If God doesn’t forgive our sins until we repent, does that mean we should not forgive others until they repent? If we forgive someone but they are not repentant, would that be unjust? All Christians face these questions at some point in their life.

Last time, we saw that unconditional forgiveness is often the correct response. It is good to forgive people even when they do not repent. But it is obvious from Scripture that sometimes forgiveness must be conditional. For example, in certain cases the offender is to be confronted and ultimately even excommunicated from the church if he refuses to repent (Luke 17:3; Matthew 18:15–17).

But does every offense call for confrontation, possibly leading to formal church discipline? Is there no place for simply granting unilateral forgiveness for petty offenses? Is there no time when the offended party should simply overlook a transgression, choosing to suffer wrong and forgive without being asked or without formally confronting the offender?

Obviously, these questions have important practical ramifications. If you had a friend who scrupulously tried to confront you every time you committed a petty offense, wouldn’t the friendship grow tedious pretty quickly? And if marriage partners saw it as their solemn duty to confront each other for every offense, wouldn’t such a mind-set make the marriage relationship practically impossible to endure?

It is a mistake to assume that verses like Luke 17:3 (“If your brother sins, rebuke him”) and Matthew 18:15 (“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault”) are absolute prescriptions for every kind of transgression. If we were obligated to confront one another for every paltry misdeed, we would be doing little else.

Indeed, Scripture gives us another principle for dealing with the vast majority of petty infractions: overlook the offense. Forgive unilaterally and unconditionally. Grant pardon freely and unceremoniously. Love demands this: “Keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8). “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all transgressions” (Proverbs 10:12). “He who covers a transgression seeks love” (Proverbs 17:9). Love “does not take into account a wrong suffered . . . [but] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:5–7).

Yet, because some Christians insist that forgiveness is a two-way transaction, they have no room for unilateral or unconditional forgiveness. So they draw a distinction between forgiveness and overlooking another’s transgression. If true, that would mean all the petty offenses we choose to overlook (or “cover,” in biblical terminology) are not really to be regarded as forgiven.

But the Bible itself makes no such distinction. Covering another’s transgression is the very essence of forgiveness. Speaking of God’s forgiveness, Psalm 32:1 equates the concepts of forgiveness and the covering of sin: “How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!” This is a Hebrew parallelism, employing two different expressions to designate the same concept. To cover someone else’s sin is the very essence of forgiveness.

Psalm 85:2 draws the same parallel: “You forgave the iniquity of Your people; You covered all their sin.”

James 5:20 also equates forgiveness with the covering of sin: “He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins.”

So when 1 Peter 4:8 says, “Love covers a multitude of sins,” it is describing forgiveness.

Furthermore, Scripture also teaches that forgiveness can be unilateral and unconditional. Mark 11:25–26 clearly speaks of this kind of forgiveness and even makes it a condition for receiving God’s forgiveness: “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your transgressions. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions.”

That describes an immediate forgiveness granted to the offender with no formal meeting or transaction required. It necessarily refers to a pardon that is wholly unilateral, because this forgiveness takes place while the forgiver stands praying. “Forgive” is the clear command of that verse, and it is to take place on the spot. There is no mention of confrontation. There is no command to seek the offender’s repentance. The forgiveness of Mark 11:25 is therefore different from the forgiveness of Luke 17:3. This forgiveness is to be granted unconditionally and unilaterally.

Unconditional Forgiveness: What Does It Mean?

What does unilateral forgiveness entail? If there’s no transaction, no seeking of forgiveness, no formal granting of pardon, no words exchanged between the two parties, then what exactly is accomplished by this sort of forgiveness?

Its chief effects are wrought in the heart of the forgiver. This kind of forgiveness involves a deliberate decision to cover the other person’s offense. “Forgive” in Mark 11:25 is an imperative, a command. The forgiveness called for here is necessarily a volitional matter. In other words, it is a choice, not a feeling or an involuntary response.

It is, as Matthew 18:35 suggests, from the heart; but even that does not place forgiveness primarily in the realm of feeling. “Heart” in Scripture normally designates the seat of the intellect (cf. Proverbs 23:7; Luke 9:47). So this speaks of a deliberate and rational decision. It is a choice made by the offended party to set aside the other person’s transgression and not permit the offense to cause a breach in the relationship or fester in bitterness.

In effect, the person who chooses to forgive resolves not to remember the offense, refuses to hold a grudge, relinquishes any claim on recompense, and resists the temptation to brood or retaliate. The offended party simply bears the insult. The offense is set aside, lovingly covered for Christ’s sake. For petty and unintentional offenses, this is the proper and loving way to forgive—unilaterally, without confrontation and without stirring any strife.

This, I believe, is what Scripture refers to most often when it calls us to forgive one another. The heavy emphasis on forgiveness in Scripture is not meant to make us more confrontational, but quite the opposite. When Scripture calls us to have an attitude of forgiveness, the emphasis is always on long-suffering, patience, benevolence, forbearance, kindness, and mercy—not confrontation.

To deny that forgiveness can ever be unilateral is in my view a potentially serious mistake. It places too much stress on confrontation. And that tends to produce more conflict than it avoids. People who insist on confronting every wrong often simply stir strife—the antithesis of what Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness was intended to produce. Real love should cover the vast majority of transgressions, not constantly haul them out in the open for dissection (1 Peter 4:8).

Yet, there are times when this is not possible. In the days ahead, we’ll see what the Bible tells us to do when unconditional forgiveness is not possible.

(Adapted from The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness)