It has been said that ' no permanent state of reconciliation ' was established under tlie old cove- nant ; that there was only such forgiveness for the past as might enable men to begin again to seek justification through the works of the law. It has also been maintained that the old covenant furnished only a ' passing over ' of sin, a ' closing the eyes' to it on the part of God — by which, though satisfaction was not made, tliough there was no real remission of sin, punishment was forgone. The consideration of these questions involves the whole subject of Atonement (wh. see); but it may be stated here that neither tlie national and individual experiences recorded in tlie OT, nor the words and general language used, seem to suggest any fundamental difference in the idea of forgiveness from that which we find in the NT. When St. Paul in a particular passage (Ro 3^) uses, with reference to sins committed by men living under the old covenant, a word (jrdpeiris) different from that ((50E<ris) which is in common use in the NT to express ' forgiveness,' he has in mind a different thought. He is arguing that because in former ages God had not exacted from men the punishment which was due for their sins (cf. Ac
• On this important term see Oa^. Heb. Lex. *.ii., also Driver, Dtut. 2U, 4'2Dt., and art. Pkopitiation.
l-l'", IT**), his forbearance had been misunderstood) he liad 'passed by' sins till the world was in danger of forgetting that he was a God of righteousness ; and the time had come for a signal exhibition of his liatred of sin in the propitiation made in Christ Jesus (see Ro 3^- ^ RV, the sense of the argument is lost in AV). With men such ' passing by might involve forgetting, it could not be the same aa ' forgiving ' ; with God it would be neither (see Trench, Synonyms, § xxxiii.). No argument with regard to the nature of forgiveness under the old covenant can be drawn from the passage. Indeed, so far as the relation between the individual and God is concerned, there is nothing to indicate that the forgiveness granted by God in the ex]ierience of his people before the coming of Christ was different in kind from that which Christ pro- claimed. A difference in the requirement oi it from men in their relations with one another, no doubt, may readily be detected between the teach- ing of the OT and the NT. It is here that the real development in the ethical teaching of the NT on the subject is to be found. The duty of forgiving injuries and wrongs committed against oneself or others cannot be said to occupy the (iro- minent place in the OT that it has in the teaching of Jesus. It must be recognized that in this respect there is a real distinction to be drawn. But true as it is that the revelation of the divine will and of the ideal of human life and character, the power of the whole revelation made in Christ, has im- measurably facilitated the individual's opportunity of conscious enjoyment of the divine forgiveness, and stimulated his readiness to bestow forgiveness in his measure upon others ; yet it is none the less true tliat the same forgiveness of sin was offered to previous generations of men — 'they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises.' The materials for deter- mining the idea of forgiveness are, however, so much richer in the NT than in the OT, tliat we turn to it rather than to the OT for the elabora- tion of the idea.
So closely, indeed, is the principle associated with the teaching and work of Christ, that for- giveness has been called ' Clirist's most striking innovation in mor.ality,' and tlie phrase a ' Chris- tian ' spirit is commonly regarded as synonymous with a disposition of readiness to forgive an injury. The pagan ideal of manly life was to succeed in doing as much good to your friends and as much injury to your enemies as possible ; and if it be not true tnat forgiveness was a virtue un known in the ancient world, it was at all events not one that was demanded or proclaimed as a duty by any ethical system. Indeed it is clear that without a sense of the need of personal holiness and the con- sciousness of guUt, without — in the widest meaning of the phrase — a conviction of sin, there could ha no true repentance, no sense of the need of forgive- ness. And such a conviction of sin neither Greek nor Roman religion produced.
The words which are used in the NT are the Gr. representatives of the Heb. words in the OT. We have, though rarely, the word (KoXt/TrTu) meaning 'cover' or ' hide ' (Ro 4', 1 P 4*, Ja S*", all quoted from LXX) ; and once, with reference to former times, the word for ' passing by ' (Ro 3''") ; but by far the commonest word is that which expresses the idea of 'sending away,' or 'letting go' or 'releasing' (506(711), which is rendered in this connexion either 'forgive,' 'forgiveness,' or 'remit,' 'remission.' The noun occurs in this sense eleven times in the synoptic Gospels (not at all in Jn) and Ac (Mt 26^, ^'Ik 1^ 3=^, Lk 1" 3' 24", Ac 2» 5^' 10« 13^ 26'8 ; eight times in Lk and Ac, a favourite word of St. Luke), and four times elsewhere (Eph 1', Col 1», He 922 W). In eleven of these instancei