important than its absence from key MSS [manuscripts] is the better development through

the discourse that is possible with the shorter text. The focus will be personalised in v. 21, but for

the moment it remains more general.24

Even if included, the surrounding context still relates overall as to how the wayward sinner can be restored.

The contexts in Matthew 18:1-20 and to a lesser extent Luke 17:1-4 are not primarily on the feelings of the

one offended, but the process of restoration and reconciliation of the offender and the holiness of the Church.

Nevertheless, having initially stated the need for restoration and forgiveness of the wayward sinner, Jesus later

addresses the personal difficulty associated with forgiveness and restoration. He teaches that these are not

optional, but are the believers’ core responsibility in Luke 17:5-10 and Matthew 18:21-35.

Some might argue that Luke 17:3 also includes the phrase “against you”, and that the entire discourse section

in both Luke 17:3-4 relates to personal forgiveness. However, the presence of this phrase in weak in Luke 17:3,

and appears in far fewer English translations than the similar phrase in Matthew 18:15. 25 UBS commentary

notes that the shorter text is stronger:

In order to harmonize with ver. 4 (cf. a similar passage at Mt 18:15), the phrase εἰς σέ [against

you] was introduced in several witnesses.26

Conclusion: the contexts are within Church alone

23 Some English Bible translations omit this phrase; NET, NIV (2011), TNIV, GW, while others include it in brackets or in a footnote; NEB, NAB, NASB. “Against you may not have been an original part of the text. TC-GNT notes the possibility that the phrase was brought in by a later scribe under the influence of “against me” of verse 21. On the other hand, it points out that the omission could have been either intentional (so as to apply the passage to sin in general) or accidental (because of the similarity of sound between the last part of the Greek word “sin” and the Greek phrase “against you”). Therefore in the UBS Greek text the words are enclosed in square brackets to indicate that their presence in the text is disputed.” Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition. A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 36. 24 John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005), 745. 25 ASV, CEB, CEV, ESV, GW, GNB, HCSB, NIV (1984), ISV, LEB, NET, NAB, NABRE, NASB, NCV, NLT, NRSV, RSV. 26 “Here the shorter text is strongly supported by א A B L W Θ f 1 892 al.” Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition. A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.), 141.

When Matthew 18:1-20 is understood to refer to corporate church life, not the individual’s response to their

offender, it more easily parallels Luke 17:3-4. Darrel Bock summarises well:

Two fundamental relational commitments are expressed in the exhortations to rebuke and

forgive. First, disciples are to share in each other’s commitment to pursue righteousness. Thus,

Jesus exhorts them to rebuke a believer who sins, not because he wishes disciples to meddle in

the affairs of others, but because he wishes the community to desire righteousness that results

in accountability to one another for the way they walk. Such exhortations are common in the NT

(Matt. 18:15–18; Luke 6:37; Gal. 6:1 [a key text that warns against spiritual smugness as this

process is carried out]; 1 Thess. 5:14–15; 2 Thess. 3:14–15; Titus 3:10). Second, disciples are not

to pursue their spirituality in isolation from one another. For Jesus, faith is not merely a private

affair, but something the community pursues together. The community of believers is a family in

the sense that the best interests of each member is a concern of each other member. Thus, the

call to rebuke is the exercise of a familial responsibility.27

These verses relate in the first place directly to the good of the wandering believer and their restoration to

holiness and fellowship. When one believer sees another sin, they have a responsibility to bring the erring

believer back from their wandering. Often, however, it will be the one who is offended who observes the sin.

In that case, they have a dual role –on the one hand to be the person who seeks the offender to turn from

their sin or escalate the matter towards the church leadership, and on the other hand to be the person who

personally forgives their offender. In this case, although potentially difficult in practice, their personal response

should be secondary, with their primary motivation being to bring their erring brother or sister back into

righteous living.

The contexts of Matthew 18:1-20 and Luke 17:1-10 are restricted to the fellowship of believers. The longer

account in Matthew’s gospel specifically states that this is within the context of church;

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church,

treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17, NIV)

By explicitly contrasting how to deal with such a person with those outside church (“a pagan or a tax

collector”), these verses cannot therefore be taken as a template for how to deal with people in general. The

process of only forgiving others (i) on the condition of repentance, and (ii) escalating the matter to the church

in the absence of repentance, applies only to believers within church. The condition for requiring repentance

before forgiving others in general, outside church, is not supported from these passages.

The contexts of Matthew 5:23-24, 6:12-15, and Mark 11:25 Now we come to consider Bible passages that at face value teach on unconditional forgiveness. These can be

summarised well by considering Matthew 5:23–24, 6:12-15, and Mark 11:25.

Believers should forgive others as a basic characteristic of being a follower of Jesus

“Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but

deliver us from the evil one.’ For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly

Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive

your sins.” (Matthew 6:12–15, NIV)

Not only are there no qualifying conditions on who or what we ought to forgive, Jesus goes so far as to say that

our forgiveness is conditional on forgiving others (Matthew 6:14-15). While this might (wrongly) be supposed

to mean that the believer’s forgiveness is dependent on their works, this would be contrary to other Bible

teaching that clearly indicates that salvation is by faith and not by works (e.g. Romans 3:20-25a, Ephesians 2:8-

9). It can be seen as a warning against presumption that lack of forgiveness is a characteristic of those who

27 Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, 1387.

have not trusted in Jesus – their state will become clear on the judgment day when their sins will still be seen

to be unforgiven.

Essentially, what Jesus is saying is that unforgiveness is not a minor matter. Unforgiveness is a characteristic

of unbelievers, while forgiveness is a characteristic of believers. He presumes in the Lord’s prayer that believers

already “have forgiven” others, it is taken for granted (Matthew 6:12).

Believers should forgive before coming to God in prayer

“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your

Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” (Mark 11:25, NIV) 28

Mark does not include the Lord’s prayer in his Gospel. Nevertheless, he felt that the Lord’s teaching on having

unconditionally forgiven others was so important, that he includes it at the end of his short section on effective

prayer. What he says is, in effect, that if we have anything unforgiven in our hearts, against anyone, that that

is a barrier to our prayers being heard by the Father. We cannot expect our prayers to be answered if we

harbour unforgiveness. Note the absence of conditions here.

What is certain is that effective prayer must be offered in faith with a spirit of forgiveness. (James

A. Brooks)29

It is quite clear that for both Jesus and the evangelists, being forgiven by God and forgiving others

go hand in hand. (Robert H. Stein)30

Therefore, to be forgiven and not forgiving, to have obtained mercy and not be merciful, is in

reality to have failed to experience God’s gracious acceptance and makes a mockery out of

prayer as understood in vv 22–24 as an expression of one’s relationship to God. (Craig A. Evans)31

Forgiving others is a prerequisite to expecting prayers to be answered. There are no conditions listed as

exceptions. Following on from Mark 11:22-23, Mark 11:24-25 must be understood as having a bearing on the

very nature of prayer. It therefore does not apply to certain situations where the offender has not yet

repented. This passage is not compatible with conditional forgiveness, when the individual prays before God.

Believers should seek forgiveness from others before coming to God in worship

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has

something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to

your brother; then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23–24, NIV)

While this passage may seem to refer to “brother” meaning fellow believers, the context of surrounding verses

would indicate that it should instead be broader, referring to anyone, believer or not.

The reference to “brother” here may seem to limit this command to the community of faith. But

since in the last antithesis Jesus breaks through such group loyalty by teaching love, even of one’s

enemies (v 44), this point should not be pressed here (cf. v 16). (Donald A. Hagner)32

28 Regarding Mark 11:26, Metzger notes; “its absence from early witnesses that represent all text-types makes it highly probable that the words were inserted by copyists in imitation of Mt 6:15.” Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition. A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.), 93. 29 James A Brooks, Mark (vol. 23, electronic ed.; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 183. 30 Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 521. 31 Craig A Evans, Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27-16:20 (vol. 34B; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 193. 32 Donald A Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13 (vol. 33A; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 116.

The context of the verses before and after Matthew 5:23–24 imply that this is a primary issue of Christian

character, just like Matthew 6:12–15. The onus on reconciliation where possible between either believers or

others is a requirement – it is not optional, it is not conditional.

Also, the offence that the other person has suffered may or may not be real. Even if it is perceived but where

no actual offence has been caused, it is not sufficient for the innocent believer who is perceived as being guilty

to content themselves with their actual innocence. They must seek to be reconciled if the other person

‘believes’ that there is some offence, whether real or not.

These passages apply to believers as individuals

While it is not immediately obvious in English, these exhortations in Matthew 6:12-15 and Mark 11:25 are

given in the plural (“forgive us ‘our’ debts”, “if ‘you’ have anything against anyone”). However, we should resist

understanding these passages to refer only to corporate prayer or church relations with groups of others.

Instead, even though the commands were given to individuals together as a group, they are primarily relevant

at an individual level. Their force is primarily toward the individual, because the qualifications regarding

forgiveness and good relations with the Father can only apply intrinsically to individuals. Nevertheless, while

not minimising the individual emphasis, they will also affect corporate prayer if there is unforgiveness either

at an individual level within the church (c.f. Joshua 7), or from the church as a whole towards others (c.f. Isaiah

1:15-20). Matthew 5:23–24 is in the singular throughout, with the context being again on individual worship

and the barrier of unreconciled relationships within the Church.

Conclusion: the contexts concern individual responsibility

As noted, Matthew 6:12-15, Mark 11:25 and Matthew 5:23-24 refer to situations between individual believers

and others. They do not in the first instance relate to the holiness and harmony of church life corporately.

Whenever the presence of sin presents a barrier between two individuals, action is required by at least one of

the two, regardless of whether it is between a believer and unbeliever or between two believers. On the one

hand, the believer who has been offended must forgive immediately and unconditionally, and not harbour

resentment (Matthew 5:43-48), in order to maintain a good relationship with God (Matthew 6:12-15, Mark

11:25). This applies regardless of whether the one who has offended them is within church or not. On the other

hand, the believer who has caused offence must immediately seek to be reconciled with the one they have

offended, in order that their worship may be accepted to God (Matthew 5:23-24). This, too, applies regardless

of whether or not the one they have offended is a fellow believer or an unbeliever.

Whether giving forgiveness or seeking forgiveness, believers are obliged to do so immediately and

unconditionally, whether to those within church fellowship or in the world in general.

Individuals forgive unconditionally – Church forgives conditionally Drawing together the conclusions so far, Bible verses in the New Testament which most naturally teach

unconditional forgiveness can be seen to relate to personal contexts only (Matthew 6:12-15 and Mark 11:25).

As we have seen, those which most naturally teach conditional forgiveness relate only to corporate church

contexts (Luke 17:3–4, Matthew 18:1-35). These are complementary contexts, not contradictory. Believers

ought to forgive unconditionally at a personal level, regardless of what context they find themselves in. But in

the context of church, believers ought only to forgive and allow full participation by an erring believer on the

condition of repentance. A secondary teaching relating to church contexts is that those offended should forgive

repeatedly.

Therefore, if a believer is a victim of what another has done, they must forgive at a personal level, immediately

and fully, in order that they do not harbour resentment and bitterness, which affects their relationship with

God. It is not only consistent with biblical teaching to forgive unconditionally, but from a personal perspective

it is required that believers do so.

However, aside from having forgiven at a personal level, if the offender(s) is within church, whoever is aware

of this offence has a responsibility to bring them back to repentance and holiness. Whether it is the one

offended, or a third party within church, they must address the matter. But, it cannot be let go (forgiven)

without repentance on the part of the offender(s). If gentle but firm confrontation does not result in

repentance, they should be excluded from fellowship (with a view to them repenting and being welcomed

back again; Galatians 6:1, 2 Corinthians 7:8–13).

Conditional forgiveness is for church, unconditional forgiveness is for individuals.

At a personal level, Gordon Wilson was therefore certainly correct to forgive those who killed his daughter.

Other Bible passages Do Ephesians 4:32 and Colossians 3:13 support conditional forgiveness?

Jay Adams writes:

It should go without saying that since our forgiveness is modelled after God’s (Eph. 4:32), it must

be conditional. Forgiveness by God rests on clear, unmistakeable conditions.33

However, Paul did not mention conditions for forgiveness in Eph. 4:32, nor in the often quoted similar verse

Col 3:13;

“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave

you.” (Ephesians 4:32, NIV)

“Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.

Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” (Colossians 3:13, NIV)

One of the key ways to misinterpret a Bible verse is to assume that what it says is equivalent to what one

understands it to mean. What Paul said in Ephesians 4:32 was (i) “Be kind and compassionate to one another”,

(ii) “forgiving each other”, (iii)” just as in Christ God forgave you”. It is the last of these that is of most interest.

Adams concludes that while Paul simply says “just as in Christ God forgave you”, that he means ‘conditionally

just like God forgave you on the condition that you repented and believed in Jesus Christ for salvation’.

Yet, what Paul said, and what Adams tells us that he means, are not necessarily related. Paul could equally

have meant that believers should forgive, ‘just as freely as you received forgiveness from God in Christ’. Or,

‘just as you received forgiveness from God in Christ by simply asking for it’. Or, he could have meant, ‘lovingly

absorb the hurt of the offence, graciously and mercifully taking it no further, just as Christ took the offence of

your sin on himself on the cross to reconcile you to God the Father’. Paul’s exhortation in Eph. 4:32, and

similarly in Col. 3:13, can be understood in a variety of ways which do not require forgiveness to be seen as

‘conditional’. It is unjustified to assume that Paul’s words there mean that forgiveness must be conditional.

However, that is not to say that they don’t possibly require some aspect of conditional forgiveness. As has

previously been discussed, there are two significant contexts within which forgiveness must be considered.

The first is at a personal level, unconditionally, whether between believers or unbelievers. The second is at a

corporate level, conditional on repentance, within the fellowship of God’s people, the church. Since Paul is

concerned in Eph. 4:32 and in Col. 3:13 with what occurs between believers, he is concerned with what occurs

within church, not within relations with others in the world in general. Understanding this church context

allows us to say for certain that what Paul teaches does not apply to those outside church. That is, even if Eph.

4:32 and Col. 3:13 are to be understood as requiring ‘conditional’ forgiveness, these verses clearly cannot be

used in support of conditional forgiveness with those outside church, but only towards those within the

fellowship of God’s people.

33 Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving, 34.

The next question is, does Paul refer to individuals acting as individuals (Matthew 6:12-15), or as Church acting

corporately (as in Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18:15-20)? If the former, he can be understood to mean

unconditional forgiveness. If the latter, conditional forgiveness.

Since his exhortation does not apply to those outside Church, he cannot be understood to teach that

forgiveness outside Church must be conditional on repentance by the offender(s). That is, regardless of

whether he refers to individual/unconditional or corporate/conditional forgiveness within Church, Paul’s

exhortations in Eph. 4:32 and in Col. 3:13 cannot be used as justification to withhold forgiveness of those

outside Church.

What is left to resolve is whether he teaches individual/unconditional forgiveness, or corporate/conditional

forgiveness within Church. This is hard to be clear on. On the one hand the contexts of these verses include

exhortations to personal holiness. On the other hand, they also contain references to the blessing of corporate

holiness in unity together. If this unity and holiness is displayed, it doesn’t really matter whether Paul refers to

individual or corporate forgiveness, since the two are complementary within such fellowship of God’s people

– one will not exist without the other.

While the argument could be continued as to whether he is referring primarily to individual or corporate

contexts, or both, it is sufficient for this study to note clearly that neither of these verses can be taken as a

template to justify conditional forgiveness in all situations, particularly between believers and unbelievers.

Does John 20:23 promote conditional forgiveness?

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with

that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they

are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (John 20:21–23, NIV).

Jesus’s words in John 20:23 do not help us in the matter of knowing what conditions may be in place which

would prevent forgiveness being given. He simply describes two situations, forgiveness and unforgiveness. The

point he makes is that he is commissioning the disciples (by extension, the Church) as he sends them into the

world, just as he was sent by the Father (John 20:21).

Understood along with Jesus’ other teaching, and the Bible’s teaching overall on forgiveness, Jesus is not

directly delegating forgiveness between God and mankind to the Church – that is always given directly from

God to each individual who exercises faith alone in Christ alone. However, Jesus can be understood in one of

two ways; (i) the Church is authorised to withhold forgiveness and fellowship in cases of church discipline, as

in Matthew 18:15-20; or (ii) the Church is authorised to spread the gospel across the world, knowing their

responsibility that if they do not evangelise and bring people into a forgiven relationship with God the Father,

then such people will remain in a state of unforgiveness before God. If Jesus refers to church discipline, then

he is simply reinforcing what has already been discussed relating to Matthew 18:15-20. If the context concerns

evangelism, he is simply giving the Church its inaugural commissioning to go into the world. Carson summaries;

In the parallel statements in Matthew, the context suggest church discipline; in this verse, where

the context is the mission of Jesus’ disciples (v. 21) and the Spirit who empowers them (v. 22),

the focus is on evangelism.34

Therefore, John 20:23 does not influence the discussion on whether forgiveness is conditional on repentance,

or not.

Jesus’ and Stephen’s calls for forgiveness

34 D. A Carson, The Gospel according to John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 655.

It is worth noting briefly Jesus’ call from the cross for forgiveness in Luke 23:34.35 This reflects the tremendously

loving and forgiving heart of God. Yet, the context is forgiveness vertically between God and those who were

responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. It therefore should not be understood as a direct template for unconditional

forgiveness horizontally between people.

There is a further problem in using these words of Jesus’ to support the case for unconditional forgiveness

between people. The Bible teaches that forgiveness from God towards people is conditional on repentance

and faith (Acts 20:21, Mark 1:15). Each person prayed for in Jesus’ prayer would therefore have to individually

repent and believe, which the Centurion in Matthew 27:54 appears to have done. This interpretation can only

be consistent with the rest of biblical teaching if forgiveness before God is applied to individuals on the

conditions of repentance and faith. So, while this saying appears to support unconditional forgiveness, it

cannot do so when compared with other Bible passages on how God’s forgiveness is received. The explanation

that fits best for Luke 23:34 seems to be that it is a call to the Father not to implement eternal punishment for

mankind there and then, for its immeasurably evil act of deicide (killing God), but to continue the gracious and

merciful plan of salvation. Hendriksen writes: “Jesus must have meant, “Father, hold back thy wrath; do not

immediately pour out the full measure of thy fury.””36

Stephen’s similar call for forgiveness while being stoned to death in Acts 7:59-60 does not adjudicate on the

argument either. The forgiveness he calls for is also vertical, between his assailants and God, not between

them and himself. Their forgiveness therefore would be conditional on their exercise of repentance and faith,

like the call of Jesus for forgiveness for his executioners. There is simply insufficient data to conclusively affirm

that we should take Stephen’s words to teach prescriptively or didactically that forgiveness between people

should always be unconditional.

Yet, Stephen’s words seem to strongly imply that he himself has already forgiven his assailants, before asking

the Father to do so too. This reflects his loving and reconciling heart for others. While not being didactic

teaching, his example displays the kind of forgiveness that each believer should have towards unbelievers,

outside the true Church of God.

The unforgivable sin

It is worth noting that ‘the unforgivable sin’ does not relate to conditional or unconditional forgiveness

between people (Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10). It relates to not accepting forgiveness from God.

The following two quotations are representative of what many commentators have written:

Very simply it is the ongoing, continual rejection of the witness of the Holy Spirit to the Divinity

and Saviorhood of Christ. (R. Kent Hughes)37

To call darkness light, to call bondage liberty, is unforgivable sin, unforgivable not because God

is unwilling to forgive, but because the man who persists in such self-delusion refuses to accept

the forgiveness which God patiently proffers to rebels. (Michael Green)38

Rejecting salvation in Christ in this way is also unrelated to the sin of apostasy, where someone apparently

believes initially but later turns away (c.f. Hebrews 6:4-6), even though their end is the same.

Love covers a multitude of sins

“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8,

NIV)

35 (Textual doubt in some early manuscripts concerning the authenticity of this saying, while not without some merit, is insufficient to invalidate Jesus’ words here from being included in the discussion on forgiveness in general.) 36 Hendriksen and Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 1028 . 37 R. Kent Hughes, Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1989), 92. 38 Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary (vol. 18; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 141–142.

Of the different interpretations possible for this phrase, reflecting the similar generalised or proverbial truth

in Proverbs 10:12, Michael Green seems to summarise the most suitable:

Peter cites a proverb in general use to point out that love will forgive or overlook the faults of

others in the church and thus is a most valuable virtue in a community that needs to preserve its

solidarity in the face of persecution.39

Peter can be well understood to mean not that sins can be dismissed or overlooked simply because one has a

loving disposition. Instead, on the one hand, love for the erring believer is the motivation behind challenging

them with their sin and only letting it go on repentance (Matthew 18:15-20). On the other hand, love is the

motivation that empowers obedience to forgive unconditionally where appropriate (Matthew 6:12-15).

Summary

The subject of forgiveness is often debated. In particular, the question as to whether Christians should forgive

everyone unconditionally as in Matthew 6:12-15 and Mark 11:25, or should they forgive only under the

condition of repentance by the offender, as in Matthew 18:15-20 and Luke 17:3–4. This is not merely an

academic theological debate, since lack of forgiveness is well known to affect mental health, and can result in

deep-seated bitterness, either through inability to forgive, or under the guise of ‘being biblical’.

The Greek words used which are translated forgive/forgiveness in the passages considered all simply mean to

‘let go’ or ‘release’. Forgiveness is not equivalent to reconciliation, although it is a step in the process that

hopefully leads to that reconciliation.

In the debate on whether forgiveness ought to be (i) conditional on repentance, or (ii) unconditional and not

requiring repentance, proponents of each view can find Bible verses which support their view on the one hand,

and reinterpret verses of the alternate view to suit their own perspective on the other hand. The conditional

repentance view reinterprets verses which seem to promote unconditional forgiveness, to understand them

to be conditional even when they are clearly not conditional. The view that does not require repentance before

forgiving others reinterprets verses which clearly teach that forgiveness should be conditional to mean that

they should be understood as being unconditional. Neither view deals with its opposing texts in a satisfactory

manner. Neither view is satisfactory on its own.

However, by examining the contexts of both sets of verses, it can be seen that where the New Testament

teaches that forgiveness should be conditional on repentance, that this is exclusively within the context of

church, and for the good of those within church overall. That is, sin within church ought not to be passed over,

or let go. It ought to be challenged and corrected, to maintain the holiness and unity of fellowship in the Lord.

If repentance is not forthcoming, such people ought to be excluded from fellowship, until such time as they

repent. Believers have a responsibility to bring wandering brothers and sisters back to the flock, just like the

shepherd does to his sheep. This is the responsibility of church, corporately. At the same time, within this

context, teaching in Matthew 18:15-22 and Luke 17:3–4 on how many times one ought to forgive another

tackle the separate and personal response by those offended to the command to forgive others in church. The

initial context in Matthew 18:15-22 and Luke 17:3–4 is corporate forgiveness within church; the secondary

context is how the individual in that context must be prepared to forgive repeatedly at a personal level,

regardless of whether the offender repents or not.

In a different context, passages like Matthew 6:12-15 and Mark 11:25 which promote unconditional

forgiveness can be seen to be applicable to believers at a personal level, regardless of whether they relate to

those in Christ’s Church or unbelievers in the world at large. Personal forgiveness relates to Christian character,

not corporate church discipline. At the same time, unconditional forgiveness at a personal level is compatible

with conditional forgiveness at a corporate church level. If believers do not forgive unconditionally at a

39 Peter H Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 158.

personal level, this affects their individual relationship with God. If church does not maintain the condition of

repentance before forgiving those who sin, this allows sin to grow unchecked within the fellowship of God’s

people.

Other Bible passages which have been interpreted as promoting that forgiveness should be conditional on

repentance, such as Ephesians 4:32, can be seen to be interpreted in ways which are either compatible with,

or outside the scope of, the passages of direct concern.

Further, believers can forgive unconditionally, because matters of justice are already in God’s hands – all sin is

ultimately transgression of 'his' moral law (the Ten Commandments). The condition for mankind to receive

forgiveness from God's eternal judgment is repentance with faith, based on Jesus atoning death on the cross

for sin. There is no such judgment applicable from one person to another, so repentance from one person to

another is not a fundamental requirement of forgiveness.

Forgiveness at an individual level, and giving or withholding forgiveness in a church context, are both generally

independent of the workings of the law of the land, although there may be occasions where the church

discipline process will require matters to be also addressed by the civil authorities.

In terms of healing, then, there is no biblical barrier, such as lack of repentance, to believers experiencing the

freedom and release that comes from forgiving others at a personal individual level, regardless of whether the

offence was within the context of a church fellowship or not. There are many believers who have accumulated

unforgiveness under the assumption that they are doing what is biblical, for whom it is hoped they can

experience the release and freedom that forgiveness brings.

For everyone, hopefully forgiving others will result in healing and freedom from additional pain on top of the

original offence. For those who can’t forgive naturally, it is hoped that they will be able to find faith in Jesus

Christ, so that they will have the power to forgive others.

But most of all, it is hoped that everyone will find the joy and peace which comes from receiving forgiveness

from God, through faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning suffering, death and resurrection to life.

Appendix: Other considerations

The following topics are largely outside of the scope of the main concern of this study. They are included as

miscellaneous matters which, while related to forgiveness, generally do not have a direct bearing on whether

Jesus’ followers ought to forgive others or not.

Transgression and forgiveness – whose law has been broken?

Forgiveness between people is possible more easily than between people and God. This is because forgiveness

between people and God involves the problem of atonement for sin. Since all sin is ultimately directed against

God (Psalm 51:4), atonement only needs to be in place when God and sinners are being reconciled. Atonement

is not necessary from one person directly to another. The other person did not write the Ten Commandments.

All legitimate laws are directly or indirectly given by God. Transgression of the moral law (the Ten

Commandments) is direct breaking of God’s law. Transgression of the laws of the land (which are in line with

God’s law) is indirect breaking of God’s law, since he has authorised governments to uphold truth and justice

and punish those who transgress civil/criminal law (see below).

Therefore, for God to forgive or let go of offences by an individual, atonement is required – this is received by

faith in Jesus Christ, and is accompanied with true repentance. In contrast, for individuals to forgive each other,

no direct atonement is required. This is why forgiveness between people can be given without the need for

atonement, repentance, etc., since these belong directly to the one whose laws have been broken, and against

whom injustice has been done.

There is no inherent barrier to one individual forgiving another. But where individuals are within the fellowship

of believers, repentance and faith are required before forgiveness can be considered, as part of the process of

reconciliation not only of the offender to God, but into full fellowship with God’s people.

Ultimate forgiveness is between God and individuals

Since all sin is ultimately transgression of God’s law, there is no atonement required between two people to

satisfy the offended party, when one person forgives another. Believers can forgive others without the

problem of seeking atonement for the sin committed by their offender. After all, people did not write the Ten

Commandments; people did not create others to be subservient and obedient to them; people do not sit in

judgment over others to condemn them. All sin is ultimately between an individual and God, even if it affects

others deeply. For example, when someone murders another person, the transgression is against God’s law,

while the act is done to another individual. Forgiveness is therefore ultimately required between them and

God, while restoration and reconciliation are also required between the individuals concerned.

Is justice a barrier to forgiving others?

The matter of justice is related to forgiveness. It is difficult (and wrong) to forgive if by doing so we throw

justice out of the window. But since all matters of justice are ultimately between individuals and God (because

all legitimate or good laws are ultimately from him, see below), we can rest assured that the judge of all the

earth will do what is right (Genesis 18:25). On the judgment day, all sin will be perfectly judged – it will either

be punished in Hell, or have already been atoned for on the cross of Calvary. We can therefore let go of matters,

entrusting justice into God’s hands.

We can therefore commit the demands of justice into God’s hands, either by his direct judgment on the last

day, or by his indirect and temporal judgment through civil government here and now. Even when civil

government is corrupt, ineffective, unjust, etc., we can rest assured that justice will ultimately be served on

the last day.

The demands of justice are therefore no barrier to individuals forgiving each other. Justice is in God’s hands

and we can trust him to do what is right in the long run.

Civil/criminal law and personal forgiveness

When someone has been offended seriously, and the matter also goes against civil or criminal law, forgiveness

can appear to be a more complicated matter. Does forgiving unconditionally send a message to the courts and

public that the offence is not taken as seriously as it should be? Can personal forgiveness be independent of

civil/criminal justice? How does civil/criminal justice relate to God’s eternal justice?

In Romans 13:1-7, Paul teaches that the concept of government (not the actual prime ministers or heads of

state as individuals) is given for the common good. Yet, it is only authorised under God to do good for its

citizens, through protecting them from evil and rewarding good. Therefore, it only acts legitimately under

God’s authority when it does ‘good’. When it institutes laws which are contrary to God’s law, believers are not

only free from the obligation to obey, but in clear cases are obliged to disobey their governments in respect to

such laws. The laws of the land can be considered an extension of God’s administration of justice and law, but

only insofar as they operate as intended, but not when there are injustices or corruption, etc. When the

government strays outside of its mandate to do ‘good’, it is acting illegitimately under God.

The implication of this is that the state administration of justice, when working properly under God, is a

temporal reflection of God’s eternal justice. An individual is not free to interfere in the workings of the criminal

justice system, although discretion is possible in civil cases where the individual has the option of pressing

charges or not. Regarding forgiveness, it is perfectly possible to forgive at a personal level, while at the same

time seeking justice at a civil/criminal level. This parallels the situation where a believer forgives someone

personally, but leaves the matter of justice up to God in the long run.

On occasions, although the workings of church discipline and the legal system of the government are generally

mutually exclusive, there will be occasions where law requires those in church to inform the relevant

authorities that a crime has been committed. In these cases, matters should be dealt with not only within

church, but also by the legal system too.

A state pardon or amnesty merely removes the temporal implementation of justice, not the eternal which will

follow in due course. Yet, pardon or amnesty illustrates God’s mercy and ultimate pardon which is available in

Christ. On occasions, withholding state pardon or amnesty, with the aim of upholding justice, is likely on

occasions to do more harm than good by failing to illustrate God’s merciful pardon which is available through

faith in Jesus Christ’s atonement on the cross for sin.40

40 A pardon by the state reflects the pardon that sinners receive from God. It is an imperfect parallel, since before God the offence is always punished, either eventually in person in Hell, or vicariously by Christ on the cross. Yet, it is a parallel which has precedent in the Bible in the cities of refuge (Joshua 20, 2 Samuel 14). A pardon does not ultimately mean that sin will not be punished, but just that the state does not pursue it – it will inevitably be dealt with by God on the judgment day, if it has not already been atoned for by Christ on the cross upon with the offender having trusted in Jesus for salvation.