To Forgive or Not to Forgive: That is the Question

“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” – Matthew 6:14-15

“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” – Matthew 18:35

“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” – Mark 11:25

These statements from Jesus have long been the cause of deep personal angst and much theological debate.

At face value, Jesus seems to be saying that receiving forgiveness from God depends on our willingness to forgive those who sin against us.

If that is the case, the stakes are high, and our capacity for forgiveness is crucially important.

But what if you can’t bring yourself to forgive? Or you don’t want to forgive?

What if the sin committed against you or those you love is so heinous that forgiveness seems utterly unjust, especially if the offenders are not contrite or repentant?

If you don’t forgive, does that mean you risk your eternal security and destiny? What does it mean when Jesus says, “Your Father will not forgive your sins”?

If you have ever been wronged or offended, you have no doubt been confronted with the issue of forgiveness and the need to extend it to those who have hurt you.

You may have been counselled to forgive for your own benefit or for the sake of your right standing with God. If so, you probably recall the intense struggle it produced in you.

But what if we’ve got it wrong? What if we have misunderstood the true nature and purpose of forgiveness? What if we have overlooked the context in which these statements were made and misinterpreted their intent?

Could our understanding of forgiveness be more the product of popular psychology than a proper understanding of the concept of forgiveness in scripture? If so, we may have placed an undue burden on those sinned against in the most terrible ways.

I explore some of these questions and more in this post, so if you’ve ever wondered about or struggled with forgiveness, you may want to read on. I warn you, though, it’s a long one, so you might want to stop and pour yourself a cup of something and get comfortable before you continue. 

The Heart of the Issue

When contemplating the issue of forgiveness, several important questions arise:

What exactly is forgiveness? How should we define it biblically? How do people tend to define it culturally or socially?

What is the purpose of forgiveness? Is it relational reconciliation or personal therapeutic healing? Or both? Is forgiveness primarily for the sake of the offended or the offender?

When considering the statements made in scripture about forgiveness, particularly those made by Jesus and Paul, what does “forgive others as Christ has forgiven you” mean?

Does the word “as” mean “in the same way” or “because”? Are we supposed to forgive others in the same manner that Christ forgave us, or simply because Christ has forgiven us?

Why is God so insistent that we forgive one another? Why does it matter?

Is unconditional forgiveness even possible, let alone preferable?

Is the nature of God’s forgiveness toward us “unconditional”?

This last question is really at the heart of the debate about forgiveness.

Does God forgive unconditionally?

The Case for Unconditional Forgiveness

Most people would say “yes”, God forgives unconditionally because He offers forgiveness freely to all without us deserving it or asking for it. Essentially, God has already forgiven everyone.

Those who hold to this view say that God’s unconditional forgiveness is a necessary precursor to the possibility of repentance. There cannot be repentance unless there is first forgiveness.

Forgiveness, therefore, precedes repentance. Repentance doesn’t precede forgiveness.

God is the first mover, and His first move is to reach out to us with forgiveness.

In this scheme, forgiveness is an olive branch, an invitation from God to rebellious sinners to embrace the offer of reconciliation and relational restoration.

The forgiveness offered is a form of release for the offender from relational, moral, and spiritual indebtedness. If the offender accepts forgiveness, they can enjoy a restored relationship with God.

However, even if offenders refuse relational restoration, they remain forgiven. They are just not “restored” or “redeemed” (what we sometimes refer to as being “saved”).

Proponents of unconditional forgiveness argue that God has already forgiven everyone of their rebellion against His authority through Christ’s redeeming work on the cross.

For them, forgiveness is a necessary prerequisite for salvation, but it does not automatically confer salvation (unless one is a Universalist, in which case universal forgiveness and redemption are synonymous).

For a restored relationship to occur, unconditional forgiveness must be accompanied by repentance (an acknowledgement of the relational indebtedness), trust, humility, and contrition. This allows forgiveness to be appropriated and the relationship between God and the sinner to be restored.

Those who propose unconditional forgiveness separate forgiveness and salvation.

Often, they will point to statements like this one in 1 John 2:2:

“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

And this one from 2 Corinthians 5:15:

“And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

The argument is that these statements imply all are already forgiven in Christ through His death on the cross and subsequent resurrection.

However, one must ask what conditions were met for that to be possible. Why did Jesus die? At least, in part, to meet the condition necessary for our forgiveness (1 Peter 3:18; Galatians 1:4; Romans 3:25).

So, forgiveness isn’t really “unconditional”. It’s just that Christ meets the condition for forgiveness on our behalf.

While forgiveness may be secured for all and offered to all, it still isn’t applied to all.

If forgiveness is to be appropriated, a second condition must be met. That condition is repentance in faith (acknowledging our rebellion against God’s authority, submitting to His rule and reign through Christ Jesus, and trusting Him wholeheartedly).

My point here is that “unconditional forgiveness” doesn’t appear to exist in the biblical paradigm.

Even if all are offered forgiveness from God in Christ, Christ meets the condition necessary to secure our forgiveness. Our response in faith and repentance constitutes a second condition that ensures forgiveness is appropriated to our lives meaningfully.

Those who argue that God’s forgiveness toward us is unconditional often point out that if we withhold (unconditional) forgiveness from others, then God will withhold forgiveness from us (based on Jesus’ statement in Matthew 6, Matthew 8 and Mark 11).

Ironically, in doing so, they imply the conditional nature of God’s forgiveness (i.e., “Only if you forgive others will God forgive you. If you don’t, He won’t”).

According to that argument, God’s forgiveness toward us is conditional, after all, and it is conditional on our forgiveness toward others.

When it comes to forgiveness between us as humans, in the “unconditional forgiveness” paradigm, it doesn’t matter whether the offended party responds with repentance or not because the forgiveness offered is an act of trusting obedience toward God (on the part of the offended) and is required for the offended’s good standing with God as well as emotional healing from the offence.

In this way, (unconditional) forgiveness serves as one side of a relational transaction that may (or may not) be met with repentance and acknowledgement of fault.

Unfortunately, this sometimes results in forgiveness being reduced to nothing more than a self-serving (and often self-righteous) act of personal protection (“I forgive you because I’m the bigger person, but I won’t forget you, and I certainly won’t ever trust you again. I don’t want anything to do with you. I’m doing this for me.”).

The Case for Conditional Forgiveness

There is another way of thinking about forgiveness, and that is to see it as conditional on repentance.

Those who advocate for conditional forgiveness usually do so on the basis that there is no such thing as “unconditional” forgiveness in the Bible. Everywhere you see forgiveness extended, a condition is being met that allows it to happen.

In addition, they point out that forgiveness is only meaningful to the one who needs it when it is appropriated. In all cases (except Universalism), the appropriation of forgiveness happens conditionally. While the willingness to forgive and the offer of forgiveness may be unconditional, the application of forgiveness (the actual effect of being forgiven) is conditional. After all, what is the point of being forgiven if it does not impact your standing with the offended party?

The proponents of conditional forgiveness point out that the goal of forgiveness in scripture is always relational restoration and reconciliation between both parties, not therapeutic emotional healing for the offended party.

Of course, relational restoration is not always achievable for various reasons (death, distance, or danger). Still, forgiveness’s primary purpose and ideal end is a restored relationship.

In a biblical sense, forgiveness is best understood as a release from personal indebtedness that allows relational reconciliation. It is essentially a legal and relational action, not an emotional one, and the wrong can only be made right if the wrong is acknowledged.

Three Greek words are used in the New Testament for forgiveness: charidzomai, aphiemi, and apoluo.

The word charidzomai comes from the Greek root word charis, meaning “grace”. It is used in Ephesians 4:31-32, where the concept of forgiveness is likened to the cancellation of a debt.

It is also used in Luke 7, where a sinful woman wipes Jesus’ feet with her tears. In Luke’s account, a different Greek word is used when Jesus says that the woman’s sins have been “forgiven” (vs. 47). The word used is aphiemi, which means “to loose”, “to leave”, or “to let go”.

When Luke uses the word aphiemi, he reminds us that when we forgive someone, we release them from obligation by letting go of the offence.

The use of aphiemi is also found in 1 John 1:9.

Apoluo is the third word in the original Greek New Testament for forgiveness. It means “to set free, to pardon a prisoner, or to release a debtor”. This word is used in Luke 6:37.

Most of the usages of apoluo in the New Testament refer to the pardon by Governor Pontius Pilate of the criminal Barabbas, or Pilate’s attempt to legally pardon Jesus from His supposed “crimes” (Matthew 27:15, 17, 21, 26; Mark 15:6, 9, 11, 15; Luke 23:16, 18, 20, 22, 25; John 18:39; 19:10, 12; and Acts 3:13).

In Matthew 18:21-35, when Jesus teaches about the nature of the Kingdom of God, He uses the theme of forgiveness of debt to describe the King’s benevolence toward us and our responsibility as His subjects to extend the same forgiveness to one another. Here, apoluo is used:

“Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.”

In Greek, the word “released” here is a form of apoluo and “forgave” is a form of aphiemi.

Therefore, unforgiveness is best defined as “willingly withholding forgiveness (release from indebtedness or obligation) from someone who has repented and asked for it”.

The problem with unforgiveness is that it values the debt above the debtor.

What is important to note here is that unforgiveness is never framed as an emotional state characterised by anger, resentment, bitterness, or hate.

Unfortunately, this is how much of contemporary culture understands “unforgiveness, ” so people see forgiveness as an emotional exercise, the primary purpose of which is not a restored relationship (as in the biblical model) but personal healing or emotional release from one’s pain.

A large part of the confusion around forgiveness is that we have taken a biblical concept that is a fundamental part of reconciliation and turned it into a mechanism for personal wholeness and healing.

This is not surprising given that we live in a highly individualistic society where, for many, their primary pursuit and ultimate goal is psychological self-actualisation and the expression of their authentic self.

That’s why much of the current conversation about forgiveness is framed as necessary for your well-being.

Statements like, “Harbouring unforgiveness is like drinking poison hoping the other person will die,” or “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and then discover that the prisoner was you,” reveal that the real goal of this type of therapeutic unconditional forgiveness is not relational reconciliation, but personal wholeness.

But is that the goal of forgiveness? Is that the nature of God’s forgiveness?

Does God say, “I forgive you, but I don’t have to trust you or be restored relationally to you?”

Obviously not. Yet, that is precisely the mental and emotional gymnastics people must undergo to embrace unconditional forgiveness.

People are told they must forgive those who have wronged them, but that they don’t have to trust or be restored relationally to them. Forgiving is not forgetting.

However, expecting people to offer unconditional forgiveness to unrepentant offenders who have sinned against them appears to be asking them to do something not even God does.

Of course, if the offending party repents, forgiveness cannot be withheld, regardless of how the offended feels. Release from obligation must be offered. To withhold release is to be guilty of unforgiveness. However, the emotional state of the offended party is a separate issue from their willingness to forgive.

Forgiveness cannot be withheld if repentance is offered, but the offended party may still battle feelings of pain, anger, resentment, or hate. These must be acknowledged and dealt with appropriately, and emotional healing and wholeness must be sought, but the feelings themselves do not constitute “unforgiveness”.

Equating unforgiveness with an emotional state delegitimises emotions that may be valid and necessary in light of the offence. Sometimes, being angry is the only appropriate way to respond to injustice.

By now, you might be wondering about Jesus’ final words on the cross. Surely, they imply unconditional forgiveness?

When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” He was certainly appealing to the Father’s mercy and compassion on behalf of those He was representing. However, He was not conferring forgiveness or salvation on them.

The guilt of those responsible for crucifying Jesus was retained, and they did not receive forgiveness until they repented. This is clearly evidenced in the response to Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, in which the apostle accuses his audience of being responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus:

“When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” – Acts 2:37-38

Again, while Jesus indeed died and rose again to make forgiveness possible, forgiveness wasn’t received until faith and repentance were expressed.

Of course, it must be clearly stated that conditional forgiveness is not a license to hate or to seek vengeance. We are still called to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who spitefully use us (Matthew 5:44-45).

Love is unconditional, but forgiveness is conditional on repentance, and both are undeserved.

In Luke 17:3, Jesus clarifies the importance of this aspect of forgiveness by calling for the condition of repentance to be met.

“…If your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and if he repents (conditional clause) forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent’, you shall (obligation) forgive him.”

Jesus seems to be saying several important things here:

1. Forgiveness is conditional on repentance. This is true of our relationship with God, and it is true of our relationships with one another. We are to “forgive one another as Christ forgave us” (Ephesians 3:34; Colossians 3:13). The forgiveness extended to us by Christ is conditional on our repentance. Therefore, the forgiveness we extend to one another must be preceded by repentance. I stress here that repentance does not mean “deep feelings of personal guilt”, but rather a contrite, humble acknowledgement of the social, financial, emotional, or moral indebtedness created by the wrong committed and the willingness, where possible, to make restitution.

2. Sometimes, for forgiveness to be possible, confrontation and accusation are necessary. The instruction to “rebuke him” suggests that the offender may not be aware of their sin or may need to be confronted so that they will not have an excuse. Unfortunately, too many people avoid the discomfort of this necessary confrontation, either out of fear, anger, or a desire to avoid conflict. It does highlight, however, that both the offender and the offended are responsible for trying to heal the relationship. Obviously, some situations make this impossible (such as death, distance, and danger), but where it is possible, the principle should be applied.

3. Forgiveness cannot be withheld if repentance is forthcoming. If you withhold forgiveness from others (once they have repented), regardless of the severity of their offence, you disobey God and are guilty of “unforgiveness”. Consequently, God will withhold forgiveness from you (Matthew 6:14; Matthew 18:21-35; Mark 11:26).

What precisely this means, and whether it has implications of eternal significance, is difficult to tell, but I would like to suggest that what Jesus is saying here has less to do with one’s personal eternal security (salvation) and more to do with our collective representation of God’s Kingdom as the community of those who pledge allegiance to Jesus. By that, I mean we will never fully represent the heart and character of our King if we continually refuse to forgive one another.

The willingness to ask for and offer forgiveness faithfully represents the King and the virtues of His Kingdom, preserving the unity of the Kingdom community. Asking for and offering forgiveness is simply what citizens of the Kingdom of God do for each other as faithful representatives of our King, who was ready and willing to forgive us. Bear in mind that Matthew’s emphasis on the teachings of Jesus concerning the nature of the Kingdom of God and our relationship with the King provides the context for these statements on forgiveness.

4. The goal of forgiveness is relational reconciliation and preserving the unity of the community of those who are citizens of the Kingdom of God (cf. Matthew 18:15 – “you have gained your brother”). The goal is not vindication or justification. It is relational restoration. While the offer of forgiveness may well be emotionally healing for the victim, it is not the primary purpose of forgiveness, at least not in a biblical sense. While I understand that wisdom needs to be applied to managing personal boundaries with repeat offenders, the goal should always be “to do all you can to live at peace with everybody” (Romans 12:18).

5. Forgiveness has nothing to do with a person’s emotional capacity but rather their volitional capacity. Extending forgiveness is an act of obedience and, therefore, an act of the will, and it often has no bearing on how we feel.

In the conditional forgiveness paradigm, if someone refuses to repent, I am not obligated to forgive them, and their sin against me will be retained against them. By that, I mean God will hold them accountable for their actions and judge them accordingly. This is why Jesus told His disciples they have the authority to forgive and retain sin (John 20:23).

Those who are familiar with the New Testament may wonder about the apostle Paul’s statement regarding forgiveness in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11.

Paul’s reference to forgiveness in this passage must be read against the backdrop of 1 Corinthians and the “missing” epistle between 1 and 2 Corinthians.

There are two possibilities:

He may be referring to the sexually immoral brother mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. This, however, is unlikely, as the references in 2 Corinthians 2 indicate that someone was engaged in undermining Paul himself, rather than one involved in immorality.

The influence of this undermining brother appears to have affected the whole church, and Paul wrote the “missing” epistle to address the issue.

It appears to have had the desired effect, as evidenced by what he says in 2 Corinthians 7:8-11. Notice how Paul says clearly here that their “godly sorrow led to repentance” (vs. 9,10) and that it resulted in a “clearing of yourselves” (vs. 11).

Paul is prepared to extend forgiveness in this situation (2 Corinthians 2:10) because of the Corinthians’ response to his previous epistle and the resulting repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-11) on their part.

Once again, we are not talking about “unconditional forgiveness” here. Paul is ready and willing to forgive once the fruit of repentance is evident, and the goal is not his personal therapeutic healing but the restoration of the relationship.

Other passages in the New Testament also seem to support the idea of conditional forgiveness, like this one from the apostle John, who says,

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” – 1 John 1:9

John’s point: God forgives when we repent, and thank God He does. This means that we can enjoy restored fellowship with Him.

“The Father’s Forgiveness” – Artist Unknown

The Pastoral Implications

Sadly, people are often told to forgive those who have wronged them (often without repentance from the offender), which they attempt to do, but still wrestle with feelings of anger, hatred, bitterness, or resentment towards them.

These emotions are then falsely labelled “unforgiveness”, and the person wronged is condemned for harbouring “sin” in their heart. So, they carry a double burden – the weight of their pain and perceived guilt from their apparent “unforgiveness”.

Having lived for thirty-one years in South Africa, I have, on more than one occasion, met victims of abhorrently violent crime who are petrified that they have also lost (or may lose) their salvation over their inability to “forgive” the perpetrators (i.e., stop feeling negative feelings towards their attackers).

From a pastoral point of view, I have seen firsthand how the burden of mandated unconditional forgiveness weighs heavy on the hearts of those who unrepentant perpetrators of evil have severely and unjustly hurt.

To be fair, I have also heard personal firsthand accounts from victims of the Rwandan genocide, for instance, who have told of their choice to forgive unconditionally and how it has led to offending parties choosing repentance and reconciliation where none may have transpired were it not for the kindness and generosity of the unconditional offer of forgiveness.

Some argue that this is precisely the kind of evidence that supports the call for unconditional forgiveness and is a testament to its power.

They point out that “the kindness of God leads us to repentance” (Romans 2:4) and that offering unconditional forgiveness to unrepentant offenders is the most godly (and kind) thing anyone can do.

Therefore, some say that while unconditional forgiveness is not required, it is not prohibited either. If someone chooses to offer unconditional forgiveness, they are free to do so. They just aren’t obligated to.

In the words of Roger Olsen, “It may be good to do it, but it is an act of supererogation, not an act of required or expected obedience”.

Others, like Christian Ethicist David Augsburger, maintain that not only do we not have an obligation to extend unconditional forgiveness, but we have no right to, for in doing so, we presume to be more righteous than God and act outside of our authority.

But more to the point, “unforgiveness” is not what we feel. Unforgiveness is what we do when we wilfully choose not to extend forgiveness to someone who has genuinely repented.

Someone can forgive a repentant offender and still feel anger and resentment. Of course, these emotional issues must be resolved separately from forgiveness, but assuming that they equate to unforgiveness is deeply problematic.

Whether you prefer to operate in the “unconditional forgiveness” paradigm (i.e., offer unconditional forgiveness + pursue conditional reconciliation) or the “conditional forgiveness” paradigm (require repentance for both forgiveness and reconciliation), please don’t deny people the opportunity to feel what they feel as a result of what they have suffered by labelling their pain as “unforgiveness”. And please don’t threaten them with eternal banishment if they can’t heal immediately.

I understand that forgiveness can be a complex issue. For those who have been told their whole lives that they need to extend unconditional forgiveness to all who have wronged them, regardless of the nature or severity of the offence, and independent of any repentance or remorse, this post may be unsettling.

Or, it could be profoundly liberating and healing.

How we define “forgiveness” and “unforgiveness” is a big part of this puzzle. If you have gone your whole life thinking that “forgiveness” or “unforgiveness” is something you feel, then I can understand why you would find it hard to forgive.

However, forgiveness becomes easier when you understand that it is something you choose, regardless of how you feel. There is a strong argument from scripture that it should follow an appropriate and necessary admission of wrongdoing in repentance and remorse.

Extending forgiveness doesn’t require you to deny your pain, anger, fear, or doubt. However, it does require you to release your offender from relational obligation when they repent by acknowledging their wrong and asking for forgiveness.

If repentance is not forthcoming or possible (due to death or distance), it’s not a given that forgiveness should be.

That’s not to say that the road to feeling better will be easy, but the path to emotional wholeness and relational restoration is much smoother when we aren’t stepping on the stones of injustice.

A few concluding thoughts

As interesting as it is, I suspect that debating whether forgiveness should be “conditional” or “unconditional” may be an exercise in missing the point. 

Forgiveness is meant to be a gift, both to the giver and the receiver. It’s not meant to be a theological conundrum or an emotional burden. 

Ideally, it should lead to relational reconciliation, but it doesn’t always. 

It can be and often is therapeutic, but it isn’t meant to be merely so. 

It should be met with or preceded by repentance, but often isn’t. 

Nevertheless, and more importantly, forgiveness remains an idea that communicates something fundamental about the gracious character of God and the triumph of mercy over judgment.

Both are keys to life. 

If, in trying to figure out the theological “correctness” of the forgiveness formula, we lose sight of the God whose very nature is forgiving, we will have allowed the gift to eclipse the Giver, and that would be our greatest loss.