The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins on the
basis of atoi
,;ll (III
f Christ is imself. ■' and a neither ■. The in the ference
Ihe rourth ( ;o,|iel contain-. |ia..a;ji reference in it)-'" to the I'.-ischaj hnnl of these comes fiom the lips oi th. nearest approach to smh teaihitiL; institution of the Lord's Su|ipei an to His blood as shed lor the reinisMon i,f sins in Ml ■lV,-\ also perlia]is in the directions -i\en to the \|io-iie- in l.k 'IV'. By the time ot" M. i'liiil, e;.ilie-i t:|iis(lcs (he doctrine of tlieatonme .hiili of ('lirist as the ground of the forgiveness of sins was fairly developed, and the question is, How far liad progress been made in this direction before the death of Christ took place ? The answer appears to be that— as with the doctrines of the Incarnation and a Future Life in the OT— fore- shadowings only had been given, hints and indica- tions of a revelation which could not be clearly and definitely made until Christ's work was com ■
618
FORGIVENESS
FORGIVENESS
plete and the full gift of tlie Spirit bestowed. A reference is found in Mt 20-* to the giving up of life by the Son of man ' as a ransom for many,' but the Apostles could not in Christ's lifetime under- stand at all tlie luc.l f<.r His death and the full meaning of tlic -l^lllli^^ of His blood upon the cross; and its ((uinixiiui with the forgiveness of sins dawned n|«pn thiin only gradually under the illumination of tlie promised Spirit.
3. One of the most noteworthy features in Christ's ethical teaching was His inculcation of the diitij of almost, unlimited forgiveness of man bi/ man. The standard thus set up was practically new. In Pagan ethics to revenge an injury and punish an enemy to the utmost was manly, to forgive was mean-spirited. Some attronts might be passed over by the magnanimous man, simply because it was beneath his dignity, or disturbing to his equanimity, to notice them. But the idea of not only abstaining from vengeance, but actually restoring an offender to a relation of kindly regard, on the ground of human brotherhood and for tlie sake of helping an erring one to regain his forfeited position, was quite alien to the spirit of ancient morals.
Christ taught not only the duty of forgiveness on repentance, but that it was to be unlimited both in quality and in quantity. No oftence was so serious, no repetition of offences so excessive, that forgiveness might be withheld, provided only that penitence were shown. The former of these points is not enlarged on by Christ, but it is involved in the proverbial completeness of the phrase ' unto seventy times seven ' (Mt 18~). Such forgiveness of injuries was based upon two funda- mental principles of Christian ethics : («) the duty of repressing all personal resentment, closely con- nected with the virtues of meekness and humility ; and (6) that love to all men, including enemies, which — paradoxical as it might appear— Christ enjoined as fundamentally incumbent on all His disciples (Mt 5"). The 'love' and forgiveness thus inculcated do not depend upon personal merits, for they are to be exercised even towards the unthankful and the evil. But the one neces- sary condition — repentance — is insisted on, else the moral character of forgiveness is lost. For, as already e.xplained, forgiveness is a relation between persons, and if it he included as a duty in a moral code, it must imply an ethical relation, such as is altogether lacking if ei'il is condoned, or its seriousness slighted. Hence the offender must, so far as in him lies, put away the evil thing, if it is to be no longer a barrier between him and one whose course is determined by the law of righteous- ness. The truly moral nature of Christian forgive- ness is brought out in Lk 17', where it is closely joined with the duty of reproving sin — ' If thy brotlier sin, rebuke him ; and if he repent, forgive him.' With this may be compared Lv 19", where the reproof of an evil-doer is spoken of as a mark of love. Just as in the Law the righteous man is bidden to rebuke his neighbour and not ' bear sin because of him,' so under the gospel he is bidden to forgive the penitent wrong-doer, that he may help him to a better life.
The close connexion between God's forgiveness of man and man's forgiveness of injuries against himself is brought out in Mt 6'"'=, Lk ll-" ; see also Lk 6" and Mk 1 !"'•=«. In the last jiassage, as well as in Mt 5=^- ^, the duty of being ' in love an<l charity ^\'ith our neighbours,' and ' in perfect charity with all men,' is laid down as a condition of acceptable prayer to God. The reason is akin to that described above. Tliere are some states of mind in which a worshipper is not fit to pray, in which lie asks for blessings tliat he is not capable of receiving. The principle is not to be understood
as a kind of Divine lex talioii is, as in the parable of the Unmerciful Debtor (Mt IS^)— that a man does not deserve mercy himself, if he will not show it to others, though this is true and appeals to a natural sense of justice. Hat her is it to be understood that the unforgiving man shows essen- tial impenitence, or at best an uneducated con- science in respect of his relations with his fellows. A man who cherishes hardness of heart towards those who have injured him so oHends against the law of love that he cannot be received by the God of love, and cannot enjoy the restored relationship which he asks for in the Divine forgiveness, the whole significance of which is due to tlie supremacy of love. Or, as Beyschlag expresses it, 'he who would belong to the kingdom of love as a recipient must belong to it as an agent.' The merciful alone can obtain mercy, or rightly use it when it is granted to them.