Difference between revisions of "Forgiveness"

<p> There are three Hebrew words translated to forgive. </p> <p> 1. <i> kaphar </i> , 'to cover,' &nbsp;Deuteronomy 21:8; &nbsp;Psalm 78:38; &nbsp;Jeremiah 18:23 . It is also translated 'atonement.' </p> <p> 2. <i> nasa </i> , 'to bear,' take away [guilt]: used by Joseph's brethren when they asked him to forgive them, &nbsp;Genesis 50:17; and used of God as "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." &nbsp;Exodus 34:7; &nbsp;Numbers 14:18; and in describing the blessedness of the man "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." &nbsp;Psalm 32:1 . </p> <p> 3. <i> salach </i> , 'to pardon,' used only of the forgiveness that God gives. It is employed for the forgiveness attached to the sacrifices: "it shall be forgiven him." &nbsp;Leviticus 4:20,26,31,35; &nbsp;Leviticus 5:10,13,16,18; etc. It occurs in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple. &nbsp;1 Kings 8:30,34,36,39,50 . Also in &nbsp;Psalm 103:3; &nbsp;Jeremiah 31:34; &nbsp;Jeremiah 36:3; &nbsp;Daniel 9:19 . </p> <p> In the N.T. two words are used: ἄφεσις, from ἀφίημι, 'to send from, release, remit,' several times translated REMISSION;and χαρίζομαι, 'to be gracious, bestow freely, forgive.' Both words are applied to the forgiveness granted by God, as well as that between man and his fellow. </p> <p> There are two aspects in which forgiveness is brought before us in scripture. </p> <p> <i> 1. </i> The mind and thought of <i> God Himself </i> towards the sinner whom He forgives. On the ground of the sacrifice of Christ, God not only ceases to hold those who have faith in Christ's blood as guilty before Him, but His favour is towards them. "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." &nbsp;Hebrews 10:17 . Thus all sense of imputation of guilt is gone from <i> the mind of God. </i> "God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (ἐχαρίσατο, graciously forgiven). &nbsp;Ephesians 4:32 . So in the [[O.T., "I]]  will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely." &nbsp;Hosea 14:4 . </p> <p> <i> 2. </i> The guilty one is released, forgiven. "That <i> they may receive </i> forgiveness of sins." &nbsp;Acts 26:18 . "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions <i> from us </i> ." &nbsp;Psalm 103:12 . "Your sins are forgiven <i> you </i> for his name's sake." &nbsp; 1 John 2:12 . Hence it is true of all Christians, that their sins are forgiven. Another thought is included in the forgiveness of sins, namely, that having redemption by Christ, which brings into a new state, the whole guilty past is forgiven, removed from us, so that there is no hindrance to the enjoyment of that into which redemption brings. </p> <p> The <i> general principle </i> as to forgiveness is stated in &nbsp;1 John 1:9; "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins;" and to this is added, "and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This involves honesty of heart, whether in a sinner first coming to God, or in a child who has grieved the heart of the Father by sinning. The two aspects above referred to are here also. The faithfulness and righteousness <i> of </i> <i> God </i> in forgiving, and the cleansing <i> us </i> from all unrighteousness. God is faithful to His own blessed character of grace revealed in His Son, and righteous through the propitiation which He has made. </p> <p> <i> 3. </i> If a Christian is 'put away' from the assembly and is repentant, he is forgiven and restored. &nbsp; 2 Corinthians 2:7,10 . This of course is different from the act of God in forgiving sins, and may be called <i> administrative </i> forgiveness in the church; and if the act of discipline is led of the Spirit, it is ratified in heaven: cf. &nbsp;John 20:22,23 . This is entirely different from any pretended absolution that may be pronounced over poor deluded unconverted persons. </p> <p> <i> 4. </i> There is also a <i> governmental </i> forgiveness in connection with the government of God here below in time, both on <i> God's </i> part, and toward <i> one another. </i> &nbsp;Isaiah 40:1,2; &nbsp;Luke 17:3; &nbsp;James 5:15,16; &nbsp;1 John 5:16 . We are called upon to forgive one another; and if we indulge in a harsh unforgiving spirit, we must not expect our Father to forgive us in His governmental dealings. &nbsp;Matthew 6:14,15 . </p>

<p> ''''' for ''''' - ''''' giv´nes ''''' ( כּפר , <i> ''''' kāphar ''''' </i> , נשׂא , <i> ''''' nāsā' ''''' </i> , סלח , <i> ''''' ṣālaḥ ''''' </i> ; ἀπολύειν , <i> ''''' apolúein ''''' </i> χαρίζεσθαι , <i> ''''' áphesis ''''' </i> πάρεσις 1. Etymology </p> <p> Of the seven words, three Hebrew and four Greek, which are used to express the idea of forgiveness, the last two occur in this sense only once each. <i> ''''' Apoluein ''''' </i> (&nbsp;Luke 6:37 ) is used because of the analogy of sin to debt, and denotes the release from it. It has the meaning "forgiveness" in 2 Macc 12:45 also, in which passage the word for sin is expressed. In &nbsp;Romans 3:25 Paul uses <i> ''''' paresis ''''' </i> instead of the usual <i> ''''' aphesis ''''' </i> ̌ . The former means "putting aside," "disregarding," "pretermission"; the latter, "putting away" completely and unreservedly (Trench, <i> Synonyms of the New Testament </i> , section xxxiii). It does not mean forgiveness in the complete sense, and in the King James Version is incorrectly translated "remission." Nor does it mean that God had temporarily suspended punishment which at some later date He might inflict (Sanday on &nbsp;Romans 3:25 ). It was apparent that God had treated sins as though He had forgiven them, though in fact such an attitude on the part of God was without such a foundation as was later supplied by an adequate atonement, and so the apostle avoids saying that God forgave them. This passing over of sins had the tendency of destroying man's conception of God's righteousness, and in order to avert this Christ was set forth as a propitiation and God's disregard of sin ( <i> ''''' paresis ''''' </i> ) became a real forgiveness ( <i> ''''' aphesis ''''' </i> ); compare &nbsp;Acts 14:16; &nbsp;Acts 17:30 . <i> ''''' Charizesthai ''''' </i> is not found outside of the writings of Luke and Paul, and in the sense "to forgive sins" is peculiarly Pauline (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 2:7; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 12:13; &nbsp;Ephesians 3:2; &nbsp;Colossians 2:13; &nbsp;Colossians 3:13 ). It expresses, as no other of these words does, his conception of the graciousness of God's pardon. <i> ''''' Kāphar ''''' </i> (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 21:8; &nbsp;Psalm 78:38; &nbsp;Jeremiah 18:23 ) and <i> ''''' ṣālah ''''' </i> (&nbsp;Numbers 30:5 , &nbsp;Numbers 30:8 , &nbsp;Numbers 30:12; &nbsp;1 Kings 8:30 , &nbsp;1 Kings 8:34 , &nbsp;1 Kings 8:36 , &nbsp;1 Kings 8:39 , &nbsp;1 Kings 8:50 , etc.) are used only of Divine forgiveness, while <i> ''''' nāsā' ''''' </i> is used in this sense (&nbsp;Exodus 32:32; &nbsp;Numbers 14:19; &nbsp;Joshua 24:19; &nbsp;Psalm 25:18; &nbsp;Psalm 32:1 , &nbsp;Psalm 32:5; &nbsp;Psalm 99:8; &nbsp;Isaiah 2:9 ), and also of human forgiveness (&nbsp;Genesis 50:17; &nbsp;Exodus 10:17; &nbsp;1 Samuel 25:28 ). Remission (&nbsp;Matthew 26:28; &nbsp;Mark 1:4; &nbsp;Luke 1:77; &nbsp;Luke 24:47; &nbsp;Acts 2:38; &nbsp;Acts 10:43; &nbsp;Hebrews 9:22; &nbsp;Hebrews 10:18 ) and blotting out (&nbsp;Psalm 51:1 , &nbsp;Psalm 51:9; &nbsp;Isaiah 43:25; &nbsp;Jeremiah 18:23; &nbsp;Acts 3:19 ) are synonyms of forgiveness, and to understand it fully such words as save, justify, reconcile and atonement should also be considered. </p> 2. [[Pagan]] and Jewish Ideas <p> Forgiveness was not a pagan virtue. The large-souled man might disregard offenses in cases where he considered them beneath his notice, but to forgive was weak-spirited (F. W. Robertson on &nbsp;1 Corinthians 4:12 ). Even in the Old Testament, man's forgiveness of his fellow-man is infrequently mentioned. In every case the one asking forgiveness is in a position of subserviency, and is petitioning for that to which he has no just right (&nbsp;Genesis 50:17; &nbsp;Exodus 10:17; &nbsp;1 Samuel 15:25; &nbsp;1 Samuel 25:28 ). The Imprecatory Psalms attest the fact that forgiveness of enemies was not esteemed as a virtue by Israel. They could appeal to the law which enjoined upon them to seek neither the peace nor the prosperity of their avowed enemies (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 23:6; compare &nbsp;Ezra 9:12 ). Jesus gave the popular summing-up of the law and not its exact words when he said, "Ye have heard that it was said ... hate thine enemy" (&nbsp;Matthew 5:43 ), and this certainly does represent their attitude and their understanding of the teaching of the Scriptures. </p> 3. The Teaching of Christ <p> Christ taught that forgiveness is a duty. No limit can be set to the extent of forgiveness (&nbsp;Luke 17:4 ) and it must be granted without reserve. Jesus will not admit that there is any wrong so gross nor so often repeated that it is beyond forgiveness. To Him an unforgiving spirit is one of the most heinous of sins (Bruce, <i> Parabolic Teaching </i> , 376ff). This is the offense which God will not forgive (&nbsp;Matthew 18:34 , &nbsp;Matthew 18:35 ). It is the very essence of the unpardonable sin (&nbsp;Mark 3:22-30 ). It was the one blemish of the elder son which marred an otherwise irreproachable life (&nbsp;Luke 15:28-30 ). This natural, pagan spirit of implacability Jesus sought to displace by a generous, forgiving spirit. It is so far the essence of His teaching that in popular language "a Christian spirit" is not inappropriately understood to be synonymous with a forgiving disposition. His answer to Peter that one should forgive not merely seven times in a day, but seventy times seven (&nbsp;Matthew 18:21 , &nbsp;Matthew 18:22 ), not only shows that He thought of no limit to one's forgiveness, but that the principle could not be reduced to a definite formula. </p> 4. [[Conditions]] of Forgiveness <p> Jesus recognized that there are conditions to be fulfilled before forgiveness can be granted. Forgiveness is part of a mutual relationship; the other part is the repentance of the offender. God does not forgive without repentance, nor is it required of man. The effect of forgiveness is to restore to its former state the relationship which was broken by sin. Such a restoration requires the coöperation of both parties. There must be both a granting and an acceptance of the forgiveness. Sincere, deep-felt sorrow for the wrong which works repentance (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 7:10 ) is the condition of mind which insures the acceptance of the forgiveness. Hence, Jesus commands forgiveness when the offender turns again, saying, "I repent" (&nbsp;Luke 17:3 , &nbsp;Luke 17:1 ). It was this state of mind which led the father joyfully to welcome the Prodigal before he even gave utterance to his newly formed purpose (&nbsp;Luke 15:21 ). </p> 5. The [[Offended]] Party <p> It is not to be supposed, however, that failure to repent upon the part of the offender releases the offended from all obligation to extend forgiveness. Without the repentance of the one who has wronged him he can have a forgiving state of mind. This Jesus requires, as is implied by, "if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts" (&nbsp;Matthew 18:35 ). It is also implied by the past tense in the Lord's Prayer: "as we also have forgiven our debtors" (&nbsp;Matthew 6:12 ). It is this forgiving spirit which conditions God's forgiveness of our sins (&nbsp;Mark 11:25; &nbsp;Matthew 6:14 , &nbsp;Matthew 6:15 ). In such a case the unforgiving spirit is essentially unrepentance (&nbsp;Matthew 18:23-35 ). "Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most Divine?" </p> <p> The offended is to go even farther and is to seek to bring the wrongdoer to repentance. This is the purpose of the rebuking commanded in &nbsp;Luke 17:3 . More explicitly Jesus says, "If thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone" (&nbsp;Matthew 18:15-17 ). He is to carry his pursuit to the point of making every reasonable effort to win the wrongdoer, and only when he has exhausted every effort may he abandon it. The object is the gaining of his brother. Only when this is evidently unattainable is all effort to cease. </p> <p> The power of binding and loosing, which means forbidding and allowing, was granted to Peter (&nbsp;Matthew 16:19 ) and to the Christian community (&nbsp;Matthew 18:18; &nbsp;John 20:23 ). It clearly implies the possession of the power to forgive sins. In the case of Peter's power it was exercised when he used the keys of the kingdom of heaven (&nbsp;Matthew 16:19 ). This consisted in the proclamation of the gospel and especially of the conditions upon which men might enter into relationship with God (&nbsp;Acts 2:38; &nbsp;Acts 10:34 ). It was not limited to Peter only, but was shared by the other apostles (&nbsp;Matthew 16:19; &nbsp;Matthew 18:18 ). Christ left no fixed rules the observance or non-observance of which would determine whether one is or is not in the kingdom of God. He gave to His disciples principles, and in the application of these principles to the problems of life there had to be the exercise of discriminating judgment. The exercise of this judgment was left to the Christian community (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 2:10 ). It is limited by the principles which are the basis of the kingdom, but within these principles the voice of the community is supreme. The forgiveness here implied is not the pronouncing of absolution for the sins of individuals, but the determination of courses of conduct and worship which will be acceptable. In doing this its decisions will be ratified in heaven (Westcott on &nbsp;John 20:23 ). </p> <p> That there is a close analogy between human and Divine forgiveness is clearly implied (&nbsp;Matthew 5:23 , &nbsp;Matthew 5:14; &nbsp;Matthew 6:12; &nbsp;Mark 11:25; &nbsp;Luke 6:37; &nbsp;Colossians 1:14; &nbsp;Colossians 3:13 ). God"s forgiveness is conditional upon man's forgiveness of the wrongs done him, not because God forgives grudgingly but because forgiveness alone indicates that disposition of mind which will humbly accept the Divine pardon. </p> 6. Divine and Human Forgiveness <p> Repentance is a necessary ingredient of the fully developed forgiveness. There is no essential difference between the human and the Divine pardon, though the latter is necessarily more complete. It results in the complete removal of all estrangement and alienation between God and man. It restores completely the relationship which existed prior to the sin. The total removal of the sin as a result of the Divine forgiveness is variously expressed in the Scriptures: "Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back" (&nbsp;Isaiah 38:17 ); "Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea" (&nbsp;Micah 7:19 ); "I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more" (&nbsp;Jeremiah 31:34 ); "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions" (&nbsp;Isaiah 43:25 ); "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us" (&nbsp;Psalm 103:12 ). Ideally this same result is attained in human forgiveness, but actually the memory of the sin remains with both parties as a barrier between them, and even when there is a complete restoration of amity the former state of alienation cannot entirely be removed from memory. When God forgives, however, He restores man to the condition of former favor. [[Release]] from punishment is involved, though Divine forgiveness is more than this. In most cases the consequences, which in some instances are spoken of as punishment, are not removed, but they lose all penal character and become disciplinary. Nor does the forgiveness remove from human mind the consciousness of sin and the guilt which that involved, but it does remove the mistrust which was the ground of the alienation. Mistrust is changed into trust, and this produces peace of mind (&nbsp;Psalm 32:5-7; &nbsp;Romans 5:1 ); consciousness of the Divine love and mercy (&nbsp;Psalm 103:2 ); removes fear of punishment (&nbsp;2 Samuel 12:13 ); and awakens love to God. </p> 7. Forgiveness and Justification <p> Paul rarely uses the term "forgiveness," but in its place prefers justification. They are to his understanding practically synonymous (Stevens, <i> Theology of the New Testament </i> , 418). He preferred the latter, however, because it was better fitted to express the idea of secure, present and permanent acceptance in the sight of God. It connoted both a complete and a permanent state of grace. In popular thought forgiveness is not so comprehensive, but in the Biblical sense it means no less than this. It removes all of the guilt and cause of alienation from the past; it assures a state of grace for the present; and promises Divine mercy and aid for the future. Its fullness cannot adequately be conveyed by any one term or formula. </p> <p> Divine, like human, forgiveness is always contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions. It must be preceded by repentance and a firmly fixed intention not to repeat the offense. In addition to this, one was required to conform to certain legal or formal acts before the assurance of pardon was his. These acts were expressive of the sinner's state of mind. They consisted of certain acts of sacrifice in the pre-Christian times and of baptism during the ministry of John the Baptist (&nbsp;Mark 1:4; &nbsp;Luke 3:3 ) and under Christ (&nbsp;Acts 2:38; &nbsp;Acts 22:16 ). These acts are never regarded as in any sense a <i> quid pro quo </i> in return for which the benefit of forgiveness is granted. It is an act of pure grace on God's part, and these acts are required as expressions of the man's attitude toward God. The state of mind required in order to obtain the gift of forgiveness is that to which the Prodigal Son came (&nbsp; Luke 15:17-19 ), and that of the sinner who went to his house justified rather than the [[Pharisee]] (&nbsp;Luke 18:9-14 ), because he realized that forgiveness was to him an act of pure favor. </p> <p> There was real and actual forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament times as well as since Christ. [[Certain]] passages have been construed to teach that the Law provided only for a passing over or rolling back of sins, and that there was not then an actual forgiveness. </p> 8. Old Testament Teaching <p> The sacrifices prescribed by the Law were not adequate atonements, so that there was constant necessity of yearly remembrance of sin (&nbsp;Hebrews 10:3; compare &nbsp;Leviticus 16:21 ). The atonement of Christ is, however, of permanent adequacy, and became retroactive in the sense that it unified in Christ the Divine arrangement for saving mankind in all ages (&nbsp;Hebrews 11:40 ). "The passing over of the sins done aforetime" (&nbsp;Romans 3:25 ) does not imply a partial or apparent forgiveness, but means that they were forgiven, though seemingly without adequate recognition on the part of God of their heinous character. In view of God's righteous character men might naturally have expected punishment, but instead the offenders were spared (compare &nbsp;Acts 14:16; &nbsp;Acts 17:30 ). No expression in the Old Testament suggests any inadequacy of the forgiveness extended to Israel, but on the other hand many passages may be quoted to show how rich and full it was deemed to be (Ps 103; &nbsp;Micah 7:19; &nbsp;Isaiah 38:17 , &nbsp;Jeremiah 31:34 ). </p> 9. Limitations of Forgiveness <p> Two passages seem to limit God's forgiveness. They are Christ's discussion of the unpardonable sin (&nbsp;Matthew 12:31 , &nbsp;Matthew 12:32; &nbsp;Mark 3:28-30; &nbsp;Luke 12:10 ), and the one which mentions the sin unto death (&nbsp;1 John 5:16; compare &nbsp;Hebrews 6:4-6 ). In the former passage there is mentioned a sin which has no forgiveness, and in the latter, one on behalf of which the apostle cannot enjoin prayer that it be forgiven, though he does not prohibit it. In both cases the sin is excluded from the customary forgiveness which is extended to sins of all other classes. </p> <p> The act of the Pharisees which led Jesus to speak of the unpardonable sin was the attributing of a good deed wrought by Him through the Spirit of God (&nbsp;Matthew 12:28 ) to Beelzebub. No one could do such a thing unless his moral nature was completely warped. To such a person the fundamental distinctions between good and evil were obliterated. No ordinary appeal could reach him, for to him good seemed evil and evil seemed good. The possibility of winning him back is practically gone; hence, he is beyond the hope of forgiveness, not because God has set an arbitrary line of sinfulness, beyond which His grace of forgiveness will not reach, but because the man has put himself beyond the possibility of attaining to that state of mind which is the essential condition of Divine forgiveness. It is practically certain that John did not have any particular sinful act in mind when he spoke of the sin which is unto death. See Blasphemy . </p> <p> There is no possible way of determining what specific sin, if any, he refers to. Probably the same principle applies in this case as in that of the unpardonable sin. God's forgiveness is limited solely by the condition that man must accept it in the proper spirit. </p> <p> There are some passages which seem to imply that forgiveness was the principal Messianic task. This is suggested by the name given to the [[Messiah]] during His earthly career (&nbsp;Matthew 1:21 ), and by the fact that He was the Saviour. The remission of sins was the preparation for the advent of the Messiah (&nbsp;Luke 1:77 ), and repentance and remission of sins were the prerequisites to a state of preparation for the kingdom. </p> 10. Christ's Power to [[Forgive]] Sins <p> It is not surprising, therefore, that we find Jesus laying claim to the power to forgive sins. This provoked a bitter controversy with the Jews, for it was axiomatic with them that no one could forgive sins but God only (&nbsp;Mark 2:7; &nbsp;Luke 5:21; &nbsp;Luke 7:49 ). This Jesus did not question, but He would have them infer from His power to forgive sins that He was the possessor of Divine power. Jesus asserted His possession of this power on two occasions only, though it has been insufficiently inferred from &nbsp;John 5:14; &nbsp;John 8:11 that He was accustomed to pronounce absolution upon all of those He healed. On one of these occasions He not merely asserted that He possessed the power, but demonstrated it by showing Himself to be the possessor of the Divine gift of healing. The impostor might claim some such intangible power as the authority to forgive sins, but he would never assert the possession of such easily disproved power as the ability to heal the sick. But Jesus claimed both, and based His claim to be the possessor of the former on the demonstration that He possessed the latter. God would not support an impostor, hence, his aid in healing the paralytic proved that Jesus could forgive sins. The multitude accepted this logic and "glorified God, who had given such authority unto men" (&nbsp; Matthew 9:2-9; compare &nbsp;Mark 2:3-12; &nbsp;Luke 5:18-26 ). </p> <p> On the other occasion when His possession of this power was under discussion (&nbsp;Luke 7:36-50 ), He offered no other proof than the forgiven woman's deep gratitude and love. One expression that He uses, however, has raised some discussion as to the relative order in time of her love and forgiveness (&nbsp;Luke 7:47 ). Did she love because she was forgiven, or vice versa? [[Manifestly]] the forgiveness precedes the love, in spite of the fact that &nbsp;Luke 7:47 seems to assert the opposite, for this is the bearing of the parable of the Two Debtors (&nbsp; Luke 7:41-43 ), and the latter part of &nbsp;Luke 7:47 has the same implication. It is clear that she had previously repented and had been accepted, and the anointing of Jesus was an outpouring of her gratitude. The phrase of &nbsp; Luke 7:47 , "for she <i> loved much </i> ," is proof of the greatness of her sin rather than a reason why she was forgiven. In both cases where Jesus forgave sins, He did so because the state of mind of the person forgiven showed worthiness of the blessing. To this as a condition of forgiveness there is no exception. Christ's prayer on the cross (&nbsp;Luke 23:34 ) would not avail to secure the pardon of His murderers without their repentance. </p> 11. The [[Need]] of an Atonement <p> Though forgiveness is on God's part an act of pure grace prompted by His love and mercy, and though He forgives freely all those who comply with the condition of repentance and abandonment of sin, yet this does not dispense with the necessity of an atonement. The parable of the Prodigal Son was spoken to teach the freedom of God's forgiveness and acceptance of returning sinners, and the duty of men to assume the same attitude toward them. This much it teaches, but it fails to set forth entirely God's attitude toward sin. With reference to the sinner God is love and mercy, but with reference to sin He is righteous, and this element of God's nature is no less essential to Him than His love, and must be considered in any effort to set forth completely the doctrine of God's forgiveness of sinners. The atonement of Christ and the many atonements of the Law were manifestations of this phase of God's nature. </p> 12. The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement <p> The idea of an atonement is fundamental in the teachings of the New Testament (&nbsp;Romans 5:10; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:18-21; &nbsp;Colossians 1:21 ). It is very clearly implied in such terms as reconciliation and propitiation, and is no less present in pardon, remission and forgiveness. The doctrine of the atonement is not developed by Jesus, but it is strongly hinted at and is unmistakably implied in the language of &nbsp;Matthew 20:28; &nbsp;Matthew 26:28; &nbsp;Mark 10:45; &nbsp;Luke 24:46 , &nbsp;Luke 24:47 . John the Baptist's salute, "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" (&nbsp;John 1:29 ), also implies it. In the writings of the apostles it is repeatedly and clearly affirmed that our forgiveness and reconciliation to God is based upon the death of Christ. "In none other is there salvation" (&nbsp;Acts 4:12 ); through Him is the redemption (&nbsp;Romans 3:24 ); God set Him forth to be a propitiation (&nbsp;Romans 3:25 ); through Him "we have now received the reconciliation" (&nbsp;Romans 5:11 ); "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:19 ); "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf" (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:21 ); and "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (&nbsp;Galatians 3:13 ). Such citations might be greatly multiplied. That which was so perfectly accomplished by the offering of Christ was in an analagous though imperfect way accomplished by the sacrifices required by the Law. It had "a shadow of the good things to come" (&nbsp;Hebrews 10:1 ). </p> <p> The unvarying effect of sin is to produce an estrangement between the injurer and the wronged. The nature of God is such and the relationship between Him and man is of such a character that sin brings about an alienation between them. It is this presupposition of an estrangement between them which renders the atonement necessary before forgiveness can be extended to man. This estrangement must be removed, and the alienation be transformed into a reconciliation. In what then does the alienation consist? </p> <p> The sin of man produces a changed attitude toward each other on the part of both God and man. God holds no personal pique against man because of his sin. The New Testament language is very carefully chosen to avoid any statement which would seem to convey such a conception. Yet God's holy righteousness is such that He cannot be indifferent to sin. His wrath must rest upon the disobedient (&nbsp;John 3:36; &nbsp;Romans 1:18 ). It is not merely impersonal. It is not enough to say He hates the sin. Man's unrighteousness has not merely alienated him from God, but God also from him. The word "enemies" ( <i> ''''' echthroı́ ''''' </i> ) of &nbsp;Romans 5:10 is passive, and means the object of God's enmity (Sunday, at the place). It was because of this fact that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation to show His righteousness because of the passing over of sins done aforetime (&nbsp; Romans 3:25 , &nbsp;Romans 3:26 ). God's passing over, without inflicting punishment, the sins of pre-Christian times had placed in jeopardy His righteousness; had exposed Him to the implication that He could tolerate sin. God could not be true to Himself while He tolerated such an imputation, and so instead of visiting punishment upon all who sinned - which would have been one way of showing His righteousness - H e set forth Christ to death ("in his blood"), and in this way placed Himself beyond the imputation of unrighteousness while it enabled Him to show mercy to sinners. The effect of sin upon man was to estrange him from God, to lead him farther and farther away from his Maker. Each successive sin produced a greater barrier between the two. Now the atonement was designed to remove the cause of this estrangement and restore the former relationship between God and man. This too, it has been observed, is the purpose of forgiveness, so that the atonement finds its completion in forgiveness. It should be noted that the reconciliation originates with God and not with man (&nbsp;Romans 3:25; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:19 ). God woos man before the latter seeks God. The effect of the atonement on man is to reconcile him, attract him, to God. It shows him God's love for man, and the forgiveness, in that it removes sin completely, takes away the estranging factor between them and so wins man back to God. "We love, because he first loved us." At the same time the atonement is such a complete expression of both the love and the righteousness of God that, while on the one hand it exhibits his yearning for man, on the other it shows that He is not tolerant toward sin. In the atonement of Christ, therefore, is the meeting-place and the reconcilement of God's holy horror of sin and the free bestowal of forgiveness upon penitent believers. </p>

<p> "the pardon of any offense committed against us. We are not apt to entertain any permanent or incurable ill will against the author of injuries to others, and why should we be irreconcilable when injuries have been done to ourselves? To love our enemies, or rather not to hate our enemies, is a duty which no guilt can annul, no injury efface. We are not required to love our enemies as our friends; but, when any injury has been done us, we are to endeavor to regard it with so much resentment as any just and impartial person would feel on hearing it related, and no more. To revenge injuries is to retaliate evil for the sake of retaliation. We are, all weak, frail, and sinful creatures. None of us passes through one day without feeling that he requires forgiveness from his God, and too often also from his fellow- creatures. Mercy is all our hope, forgiveness our constant prayer. In such a state, should we not pity and assist each other? Does not mutual weakness call for mutual forbearances? Weak, frail, and sinful as we are, we all hope, through the merits of Christ, to attain the happiness of heaven; and can creatures who, after a few short years, expect to, be forever united in the presence of God, to be liberated from all unruly passions, and to live together forever in heavens, in peace, and joy, and everlasting love can such creatures hate each other on earth? can they add to the sorrows of this state of trial, and spread more thorns in the path of life by acts of malice and revenge? can they risk their own eternal happiness by denying to each other that forgiveness without which they must not dare to hope that they shall be themselves forgiven? We know, from the express declaration of our Savior, that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will our heavenly Father forgive us. Christ estimated virtues by their solid utility, and not by their fashion or popularity, and hence he prefers the duty of forgiveness to every other. He enjoins it more frequently, with more earnestness, and under a greater variety of forms and he adds this weighty and peculiar circumstance, that the forgiveness of others is the sole condition on which we are to expect or even ask from God forgiveness for ourselves. This preference is justified by the superior importance of the virtue itself. The feuds and animosities which exist in families and among neighbors, which disturb the intercourse of human life, and collectively compose half its misery, have their foundation in the want of a forgiving temper, and can never cease except by the exercise of this virtue. Let us endeavor to forgive, that we may not be afraid to ask forgiveness. Let us take care so to pray for forgiveness, that our prayers may not justify and increase our condemnation. Let us remember the amazing condescension of the Son of God, in '''''‘''''' taking upon him the form of a servant,' and thence learn humility. Let us represent to our minds the terms of our salvation, in order to excite us to repentance. Let us adore the infinite love of our Redeem, who laid down his life for his enemies,' and let this be the pattern of our charity" (Fellowes, Body of Theology, 2:210-213; Paley, [[Moral]] and Polit. Philosophy, 1:269; Warner, System of [[Divinity]] and Morality, 2:356). '''''—''''' Robinson, Theological Dictionary, s.v.; American Presbyterian Review, October 1867, art. 2. </p> <p> "Some confound things that are separate and different the act of forgiving with the act of loving with approbation. '''''—''''' Repentance and confession are indispensable, when one has intentionally injured us in any way, to restore him to our fellowship and approbation. But what is a necessary condition of this is not a necessary condition of forgiving. Blending these two things together, and thinking of them as if they were one and inseparable, has doubtless caused some to differ in opinion from others who clearly discern the proper distinctions. It is a mistaken idea that in the matter of forgiveness we are strictly to imitate God the Father, and not forgive those who trespass against us until they repent and ask our pardon. God is clothed with the responsibilities of moral government over his creatures, while we are not. If he had made it our duty to revenge our own wrongs, and administer just punishment to the doers of the wrong, then it would be right and wise to follow his example in that particular. But the case is far otherwise. The Lord not only relieves us of that responsibility, but has commanded us not to usurp his prerogatives: '''''‘''''' [[Avenge]] not yourselves.' No doubt there are certain cases in civil and family governments in. which the outward acts of forgiveness. should be held in abeyance until forgiveness is duly sought. The offender in himself has no right to forgiveness until he seeks it in the true spirit of repentance. In the outward expressions of this, parents should often wait for the outward signs of penitence in their children. The same. may be true sometimes in other relations as between brothers and sisters and other domestic and civil relations. Hence there is an objective and a subjective view to be taken of the duty of forgiveness '''''—''''' an act in the heart, and an appropriate outward and formal expression of it. The former should be performed at once, to prevent greater evil to ourselves, while the latter may wisely be delayed until the proper occasion for it arrives. One may say he forgives, when in reality he does not forgive from the heart; so we may forgive from the heart long before we proclaim it to the parties concerned" (Zion's Heralds, January 2, 1867). </p>