LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
The Language of Forgiveness in the Scriptures
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
10/2022
The Language of Forgiveness in the Scriptures
The Old Testament
There are two principal terms for forgiveness in the Old Testament with which every
counselor must familiarize himself. The first is salach. This term is the basic one, and (therefore)
the most important of the two. The fundamental idea in it is “to lighten by lifting.” It becomes
connected with forgiveness when it is used to describe God lightening a person’s life by lifting
the load of guilt from his shoulders. It is always used of God forgiving man (never man forgiving
man) and is translated either “to forgive” or “to pardon.” The word is translated in the LXX
(Septuagint) by the Greek word, aphiemi (this word will be discussed below) but usually by
hileos eimi or hilaskomai, “to be propitious to” (cf. Luke 18:13).
The term has connotations of restoration of an offender to divine favor. There is always
some flavor of atonement that adheres to it. Frequently it is quite closely connected to
atonement: cf. Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 14, 15, 18. Atonement, in these passages, leads
to forgiveness. I shall return to that theme at a later point. Hebrews 9:22 provides the classic
New Testament commentary: “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.”
There are other sorts of references in which the word is used. To get the feel of salach,
open your Bible to the following verses and follow the term through each reference. Some of
these, you will discover, are very vital passages:
1. Numbers 14:19, 20 (interestingly, here even though sins are forgiven, consequences of
sin follow; this question must be treated later).
2. Nehemiah 9:17
3. Psalm 103:3
4. Psalm 130:4. Here, notice, the opposite of forgiveness is keeping sin in mind. This is an
important consideration, as we shall see presently.
5. Isaiah 55:7
6. Jeremiah 31:34. This critical passage is the one to which Christ refers when instituting
the Lord’s Supper. Forgiveness, here, as the synonymous parallelism indicates, means not
remembering sins any more (cf. Ps. 130:4).
There are other passages to which we could turn, but these, doubtless, are sufficient to
convey the richness and importance of this vital word.
The second term is nasa. It, too, is translated “to forgive” or “to pardon.” The meaning is
very close to salach; its special significance is “to take away by lifting up (or off).” While salach
refers to the relief obtained from the lifting of the burden (of guilt), nasa focuses on taking
away by lifting up. In other contexts, the word is used to speak of lifting up the eyes, head, face
(Gen. 4:7), voice, heart or hand, of carrying a child, clothes, etc., of bearing fruit (as a tree), and
of suffering, enduring. Of course, of importance to us is the idea of bearing away (or carrying
off) sin.
Passages that give the flavor of the word include:
1. Genesis 50:17. Note that this word includes man to man as well as God to man
forgiveness. In this it differs markedly from salach.
2. Exodus 34:6,7. Here God is forgiving man of iniquity, transgression and sin (note that
the words for forgiveness are not used exclusively with any one term for sin).
3. Psalm 32:1, 5. Forgiveness here is parallelled to covering. The original image in nasa
(pardon by taking away) is eclipsed by the one in the context (pardon by covering). These are
two ways of achieving the same end result: removal of sin. Comparing vss.1 and 5, it is
significant to note that sin is covered by God only when it is uncovered by man.
4. Hosea 1:6. The opposite of not forgiving = showing pity (cf. Ex. 34:6). There is a
warmth about the word.
Perhaps even with these Old Testament studies alone it is beginning to become quite clear
that the concept of forgiveness is rich. In the Scriptures the depth and breadth of the idea of
forgiveness is vast; it is many faceted.
The New Testament
Again, in the New Testament, we shall study two words: aphiemi and charizomai. Of these,
aphiemi is the principal term for forgiveness and in the LXX is related largely to salach. These
Greek terms differ, yet have similarities. We shall consider aphiemi first.
Basically, aphiemi means “to let go, release or remit” (lit., to go off again). Similarity to the
removal, lifting, etc., already discovered in the O.T. words is apparent. Yet, the figure varies
slightly, as we shall see. The fundamental usage (as opposed to mere etymology) is for speaking
of debts “forgiven” or cancelled (it can also be used for the release of a prisoner—where the
idea of debt—he has a debt to pay for his crime—has not altogether vanished). The term is
used in all sorts of legal-financial connections in the papyri, highlighting the concept of debt
paid (or cancelled) in full. The Rosetta Stone (196 b.c.) has this phrase: eis telos apheken (“total
remission” [of certain taxes]). The usage is quite typical.
The New Testament uses the word in this way, both literally and figuratively (cf. Matt.
18:27, 32; 6:12). The word aphiemi almost demands that the word “debt” follow it. When other
words, like “trespasses” (Luke 7:41, 42) occur, they must be thought of in terms of the liabilities
incurred. Trespasses place one in a place of debt; one is liable to God and likely to be called to
account at any time; he is in a position where this obligation hangs over him at all times. In Acts
8:22, where we read of forgiving “the thoughts of hearts,” the idea is sinful thoughts. Sin is
plainly considered debt, obligation leading to liability incurred. The release, remission, relief of
an obligation removed is paramount in the concept.
Aphesis is the noun form of aphiemi. It means dismissal, release, forgiveness. Eleven times
it is followed by the word “sins” (hamartia), and once by “tresspass” (Col. 1:14). Cf. Mark 3:29;
Ephesians 1:7; Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18; Luke 4:18. (Here, and in the LXX of Lev. 25:10, etc., it
speaks of the release from obligations during the year of jubilee.)
The other New Testament term is charizomai. This word comes from charis (favor, grace),
and means to bestow forgiveness freely or unconditionally. The forgiveness is always
undeserved by the one who receives it (he deserves to pay the penalty or debt). The gift of
forgiveness cost the giver, not the receiver (cf. Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13; Luke 7:42, 43—here
the debt was cancelled freely).
Perhaps a note about the English word, forgive, also is in order. The prefix for (not fore) is a
negative that in one way or another negates the word to which it is affixed (in this case, the
word give). It means “not to give,” to refrain from giving (one what he deserves—a punishment
or penalty of some sort). Of course, for other than illustrational purposes, the etymology of this
term carries no real significance for this study.
The Meaning of Forgiveness
At this point, in a preliminary way, I wish to discuss the meaning of forgiveness. I say in a
preliminary way, because what I shall do here will be rough and not precise. Much that I say will
have to be qualified, amplified, systematized and developed as we go along. I am not yet ready
to define forgiveness in one crisp sentence, or even in a precisely worded paragraph. What I
want you to discover, above all at this point, is that forgiveness is a large, multi-dimentional
concept in the Bible.
Let us begin by contrasting forgiveness with its opposites. Often the best way to
understand an idea is to discover what it is set over against. (Cf. heart—in the Bible we have
seen how illuminating it is to discover that heart is set over against lips, hands, words, outer
appearance, not over against the head.) How does the Bible speak of unforgiving, non-forgiving,
refusal to forgive? To begin our study, we shall turn to
1. Mark 3:28–30:
Let Me assure you that all sorts of sins and blasphemies spoken by the sons of men will be
forgiven them, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven [lit.,
“never have forgiveness”], but rather will be held guilty for committing an eternal sin (this He
said because some had claimed, “He has an unclean spirit”).
This is the account of the famous unforgivable sin (for more details on this, cf. chap. 37,
The Christian Counselor’s Manual). According to Jesus, “all sorts of sins”3 are forgivable. Only
this one is unforgivable vs. 29). The phrase “sons of men” is a simple variant for “persons” or
“human beings”; the word “blasphemy” means insulting speech. The unforgivable sin is not
adultery, masturbation, divorce, etc. (as some counselees think), but, as the context makes
clear, something quite different. In verse 30 we are told that it has to do with blaspheming
(insulting) the Holy Spirit by calling Him an “unclean spirit.” Nothing could offend Him more. If
there is one thing that characterizes the Holy Spirit, it is His holiness. He is the Spirit of holiness
(Rom. 1:4) Who Himself is holy by nature and is the Source of all holiness among men and
angels. Holiness is separateness (from sin so as to make one uniquely God’s).
Persons concerned about committing the unforgivable sin have never done so; persons
who sin against the Holy Spirit oppose Him by turning God’s values upside down—they call evil
good and good evil (cf. Isa. 5:20). They claim that the Holy Spirit is an unclean spirit (i.e., a
demon). But, enough for the background. Let us see what (by contrast) the passage has to say
about the meaning of forgiveness.
According to verse 29, they will never have forgiveness (aphesis). But what will they have?
The second, contrasting portion of the verse tells us: “but rather [they] will be held guilty of an
eternal sin.” An eternal sin is a sin that for eternity will never be forgvien, and its effects—
eternal punishment—will be unending. That is the concrete result. But notice the rest of the
clause: “will be held guilty of.” That is the construct that stands over against forgiveness as its
opposite. One who is unforgiven is one held guilty; he is liable4 for his sin. The word, enochos,
used here, means to be liable for or deserving of something (cf. 14:64, where the usage of the
word is plainly seen: liable or deserving of death). A forgiven person, then, is one who is no
longer held liable for his sin. He cannot be held accountable (cf. Rom. 3:19). Clearly, according
to this usage, something is held against someone until he is forgiven. But when forgiveness
occurs, he is freed from that condition; nothing is held against him any more. That liability to, or
threat of punishment has been lifted, removed; it has been let go and has gone away.
2. Acts 7:60:
At the conclusion of Stephen’s speech, as he is being stoned to death, he prays, “Lord,
don’t hold this sin against them.” That is a prayer for forgiveness. Though the word forgiveness
does not occur, there can be no mistaking the intent of the prayer; it is a sturdy echo of Christ’s
prayer on the cross (“Father, forgive them…”—Luke 23:34). Here, Stephen’s exact words invite
investigation. The prayer is negative; it is a request for God not to do the opposite of
forgiveness, i.e., to hold their sin against them. Literally, the phrase, me stese autois, means
“lay it not to them,” “set it not down to them,” or “let it not be made to stand against them.”
So, forgiveness (again) is seen as a condition in which one’s sins are no longer charged against
him.
In contrast, turn to II Chronicles 24:21, 22. Zechariah, like Stephen, is dying; he too is being
stoned to death. But listen to his prayer: “Jehovah, look upon it and require it.” The word
darash, translated “require,” means “to demand justice,” “avenge” or “vindicate.” It is to
require a payment for what was done. The prayer is the opposite of Stephen’s. Zechariah asks
God to hold them liable for what they are doing, to call them to account for it and to pay them
back for it. Stephen asks for the opposite. Because the circumstances are so similar—even to
the uttering of a prayer for the enemy—the contrast in the content stands out all the more.
What made the difference? The Lord’s prayer from the cross had intervened; Stephen had a
new model.
The result of forgiveness, then, is freedom from liability. A new outlook on life comes to the
forgiven person. According to Jeremiah 50:20, even if one searches for sins, he won’t find them
when God pardons (cf. Ps. 103:12). All remembrances, traces of liability are gone. The forgiven
person has a brand new record—freed completely from his past. Unforgiven persons carry the
past as a part of their present; the liability of unforgiven sin hangs over their heads. The future
belongs to forgiven people; others drag their contaminating past into the future, wherever they
go, and destroy it for themselves. They are always in jeopardy. Forgiveness secures both the
present and the future.
3. Hosea 8:13; 9:9:
Hosea declares that God will remember their guilt and visit their sins. Remembering and
visiting are paralleled; they are used synonymously. And, in comparing the two passages, it is
clear that visiting is used synonymously with punishing. To visit, in the Bible, is to come in
blessing or in judgment (as here). The word never means making house calls. as some have
thought (see my Shepherding God’s Flock, vol. I, pp. 75–81, for a thorough study of the term).
Here remembering, visiting, punishing all speak of God’s judgment on sinners. Remembering is
used as it is in III John 10. John is saying not merely that he will keep in mind what Diothrophes
has done, but that he will deal with him on that basis; i.e., he will hold him liable for his evil
deeds and punish him (perhaps by excommunication, perhaps in other ways) for them. The
threat of such punishment is lifted for the forgiven person.
The Basis for Forgiveness
(Some Theological Considerations)
Having said that forgiveness is free to the receiver,5 I immediately balanced that remark
with the truth that forgiveness costs the one who grants it. Let’s explore this fact and some of
its ramifications.
First, it is crucial to recognize that God’s forgiveness isn’t an overlooking of sin, a by-passing
of liability or a winking at guilt. It is not a pardon that is easy to give and costs nothing.
Forgiveness was purchased at the cost of Christ’s life. Forgiveness cost God His only Son.
Hebrews 9:22 (cf. 10:18) declares that there is no forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood.
This is bedrock; it may be neither doubted nor questioned by Christian counselors (remember
how closely atonement is linked to forgiveness in Lev. 4, 5).
Of special importance is Matthew 26:28, where we are told that at the institution of the
Lord’s Supper Jesus spoke of “My blood of the covenant that is poured out for many for the
remission [aphesis = forgiveness] of sins.” The purpose, intention (or goal) of Christ’s death was
to bring about the forgiveness of sins. Never, in theology, in counseling or anywhere else, may
those two factors be separated.
Liberals ask questions like, “Why an atonement? Why the blood? Why a sacrifice for sins?
Why doesn’t God simply cancel the debt and remove the liability? Why do you say that He
hinges forgiveness to atonement?”
The question is important. Why did our forgiveness cost God His Son? Because God is holy
and righteous as well as merciful and compassionate. Both sides of God’s person must be
satisfied. In Romans 9:22, 23 we are told that God wanted to demonstrate both His wrath and
His mercy. Both can be seen in all of God’s dealings with individuals and nations.6
As a God of order and righteousness Who rules His world with equity, Jehovah ordained His
laws and set forth the penalties for those who violate them. He may not let man go scott free
therefore; He must exact the penalties that He has required. He may not upset His own order,
waive His former concerns and change His mind. His justice must be satisfied. God’s wrath over
the personal and legal aspects of man’s sin must be appeased. Man not only broke God’s laws;
he also offended God as a Person. Christ, by His active and passive obedience had to live the life
God’s holiness required and die the death this justice exacted. Because of these facts, the
loving merciful, substitutionary death of Christ has made it possible for God to be just and the
Justifier of those who trust Christ for forgiveness (Rom. 3:24–26). Mercy and wrath kissed at
the cross.
If I were to punch you in the nose, then ask someone sitting next to you to forgive me, that
wouldn’t do. It is you—not he—that I have offended, and I must have your forgiveness. He can’t
forgive me; only the one I have sinned against can do that. Forgiveness is a transaction that
always involves the two parties involved in the offense. Jesus Christ wasn’t a third party, sitting
by; He was God manifest in the flesh. God Himself—one of the interested parties—bore the
cost by taking the penalty upon Himself. In this way, all is satisfied that should be. In contrast,
the liberal view amounts to little more than a toleration or a condoning of sin.
Close to that liberal approach (in effect, if not in intention) is the view of the Christian
psychologizers who equate acceptance with forgiveness. David Augsburger’s book, The
Freedom of Forgiveness, offers a fair sample of what is being said to the Christian public on a
popular level:
Christ’s way was the way of giving forgiveness even before asked. … To live forgiveness is to
give wholehearted acceptance to others. There is no forgiveness without genuine acceptance of
the other person as he is…. Forgiveness is acceptance with no exception.7
The truth is that Christ’s prayer on the cross for forgiveness (to which the first Augsburger
quotation refers) was not forgiveness itself, as he claims (“that’s forgiveness”8) but a prayer to
God to forgive. Christ, of course had in view all that would happen to bring about that
forgiveness; indeed, the death He was dying at the moment was the core of it all. To separate
Christ’s prayer on the cross from His crucifixion as Augsburger seems to do in this place is a
tragic mistake.
We must not—as Christ certainly did not (otherwise, why did He die)—accept the other
person “as he is.” To do so, to forget all about sin unatoned for and unconfessed (not properly
dealt with) is not biblical. We forgive—and on that basis accept (I shall have much more to say
about this and about granting forgiveness later on). Biblical forgiveness is conditional; it is not
to be equated with Rogerian acceptance (“unconditional positive regard”). There is no basis
whatever for that—except bad theology; the theology of Carl Rogers, who believes that at the
core of his being man is essentially good.
Forgiveness never ignores sin, or tolerates it (accepting the other person as he is); rather,
forgiveness is forgiveness of sin (seen to be, acknowledged and repented of as sin). Forgiveness
focuses on the fact that there was an offense; it does not turn away from this fact but deals
with it. Psychological doctrines of acceptance are cheap substitutes for forgiveness that deny
the need for and efficacy of Christ’s atonement—men can accept one another apart from that.
Acceptance makes no demands; it is unrealistic, naive. Men are sinners and cannot be handled
by acceptance.
Acceptance attempts (at best) a neutralism toward sin. I say attempts because it isn’t really
possible to be neutral about sin. Sin is against God, and it isn’t possible to be neutral about God,
Who has been offended by sin. Nonjudgmental attitudes actually condone and encourage sin.
To accept a sinner as he is, means to say God was wrong in sending Christ to die for sinners in
order to change them. God took sin so seriously that He punished His own Son with death for
sin. If God punishes sin, we may not accept sinners as they are.
To say God forgives sin is true. But in saying it that way, we must never lose sight of the
fact that it is sinners from whom the liability of guilt is lifted. God punishes persons and He
forgives persons. Some try to distinguish between sin and the sinner: “God hates sin; loves the
sinner.” Such separation isn’t possible. God sends sinners to hell; they, not their sin, are
punished eternally. Christ, not the sin He bore, suffered and died on the cross. We are
concerned in counseling about the liability to unforgiven persons; sinners. It does no good to
obscure facts with trite sayings. Sinners need forgiveness.
It is important to use the word sinner in counseling when speaking of sin. It is not that we
want to go around condemning people as sinners; that’s not the point at all. What we want to
do or don’t want to do is beside the point. The only question is, What does God want us to do?
The answer to that is plain: call sin sin. Only then can we point people to the forgiveness that is
in Jesus Christ. Sin can be forgiven (mental illness, sickness cannot). Christianity is a religion
based on forgiveness. The counseling that never speaks of sin and forgiveness, therefore, is not
Christian—no matter what label it bears. Away, then, with the views of liberals and Christians
who are psychologizers of Scripture! Let us return to the biblical basics.
“But didn’t Jesus pray for His persecutors?” Yes. “Didn’t He ask His Father to ‘forgive
them’?” Yes. “Did He?” Yes. “When? How?” Some were forgiven on the Day of Pentecost as the
result of Peter’s sermon; but not apart from conviction of sin (cf. Acts 2:37), and not apart from
the message of salvation.9 They had to repent and believe the gospel. Forgiveness came to
them as the result of the atonement; not apart from it. These facts must be borne in mind by
Christian counselors at all times when counseling. But the matter of guilt and the conviction of
sin raises another matter with which (unfortunately) I must deal in some detail because of
wrong views that have been insinuated into biblical circles by modern psychologizers of the
Scriptures.
