ABSTRACT: The forgiveness God displays towards sinners is conditioned upon repentance. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus seems to teach his disciples to follow the same paradigm of conditional forgiveness. A close reading of the relevant passages reveals this paradigm is theologically consistent, hermeneutically reasonable, and exegetically satisfactory. Through both direct instruction and parables, Jesus taught his disciples to be like his heavenly Father by forgiving those who repent.
For our ongoing series of feature articles for pastors and Christian leaders, we asked Matt Ferguson (ThM, Bethlehem College & Seminary), lead pastor of Hunters Ridge Community Church in Hutchinson, MN, to make a case for conditional forgiveness in the teaching of Jesus.
Should Christians forgive those who have wronged them and have not yet repented of their offense? On the one hand, many say unconditional forgiveness powerfully displays God’s love while benefiting the forgiver emotionally. On the other hand, especially when the wrongdoers persist in their offense, unconditional forgiveness raises serious questions regarding truth, justice, the nature of true love, and whether this approach reflects God’s posture toward sinners. In the end, the most important consideration is how the Bible itself answers this question.
Wrestling with whether to forgive the unrepentant requires comparing the various passages on interpersonal forgiveness throughout the New Testament.1 Some of the passages do not mention repentance, suggesting to some that forgiveness may be unconditional. Other passages seem to make repentance a prerequisite for forgiveness. How are we to reconcile them?
Recently, theologians have generally proposed three interpretive paradigms for understanding these passages, each leading to a distinct position on whether repentance is a prerequisite of forgiveness.2 The first is unconditional forgiveness,3 where forgiveness is extended regardless of repentance. For advocates of this view, passages that do not mention repentance indicate that forgiveness is always unconditional, and passages that do mention repentance merely illustrate reconciliation.
The second position is what I call two-dimensional forgiveness,4 which asserts two aspects or dimensions of forgiveness in Scripture: a vertical dimension between the victim and God and a horizontal dimension between the victim and the wrongdoer. The vertical dimension involves unconditional, unilateral forgiveness within the victim’s heart, while the horizontal dimension pertains to the conditional, bilateral steps toward reconciliation that occur after repentance. The presence or absence of repentance determines which dimension is being addressed in any given passage.5
The third position is conditional forgiveness, where forgiveness and reconciliation are closely associated and granted only to those who repent of their offense. Proponents of this view argue that passages that mention repentance demonstrate that it is a prerequisite for forgiveness, and passages that do not nevertheless presuppose it.6
The present essay argues that conditional forgiveness is most persuasive because it is (1) theologically consistent, as it reflects God’s forgiveness of repentant sinners; (2) hermeneutically reasonable, as it follows sound principles for harmonizing similar texts that have minor differences with one another; and (3) exegetically satisfying in its interpretation of the pertinent forgiveness texts. Elaborating on these three arguments, the essay explains how conditional forgiveness displays the love and joy of God.
Theologically Consistent
Forgiveness is first and foremost God’s action toward his estranged people. As the story of redemption unfolds, Scripture teaches us God’s grammar of repentance and forgiveness; we learn forgiveness from him. Our forgiveness of others is then modeled after his divine pattern (Matthew 6:12, 14–15; 18:33; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13).7
Since we look to God for our pattern of forgiveness, we should consider how God’s forgiveness is conditioned on repentance. Both the Old and New Testaments reveal that he loves sinners but forgives only the repentant.8 This pattern implies, first, that we should follow God’s example of forgiveness by graciously loving all but forgiving only the repentant. It also implies that withholding forgiveness from the unrepentant does not necessarily mean the victim is unloving or sinfully embittered.
A close examination of key forgiveness texts in the Synoptic Gospels reveals the divine grammar of conditional forgiveness.
Hermeneutically Reasonable
I will focus my points on hermeneutics and exegesis by limiting their scope to Jesus’s teaching on interpersonal forgiveness in the Synoptic Gospels. These Synoptic passages provide an ideal test case for harmonizing the forgiveness texts due to their similarity with one another and because they all report the same teaching from a single speaker, Jesus himself.
A basic principle of sound biblical interpretation holds that clearer or more detailed texts should inform our understanding of those that are less clear or detailed.9 This is especially important to apply when harmonizing passages that record the same collection of teachings, events, or topics.10
When a passage on forgiveness is silent about repentance, we should turn to other passages that explicitly speak about it to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the whole.11 John Piper argues that good exegesis requires that we
read with the authors’ all-encompassing vision of reality. . . . There are aspects of an author’s intention that are sometimes not explicitly included in the very words you are reading, but which you need to know in order to interpret him correctly, and which you may learn from other parts of Scripture, especially other things the same author has written.12
Following Piper’s logic, a proper hermeneutical paradigm for reading the forgiveness passages where repentance is not explicit — Matthew 6:12, 14–15; Luke 6:37–38; 11:4; 23:34a — is to read them in light of what those same authors do say about repentance (Matthew 18:15–35; Luke 17:3–4). And we read a text like Mark 11:25 in the light of the clearer passages from Matthew and Luke. When we read passages where repentance is not mentioned, we can presuppose its relationship to forgiveness from passages where it is present.
Exegetically Satisfying
Following this logic leads us to evaluate pertinent texts where forgiveness is conditioned on repentance and to harmonize them with other texts from the Synoptics.
‘If He Repents, Forgive’
Luke 17:3–4 offers perhaps the clearest example of conditional forgiveness. Jesus explicitly frames the relationship between repentance and forgiveness with an if-then structure: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” He reinforces this with an illustration: “If he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” The implication is straightforward: Forgiveness is contingent on repentance, and when a brother repents, a Christian must forgive.
Some may be concerned that this conclusion misses Jesus’s point or commits the logical fallacy of “denying the antecedent.” In other words, since Jesus only addresses what to do if repentance occurs, we cannot infer what to do if it doesn’t occur. However, drawing a negative implication by denying the antecedent can be valid when contextually warranted.13 In this passage, three contextual factors and one intertextual factor support denying the antecedent, thereby inferring a conditional reading.
First, the dual clauses in verse 3 are parallel obligations:14 Just as it would be improper to rebuke someone who has not sinned, it is likewise improper to forgive someone who has not repented. We can thus read this dual obligation as “rebuke the sinner; forgive the repentant.”15 Second, the preceding warning in verses 1–2 concerning the judgment that is associated with sin implies that repentance is necessary to avert sin’s consequences — unrepentant sin necessarily carries judgment, and sin that is repented of results in forgiveness. Third, verse 4 reinforces the importance of repentance by repeating the condition:16 Each act of repentance precedes each act of forgiveness.17 Finally, the parallel passage in Matthew 18:15–20 presents two explicit outcomes — restoration through repentance or exclusion through unrepentance — suggesting that Luke’s account assumes the same conditional framework with two potential outcomes, depending on the presence or absence of repentance.
Taken together, these factors indicate that forgiveness is to be extended to the repentant and not to the unrepentant.
Parable of Forgiveness
Matthew 18:15–35 forms a unified discourse on forgiveness, linking the process of personal and ecclesial reconciliation (verses 15–20) to Jesus’s exchange with Peter and the parable of the unforgiving servant (verses 21–35).
Verses 15–20 outline a graduated process for addressing sin within the community: private confrontation, then confrontation by witnesses, and finally church involvement. Each step assumes the goal of repentance and reconciliation. Yet if the wrongdoer “refuses to listen,” he is ultimately to be treated as an outsider, signaling that reconciliation and forgiveness is withheld in the absence of repentance. The conditional structure makes forgiveness contingent on the wrongdoer’s response, mirroring Luke’s summarized account (cf. Matthew 18:15 with Luke 17:3).
Furthermore, Peter’s question concerning how often to forgive naturally follows from the previous section and presupposes the same context of repentance. Jesus’s command to forgive “seventy times seven”18 does not overturn the condition of repentance previously established but expands the extent of forgiveness when repentance occurs. Jesus does not need to repeat the instructions concerning repentance; they are assumed in Peter’s question. Reading Jesus’s words as positing unconditional forgiveness simply because Peter or Jesus did not say “when he repents” places an undue burden on the text and ignores the immediate context and the linguistic connections between verses 15, 21, and 35.
Finally, Jesus’s parable illustrates the pattern presupposed by Peter and Jesus in verses 15–20. The master forgives a servant’s immense debt after the servant pleads for mercy — a fitting way to portray repentance. When that servant refuses to forgive another servant who pleads for mercy, the master revokes the forgiveness he extended to the first servant. The parable concludes with a warning that God will do likewise to those who do not forgive, showing that divine forgiveness is ultimately conditional. This presents a contextual conundrum for those who acknowledge, on the one hand, that the passage teaches that Christians are to forgive as God forgives, yet insist, on the other hand, that Christians extend unconditional interpersonal forgiveness. God’s forgiveness in this passage is ultimately conditioned (verses 34–35) and follows a plea for mercy from the debtor (verses 25–27). God’s forgiveness is gracious and generous but not unconditional.19
A Conditional Paradigm for Exegesis
Matthew 18:15–35 and Luke 17:3–4 offer a robust paradigm for reviewing and harmonizing the remaining passages because they establish a clear relationship between repentance and forgiveness. One should interpret forgiveness passages that do not mention the wrongdoer’s response (e.g., Matthew 6:12, 14–15; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:37; 11:4; 23:24a) in light of those passages that do condition forgiveness on the wrongdoer’s response.
The Lord’s Prayer
On an initial reading, the verses about forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:12; Luke 11:4), together with what is sometimes called the “principle of reciprocity” in Luke 6:37–38 (i.e., God treats you the way you treat others), may seem to present forgiveness as unconditional. However, a close reading harmonizes these passages with what we have already seen Matthew and Luke teach concerning the conditional nature of forgiveness.
Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12). The conjunction “as” (hōs) establishes a comparison of manner, indicating that divine forgiveness mirrors the forgiveness one extends to others. Jesus reinforces this relationship in Matthew 6:14–15 when he states, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” The “if” clauses make the conditional nature explicit: God’s forgiveness depends upon how one forgives others. And how do disciples forgive others? The same way they desire God to forgive them — namely, they forgive whenever others ask for forgiveness. The need for repentance is implicit in the prayer itself as the disciple confesses sin to God for forgiveness.
Luke 11:4 conveys the same concept in abbreviated form: “Forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.” The phrase “for we ourselves forgive” suggests that forgiving others substantiates the petition for divine forgiveness.20 The phrase “everyone who is indebted to us,” then, means all those who are indebted and come to us for forgiveness in the same manner that we ourselves go to God for the forgiveness of our debts.
Taken together, these passages reflect a conditional understanding of forgiveness: Disciples confess their sins to God to receive forgiveness, and in turn they give the same forgiveness to others when they likewise repent. Those who do not forgive the repentant should not expect God to forgive them when they repent (see Matthew 18:23–35).
Forgive (If They Repent)
Mark 11:2521 is the most difficult text for the conditional position to address.22 Two arguments lead us to read it through a conditional paradigm in which Jesus’s command to forgive presupposes the wrongdoer’s repentance.
First, the broad context indicates that the divine forgiveness granted by Jesus has been conditioned upon repentance (Mark 1:4, 15), faith (Mark 2:5–11), not blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28–30), and properly turning from sin (Mark 4:12). In the immediate context, Jesus has thoroughly rebuked those who turned the temple into a den of robbers, and he cursed the fig tree as a sign of judgment (Mark 11:12–20). Because Jesus teaches the importance of practicing forgiveness right after pronouncing judgment on those who have corrupted the temple, it seems reasonable that Jesus is speaking of forgiving only those who repent of their sin.
Second, suggesting that Jesus means his disciples must forgive unconditionally in order to be conditionally forgiven by the Father posits an odd tension in the text. It violates God’s typical standard of treating his people the way he desires them to treat others. The more natural interpretation is to presuppose repentance since Mark 11:25 closely resembles the reciprocity found in Matthew 6:14; 18:35; and Luke 6:37. If a Christian desires that God forgive his sin when he repents, then he must forgive others when they repent.
As we have already seen in the parable of Matthew 18:23–35, the obligation of the first servant to forgive becomes apparent in the text after the second servant pleads with him. Jesus’s command to forgive in Matthew 18:22 and his warning in Matthew 18:35 mirror the command and promise of Mark 11:25. In both Matthew and Mark, forgiveness presupposes that the wrongdoer’s repentance has already occurred, and that the victim is therefore obligated to forgive. If this seems like reading repentance into the text, it should be noted that this is no worse than reading no repentance or unconditional forgiveness into it. All we are explicitly told about the wrongdoer is that he has not yet been forgiven by the one praying, who is now obligated to forgive. We are not told whether the wrongdoer is repentant or not. Based on the similar passages reviewed in Matthew and Luke, it appears that we are obligated to forgive only those wrongdoers who have repented. Presupposing repentance in Mark 11:25 makes the most sense of the material found in the Synoptic Gospels.
‘Father, Forgive Them’
Another text frequently used to argue for unconditional forgiveness is Luke 23:34a.23 Two key observations indicate that this prayer should not be used to make such an argument.
First, it is important to note what Jesus does and does not say. He does not declare that he forgives his unrepentant enemies but instead prays that the Father would forgive them. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus explicitly forgives individuals who come to him in faith and repentance (Luke 5:20; 7:48). Here, he does no such thing, and it is better to understand Jesus as loving and praying for his enemies (Luke 6:35) rather than demonstrating unconditional forgiveness. This is a petition for divine forgiveness, not a pronouncement of personal forgiveness. We should subsequently expect this forgiveness to follow the normal pattern of divine forgiveness — namely, that repentance precedes forgiveness.
Second, the surrounding context emphasizes that forgiveness follows repentance. One thief on the cross mocks Jesus; the other turns to him in faith and receives Jesus’s pardon (Luke 23:39–43). After the resurrection, Jesus commissions his followers to proclaim “repentance for the forgiveness of sins . . . to all nations” (Luke 24:47). Peter echoes this commission in Acts 2:38, saying, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Consequently, Jesus’s prayer on the cross expresses his desire that God grant his enemies forgiveness following their repentance, not apart from it.
Forgiving and Rejoicing Like God
The Bible never commands believers to forgive those who remain unrepentant. Nevertheless, it does call them to love their enemies, pray for those who persecute them, leave vengeance to God, and entrust themselves to God (Matthew 5:43–48; Romans 12:18–19; 1 Peter 4:19). So, what does biblical forgiveness look like? Conditional forgiveness showcases the beauty of the gospel by reflecting God’s own loving pursuit of sinners and his joy in forgiving them when they repent. Jesus illustrates this love and joy in the parable of the lost sheep and his subsequent instructions to his disciples (Matthew 18:10–20).
Jesus instructs his disciples to confront a sinning brother privately “between you and him alone” in hopes of “[gaining] your brother” (Matthew 18:15).24 Love does not forgive the unrepentant, but it does pursue them in hopes of repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “Nothing can be more cruel than the tenderness that consigns another to his sin. Nothing can be more compassionate than the severe rebuke that calls a brother back from the path of sin.”25 This loving pursuit of another’s repentance is beautifully illustrated in the example Jesus shares about the lost sheep, which portrays God’s love toward wandering sinners and the love that should characterize God’s people.
In the parable, a man leaves his ninety-nine sheep to go after his one lost sheep so that it does not perish (Matthew 18:10–14; see also Luke 15:1–7). The disciples are to lovingly go to a sinning brother like the man lovingly goes to find his sheep. Similarly, as the shepherd rejoices to find his sheep, that same joy should characterize Jesus’s disciples when they seek out sinners and those sinners repent. Forgiveness in that moment becomes a living reflection of God’s own joy in forgiving the repentant. Conditional forgiveness is not a cold refusal to forgive but rather a warm and patient pursuit of another’s repentance. It expresses compassion that longs for another’s good and rejoices in forgiveness.26
Imagine two Christian friends, Mark and John. One day, Mark hears from a mutual friend that John has said some mean-spirited, hurtful things behind his back, the sort of slanderous remarks one should not overlook as merely rude or petty. After a few hours of wrestling with genuine sadness and anger, Mark resolves to approach John graciously. He prays that John’s heart will be ready to repent and that his own heart will be ready to forgive. At this point, Mark is operating in love and grace but has not yet forgiven John.
They meet at a coffee shop to discuss the matter, but John tries to justify himself and eventually leaves unrepentant. With this unresolved sin between them, Mark continues to pursue John. If John persists in his unrepentance, then Mark must leave vengeance in God’s hands while simultaneously praying for John’s good. If Mark sees John around town, he will bless him, though not as someone who has forgiven John, as if nothing stands between them. Sin separates, and pretending that it does not would hurt both Mark and John.
One week later, John reaches out to Mark to apologize. He repents and expresses genuine sorrow. He includes a few unnecessary excuses with his apology, but Mark sets those aside out of sympathy and love and happily forgives John the way God, through Christ, has forgiven Mark despite his less-than-perfect repentance. Now the sin that stood between the two friends has been properly repented of and properly forgiven. In this scenario, no boundaries need to be set, nor must any further consequences unfold, though John should recognize that it may take time for Mark to fully trust him again.
Such forgiveness mirrors the way God forgives us in Christ when we repent, confessing to him our sins (1 John 1:9). May we learn to withhold forgiveness in love, grant it with joy when repentance occurs, and in both withholding and granting, reflect God’s heart toward sinners.
This article summarizes and adapts material from my ThM thesis. Most arguments found here are presented in greater depth in the thesis. Matthew William Ferguson, “Forgiving the Repentant: An Exegetical Case for Conditional Forgiveness in Matthew 18:15–35 and the Synoptic Gospels” (ThM thesis, Bethlehem College and Seminary, 2025). ↩
For the sake of clarity, I have limited this discussion to more recent authors, since ascertaining precise historical views on the relationship between repentance and interpersonal forgiveness is often difficult. ↩
I find it helpful to think of the unconditional position as being argued from one or more disciplines or emphases, the theological, therapeutic, or textual. Although any given author will employ multiple approaches, usually one approach receives primary emphasis. Examples of a theological approach include L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis (Eerdmans, 1995) and Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace (Zondervan, 2005). For a therapeutic approach, see Lewis B. Smedes, Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts That We Don’t Deserve (Simon & Schuster, 1984); Everett L. Worthington, “Just Forgiving: How the Psychology and Theology of Forgiveness and Justice Inter-Relate,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 25, no. 2 (2006): 158–68; and Everett L. Worthington, Forgiveness and Reconciling: Bridges to Wholeness and Hope, rev. ed. (IVP, 2003). For a textual approach, see Randy Nelson, “Exegeting Forgiveness,” American Theological Inquiry 5, no. 2 (2012): 35–58; or, in specific instances, John MacArthur, who oscillates between an unconditional and two-dimensional approach. John MacArthur, The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness (Crossway, 1998). ↩
The designation “two-dimensional” is not widely used or claimed by those who generally agree with its propositions. Usually, proponents will describe themselves as neither fully conditional nor unconditional but as following a biblically balanced position situated between the two extremes. For a fuller treatment of the two-dimensional position, see Ferguson, “Forgiving the Repentant,” 38–44, 114–49. Some familiar two-dimensional proponents are Timothy Keller, Forgive: Why Should I And How Can I? (Viking, 2022); D.A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Crossway, 2002); David Powlison, Good and Angry: Redeeming Anger, Irritation, Complaining, and Bitterness (New Growth, 2016); Gary Inrig, Forgiveness: Discover the Power and Reality of Authentic Christian Forgiveness (Discovery, 2005). ↩
For simplicity’s sake, I refer to the unconditional position and the two-dimensional position collectively as unconditional since both positions share similar arguments. ↩
A few familiar conditional proponents include Chris Brauns, Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds (Crossway, 2008); Jay E. Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving: Learning to Forgive One Another God’s Way (Calvary, 1994); Kevin DeYoung, “Following Up on Forgiveness,” The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/following-up-on-forgiveness/; Ardel B. Caneday, “Lavishly Forgive Sins in Order to Be Forgiven: Jesus’ Parable of the Unmerciful Servant,” in The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics 5 (2017): 17–32. ↩
For a brief argument supporting this, see Bryan Maier, Forgiveness and Justice: A Christian Approach (Kregel, 2017), 64–70. ↩
See 1 Kings 8:47–50; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Psalm 32:5; Isaiah 1:16–18; 55:7; Jeremiah 36:3; Ezekiel 33:11–16; Joel 2:12–13; Jonah 3:5–10; Mark 4:12; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 8:22; 10:43; 26:18; 1 John 1:9. ↩
Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9. Also, “What one stated more briefly and obscurely the other complements and explains more clearly.” Martin Chemnitz, Examination on the Council of Trent, trans. Fred Kramer (Concordia, 1987), 2:747. ↩
A helpful illustration of this principle comes from the resurrection narratives. Both Matthew 28:2 and Mark 16:5 mention one angel at Jesus’s tomb, whereas Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 mention two. The report of two angels does not contradict the reference to one; rather, it reflects a difference in the authors’ selective emphases. Though Matthew and Mark are silent about the presence of a second angel, we can presuppose the angel’s presence from Luke and John. More information in one text can help us read a comparable text with less information and fill in any gaps, providing there is no contradiction. Matthew’s and Mark’s silence concerning the second angel is not a positive claim that no second angel was present; therefore, there is no contradiction with the accounts in Luke and John. ↩
Many unconditional and two-dimensional proponents argue that since some forgiveness passages do not explicitly mention repentance, forgiveness must therefore be unconditional. This reasoning is flawed for several reasons. First, it imposes an unwarranted standard we do not apply in other texts or doctrines, expecting that every relevant qualification or caveat always be present. Second, concluding that repentance is irrelevant to forgiveness because of its absence in a passage is to make an argument from silence, a weak form of argumentation. Third, when conditions like repentance are absent or unstated, it does not follow that unconditionality is present. A passage with unstated conditions for forgiveness is not the same as a positive teaching of unconditional forgiveness. Framing it otherwise either commits a category error or involves an unwarranted association jump. A passage that communicates unlimited forgiveness does not necessarily teach unconditional forgiveness. ↩
John Piper, Expository Exultation: Christian Preaching as Worship (Crossway, 2018), 189, 191. ↩
For a discussion on when negative inferences may be logically valid, see Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles, 3rd ed., ed. Trent Dougherty (St. Augustine’s, 2010), 264–71. ↩
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, PNTC (Eerdmans, 2015), 478. ↩
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Baker Academic, 1994), 1,387. ↩
Charles Edwards Powell, “The Semantic Relationship Between the Protasis and the Apodosis of New Testament Conditional Constructions” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000), 356. ↩
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Eerdmans, 1978), 643. ↩
The recent examination of numerous ancient Greek texts by Lucas Gregorio Moncada III indicates a high likelihood that the Matthean formula was a common Greek mathematical formula denoting “seventy times seven” and not “seventy-seven times.” Lucas Gregorio Moncada III, “Seventy Times Seven or Seventy-Seven Times: The Mathematical Formula in Matthew 18:22 and LXX Genesis 4:24,” BBR 33, no. 1 (2023): 17–33. ↩
Two prolific forgiveness authors who have argued that God’s forgiveness is, at least in some sense, unconditional are Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), and L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). ↩
For a discussion on the logical relationship between interpersonal forgiveness and divine forgiveness, see C.F.D. Moule, “‘. . . As we forgive . . .’: A Note on the Distinction Between Deserts and Capacity in the Understanding of Forgiveness,” in Donum Gentilicium, ed. E. Bammel et al. (Clarendon, 1978), 68–77. ↩
Mark 11:26 is likely a scribal addition modeled after Matthew 6:14–15 and intended to balance the promise in verse 25b. Whether verse 26 is original or not is a moot point, as the warning that verse 26 contains can easily be inferred as the converse of the promise in verse 25b. See Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC (Word, 2001), 194. ↩
For a more in-depth explanation of this difficult passage, see Ferguson, “Forgiving the Repentant,” 134–43. ↩
The authenticity of this text is debated. For a summary of the textual critical issues, see the succinct summaries of the scholarship in Vee Chandler, Biblical Boundaries of Forgiveness: A Biblical and Ethical Study of Forgiveness as It Relates to Repentance, Reconciliation, and Justice (Wipf & Stock, 2021), 309–22. See also Nathan Eubank, “A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a,” JBL 129, no. 3 (2010): 521–36. It is worth noting that Stephen offers a similar statement at his death, and the authenticity of his prayer is not questioned (Acts 7:60). ↩
This instruction is rooted in Leviticus 19:16–17 and reflective of Second Temple Jewish literature, which saw private correction as a respectful and loving pursuit of another’s repentance. See Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Augsburg, 2001), 451; Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino (Lexham Academic, 2023), 896–900; James L. Kugel, “On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17,” HTR 80 (1987): 43–61; W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew 8–18, ICC 2 (T&T Clark, 1991), 786. ↩
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. John W. Doberstein (Harper & Row, 1954), 107. ↩
Withholding personal forgiveness from the unrepentant mirrors healthy church discipline. Church discipline withholds ecclesial forgiveness in the hope that it will awaken repentance and result in restoration (Matthew 18:15–20; 2 Corinthians 2:5–10, cf. John 20:23). ↩
Desiring God