There is what I call a, “Majority Opinion”, that has taken hold in Western Christianity. This teaching or opinion, while well intentioned, is a dangerous distortion of the teaching of Scripture and of the Holiness of God.

This majority position is held by people like Lewis Smedes (1984, p.69) Mark McMinn (1996, p.207) Ed Smith (2005, p.168), Neil Anderson (2000, p.2230), Tim Clinton and George Ohlschlager (2002 p.240) Everett Worthington( 2005, p.114) and Robert Enright and Richard Fitzgibbons (2006, P.41). The position of these writers is that repentance is beneficial for forgiveness but not pivotal. Repentance according to these writers is that repentance is only required for reconciliation. Forgiveness is an act that an offended person can do without ever seeking the repentance of the offender. However, according to this view, reconciliation requires both the giving and the receiving of forgiveness.

The majority opinion uses Matthew chapter 18 as its go to passage to justify its viewpoint. In Matthew 18 they turn to the story of the unmerciful servant who has his debt cancelled and does not return the favor to his servant who has debts. Because of his unforgiveness the unmerciful servant is put in jail and his property is confiscated. Jesus in the passage warns that if we do not forgive others our heavenly Father will not forgive us. The story of the prodigal is also a key passage where the father is seen receives his son back and gives a party for him before any word of repentance is uttered (Lk. 15:11-32).

The hermeneutic that comes from these and other passages brings a theology and methodology that subscribes to two forms of forgiveness, divine and human. According to Everett Worthington:

Jesus’ direct teaching on forgiveness links divine forgiveness with human forgiveness of others who have offended us…. Interpersonal forgiveness is meant to be unilateral, not contingent on or waiting for the offender to accept responsibility confess, apologize, make restitution, ask for forgiveness, and completely turn from the sinful and harmful acts….Divine forgiveness is linked to human repentance….but interpersonal forgiveness is not.

Why the difference?....God is infinite and can know each offender’s true motives, but humans cannot. Thus, God relieves us of trying to discern people’s true motives prior to forgiveness (Worthington, Sharp, Lerner and Sharp, p.33).

The appeal of this position is that it seems to match the biblical texts. Second, it offers a way for clients to bring healing from past hurts, especially when the offender is not repentant or is no longer alive. Third, it is a means of no longer feeling held captive to the repentance of another. Fourth, it gives a one a sense of being altruistic.

The problem with this approach is that it does not match the biblical material fully. Second, is not needed for healing to take place. Third, one does not have to be held captive without repentance. Fourth, it may not be as altruistic as would like to believe.

The above assertions are born out in a number of substantial ways. First, we see this truth theologically in our obtaining of forgiveness from God. Every major evangelical theologian across the theological spectrum would agree that repentance is required for forgiveness to be granted and salvation to be obtained, ( Sproul [1992, p.193], Ryrie [1982, p.337], Geisler [2004, p.518], Erickson [1985, p.937] and Miley [1989, p.100]). God requires repentance for the obtaining of forgiveness. Otherwise the atonement would have no value. People would not care to reach out for it. Without repentance being conditional for forgiveness mercy simply become license, justice would become optional, and God’s divine attributes would become fickle.

Further, to make Worthington’s argument that God can require forgiveness because He is God and we are not is a very strange assertion. We would be hard pressed to make a statement like that about the necessity for holiness, justice, mercy, love, purity, charity, integrity, humility, sincerity, patience, kindness, gentleness, peace, goodness, long-suffering or righteousness. We are to pursue these because we are called to be holy because God is holy. Our role is to glorify Him. This can only be done when we look and act like Him. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

Worthington creates all sorts of strawmen dealing with doctrine and justice versus love and grace from his formulations of warmth-based and conscience-based virtues. Worthington creates an either/or scenario in this formulation. He does not seem to see that without doctrine there is no truth and thus no love, and without justice there is no grace and thus no forgiveness. What is more, there is no forgiveness without the acceptance of it in repentance.

Second, we see this truth in the biblical evidence on forgiveness. In Matthew 18 deals with church discipline we are told that,

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (15-16).

The meaning of the word, “listen” in this context involves a reshaping of one’s whole perception…and then expressing trust in God by acting on the Word and putting it in practice (Richards, p.333). Hendrickson translates this verse as, “If the sinner refuses to admit his guilt and to repent” (1979, p.669.).

In the continuation of Matthew 18 we come to the key passage that is used by the majority position on forgiveness. It is the story of the unmerciful servant in verses 21-35. What is astonishing is how grossly the issue of repentance is missed in this passage by the majority position. The bad guy of the passage is the one who owes debts and has debts owed to him. He goes to his master who is about to demands repayment and begs for mercy, acknowledging his debt. Because of the acknowledgment of the debt and his begging for mercy he is forgiven. The same scenario is played out with his servant who comes to him except the debt is not forgiven. The master of the first servant hears of what has taken place and gets angry because when this first servant confessed (giving the appearance of repentance) and begged for mercy he was given it. I think we all know what would have happened to this man if he had not acknowledged his debt to his master, it would have been a short story!

This same issue is seen in the story of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32). We are told that the boy comes to his senses and says, “I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you”(18). When the son comes and the father sees him he runs to him and kisses him. Why? It’s his son. He misses him and loves him. Yet, the son still knows what needs to be done and he says, “Father I have sinned against heaven and against you”(21).

The majority position’s handling of the biblical text engages in an exegesis and hermeneutic that is motivated more by professional pragmatics than biblical accuracy. An example of this is Worthington’s clam that the Scriptures are clear on what we are to do in regards to forgiveness, “We are to forgive unilaterally”(p.32). Respectfully, Worthington’s conclusion comes not from the proofs glean from the text but from proof-texting that guarantees a predetermined conclusion. Worthington pulls together bits and pieces of biblical references on forgiveness without giving any regard to the whole of their context. Worthington takes loving and praying for our enemies (Matt. 5:44), not seeking revenge or not bearing a grudge (Lev. 19:18) or Jesus’ words on the cross, “Father forgive them. They know not what they are doing.”, as equaling forgiveness without repentance.

Using this last references as an example, Worthington spends little time digging into the meaning and of the text, its context within Scripture, and its congruency with person and work of God. He overlooks Jesus’ words for what they are, a request to extend the divine offer of forgiveness for sin; an offer always given and received in repentance to God. Worthington all but admits this in his comments on the means of divine forgiveness vs. interpersonal forgiveness. For Jesus to forgive without requiring repentance would, according to Worthington’s hermeneutics, place Jesus not in the realm of the divine but the human. The only other alternative would be to place God in a position of offering a salvation based on theological universalism.

Liefeld correctly notes that this prayer to the Father was an offer of forgiveness by Jesus for those who crucified Him (Gaebelien, 1984, p.1043). No one should conclude that this was an offer that did not require repentance on the part of those who engaged in this act. Such forgiveness would have been a miscarriage of justice, an assault on the holiness and veracity of God’s character and nothing more than theological universalism. Why? Because such an offer of uncondional mercy was never given to Judas.

We see this issue of repentance throughout the Scriptures: “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”(Lk17:3&4), “They went out and preached that people should repent’(Mk.6:12); “unless you repent you too will all perish (Lk.13:3); “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance”(Mt. 3:8); “Repent and be baptized”(Acts 2:38); “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation”(2 Cor. 7:10).

Along with my belief that the majority position engages in selective hearing in its hermeneutic. I further believe that the view held by the majority position is not as benevolent as it would like to think. In most of the literature by the majority position, forgiveness tends to focus first on bringing healing to the person who has been hurt. Enright notes, “As you deal with the pain by forgiving, you probably will find that your motivations change from a focus on your own pain exclusively to the person who hurt you”(2001, p.202). In commenting on Matthew 18 Smith writes,

The traditional interpretation of this passage is that Jesus is trying to teach His disciples about the great love God has for us and the forgiveness He offers all who come to Him to receive it. I believe this passage also teaches us some important truths about forgiveness and how we can find release from those who have hurt us (2005, 162).

In that same vein Anderson writes,

Don’t put off forgiving those who have hurt you, hoping the pain will one day go away. Once you choose to forgive someone, then Christ can come and begin to heal you of your hurts. But healing cannot begin until you forgive (2000, p.222.)

This hardly has the ring of altruistic love. The goal in much of the majority position is to engage in forgiveness for the purpose of healing oneself and then possibly the offender. Enright confirms this notion, confronting the sins of people in a strange cost benefit analysis. This is seen in the decision of whether people should be confronted with their offensive behavior. He writes, “Would telling the person first that you were deeply hurt and second that you forgive help the offender, or would it be the cause of pain without any benefit”(p.192). This sounds much different from the words of Jesus who said, “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”(Matt. 5:24). According to Jesus we don’t get to make the decision when or whether or not to forgive sin. In fact the stark realities of His words would be for us not to even come back in His presence in worship until this work has been done.

This also brings forth the issue of timing and temperament. There is the false notion that forgiveness is an optional “gift” that we give to another. According to Enright, “We are not obligated to be merciful. Forgiveness is a gift given to someone who does not deserve it” (2001, p.37). Forgiveness for Enright is not only a choice, it comes with a convoluted look hinging on four phases, 20 guideposts and taking months an even years to complete (p.73).

Enright writes, “Forgiveness is a choice, one you are free to make or reject. Even if you begin, you can stop the process if forgiveness seems irrelevant or too painful for you. You can take it up again when you are ready” (p. 133). According to Matthew 5:24 and other Scriptures cited, forgiveness is not an option, it is a command. It is does not happen when we feel charitable enough, it is to happen when we become cognizant of an offense that needs to be reconciled. Nowhere in Scripture is the notion that forgiveness should be anything less than something that is urgent. Matthew 18:35 paints a picture of possible eternal jeopardy for those who purposely choose to withhold forgiveness

Also of concern is the idea that there is a division that takes place between forgiveness and reconciliation. Because one does not need to have repentance to have forgiveness, neither does one need to have reconciliation to have forgiveness (Enright and Fitzibbons, 2006, 41). This does not play well when it comes to human depravity. It permits us to forgive another without being reconciled with that person. It promotes the notion that we can experience wholeness without having anything at stake for another person. It plays to our depravity in allowing us to be ok with not being reconciled with the one who hurt us and excludes themselves from our lives. A depravity within us that could be genuinely “ok” with the idea that reconciliation will not happen! This is seen in the bulk of Worthington’s argument whose focus has little to do with releasing a sinner from his sin as it does in releasing the victim from the sinner.

The Alternative Model

So, what is the alternative? I believe in a model that would say, repentance brings forgiveness and forgiveness brings reconciliation. What if repentance does not come? Then forgiveness also cannot come. Does this not leave the injured party less than whole? The answer is yes and no.

When we are hurt by someone we are commanded to forgive. This is not optional. We are commanded to go and confront the offender. This is not optional. If they refuse, us we follow Matthew 18. In dealing with unbelievers we bring another willing party. This is about as far as the process would be allowed. If the party is a believer we bring it to the conclusion of Matthew 18. If they refuse us we do the only thing we can do and that is to surrender the issue to God.

Surrender is a biblical answer that many seem to have forgotten. In Romans 12: 18-20 Paul writes,

“If it is possible, as far as it depends on you live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge, I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing so you heap burning coals on his head.”

When repentance does not come we find healing and strength through casting our cares upon God knowing that He cares for us (1 Pet.5:7). God gives us the supernatural power to live our lives not crippled by the pain of our offenders. Why not total healing? I would argue it is not Christ-centered or consistent with the totality of humanity. First, it is not Christ-centered because to claim to be made whole when someone we love is spiritually hurting and in bondage to their sin. It is not the example of Jesus Christ who wept over Jerusalem in her continued unrepentant state (Lk.19:41). It is not the anguish that Paul felt for unrepentant Israel when he said, “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel (Rom.9:2-4).

Second, forgiveness without repentance is not consistent with humanity in the claim that emotional wholeness is always possible. Such a claim is a Gnostic ideal. Why should this one area of our lives be exempt from dependency on God’s sustaining grace when wholeness does not come to the man with one arm, the woman with mental retardation, the abandoned child whose family members were killed in a genocidal cleansing of ethic minorities, or the person who lives economically destitute due to the greed of a Wall Street inside trader. The truth in all of these areas is that restoration does not always come. What does come is the power of God’s Holy Spirit to allow us to move forward under the weight of a world that is relationally, physically, emotionally and spiritually broken. What comes to us is the ability to feel the same pain and the hurt of a sinful world, like Jesus did. To feel the world’s pain and not be swept away in it, but sanctified and sustained through it, becoming more like Christ and less like us. It means we, like Him, have something personally at stake in a lost world.

This model in its application is built on four basic principles; forgiveness is mandatory, urgent, dependant on repentance, and when repentance cannot be found surrender is opted for until it comes. This model allows us to walk with both the power of God for successful living and a sanctified sense of loss in our lives if needed.

Frederick Williams

April 26, 2020

Forgiving Forward, Fred Williams