Detailing Christian Forgiveness

The entire period of Lent invites us to dwell on the enormity of all this and to prepare ourselves for the solemnities of Holy Week which culminates in the triumph over death that was and remains the Resurrection – that ultimate and stupendous reality which grounds the joy of Easter. 

All of which means that we do well to ponder how we understand forgiveness and to begin to think through how we understand that specifically as Christians, and how that understanding may or may not relate to other approaches, be they secular or religious. 

Theories of forgiveness fall broadly into two families: secular accounts, which often seek to explain forgiveness in psychological, social, or even political terms without reference to God; and theological accounts, which locate forgiveness within a wider understanding of God’s action and the overarching economy of salvation. These broad approaches themselves break up into various sub-categories and can even overlap in terms of how and what they seek to explain. Yet they also differ quite profoundly upon such central matters as what they take forgiveness to be, why it matters, under what conditions it is appropriate, and how it relates to such other concepts as justice and equity.

In a rather extreme summary, contemporary secular approaches tend to agree that forgiveness is a response to moral wrongdoing, but can very much dispute what in the victim is changed – is it emotion, judgment, will, or a norm of some kind? And what conditions make that change justified or apt? Moreover, it is possible to divide secular approaches into those that are focused on emotion or judgment or even conceptions of normative-power relations. Yet further distinctions can then be made in respect of where the action, so to speak, is located; is it always in individuals or can it be understood in relation to a sociological group or even whole societies?

Christian thought may connect with some elements of all this, but ultimately and ineradicably embeds forgiveness in a profound, wider conceptual architecture that embraces creation, sin, cross, resurrection, and ultimate eschatological reconciliation. Forgiveness is therefore never simply a matter of the human but always about participation in God’s prior action and then forgiving action.

The Old Testament links divine forgiveness with the concepts of covenant, fidelity, mercy and love, while also making central such matters as authenticity and truth-telling, as well as right action. 

The New Testament then transforms the entire narrative and reframes forgiveness in light of God’s action, in Christ transcending and enabling our ultimate forgiveness before God, yet also comes down to sharply practical application in such ways as the call to love our enemies  as ourselves (Matthew 5), praying for persecutors, and forgiving just  “as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32).  Patristic, medieval, and later theologians then proceeded to integrate these commands with sacramental practice, and the later and more amplified doctrines of atonement.

These are large matters upon which we do well to dwell, and indeed, it is my hope that we can do so in a more extended way in the parish beyond the mere compass of Lent.

Thus we need to look more thoroughly at the different Christian understandings of forgiveness and atonement but also can benefit from looking at how others both in terms of the secular culture, and indeed other faith traditions such as Judaism and Islam, approach forgiveness as this will likely only deepen our understanding of what we ourselves believe. 

By way of short prelude to that it is highly illuminating to consider how the Jewish tradition has understood forgiveness.

If we seek to compare and contrast Jewish and Christian understandings of forgiveness, we are bound to see both continuities and profound differences.

Both traditions are rooted in the shared Old Testament and yet we differ on such matters as  the conditions under which forgiveness is appropriate, and about who may forgive what, as well as about how divine and human forgiveness are related.

Classical Jewish thought distinguishes several closely related but non‑identical notions: 

• Teshuvah (repentance/return) – the inner and practical process of turning back to God and right conduct, which includes recognizing the wrong, remorse, ceasing the behavior, making restitution, and resolving not to repeat it.
• Mechilah, which is remission of a debt or claim by the human victim; which is also interpersonal forgiveness.
• Selichah, which is divine pardon and God’s forgiveness.
• Kapparah, which is atonement, the “wiping away” of sin’s stain and the restoration of full covenantal “at‑one‑ment.” And here of course Yom Kippur stands out as the Day of Kapparah, not of selichah or mechilah.

This vocabulary already signals a structural point: repentance (teshuvah), interpersonal forgiveness (mechilah), divine pardon (selichah), and atonement (kapparah) are distinguishable stages or aspects, even if in practice they are interconnecting.

The halakhic tradition further differentiates between sins in respect of being:

• Between a person and God (bein adam la‑Makom), which means failures in prayer, ritual, or commandments – that do not directly harm another. These can be addressed by teshuvah and Yom Kippur, together with prayer, charity, and good deeds.
• Between a person and another person (bein adam le‑chavero), which covers harms to others. For these, Yom Kippur “does not atone until he appeases the other person” (Mishnah Yoma 8:9).

All of which makes clear that God does not forgive interpersonal wrongs until the human victim has been sought out and has granted mechilah.

Because of this structure, classical halakhah is comparatively strict about when forgiveness is appropriate.

​Christian understandings, while they can be diverse in various ways, nonetheless share three basic aspects:

The New Testament reads the Old Testament through the lens of Christ’s death and resurrection. God’s forgiveness is seen as decisively enacted in Christ “for us and for our salvation,” and Christians are called to “forgive one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Interpersonal forgiveness is grounded in and patterned upon this divine act.

Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels press forgiveness beyond those within the Christian community itself and seek reconciliation even to the point of loving the enemy (turning the other cheek and blessing persecutors). The parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18) and the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”) even point to making human readiness to forgive a sign and condition of having received God’s mercy.

Moreover, there is in Christian thought even the possibility of unilateral forgiveness as a Christian duty, even when the offender is not repentant, drawing on Christ’s prayer from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Nonetheless, both traditions draw on the Hebrew Bible’s portrayal of God as “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,” who “forgives iniquity and transgression and sin” while not clearing the guilty lightly (Exodus 34). The tension between mercy and justice is shared.

Yet when we think about the logic of atonement we see real divergence:

In Judaism, kapparah is the state of restored “at‑one‑ment,” achieved after teshuvah and, in biblical times, sacrificial rites, and in rabbinic Judaism through prayer, charity, study, and Yom Kippur. There is no single, once‑for‑all, incarnate mediator whose death universally secures atonement.

In Christianity, atonement is concentrated christologically: “once for all” in the cross and resurrection. Divine forgiveness is not merely a response to human repentance but is decisively anchored in Christ’s representative work; repentance is the Spirit‑enabled appropriation of that gift.

This means that, from a Christian perspective, divine forgiveness fundamentally precedes and grounds human response; whereas from a Jewish perspective, divine and human movements are more tightly coordinated within covenantal and halakhic patterns of return.

All of which I hope – even in this brief compass—can serve to show why we have much upon which to dwell profitably in the future as we seek to think further about the immensity of forgiveness and the unique fullness and blessing of it brought to us in Christ.