For many offenses, it is our Christian duty to forgive, even if no repentance is offered. Last time, we learned that “forgive” is an imperative—a command—from Jesus (Mark 11:25). Christians cannot carry around grudges and withhold forgiveness. We must forgive as lavishly as we have been forgiven.

But all of this calls for some careful distinctions. Obviously there are times when confrontation is essential. How do we identify those situations? Are there clear biblical principles that teach us when to confront and when to forgive unilaterally?

I believe there are. Here are some guidelines to help you in drawing the distinction:

Whenever possible, especially if the offense is petty or unintentional, it is best to forgive unilaterally. This is the very essence of a gracious spirit. It is the Christlike attitude called for in Ephesians 4:1–3, “Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

That calls for a gracious tolerance (“forbearance “) of others’ faults. This is necessary for the sake of maintaining peace.

In other words, believers are supposed to have a sort of mutual immunity to petty offenses. Love “is not easily angered” (1 Corinthians 13:5, NIV). If every fault required formal confrontation, the whole of our church life would be spent confronting and resolving conflicts over petty annoyances. So for the sake of peace, to preserve the unity of the Spirit, we are to show tolerance whenever possible.

This, then, is the governing rule: Unless an offense requires confrontation, unconditional, unilateral forgiveness should cover the transgression. The offended party, in suffering the offense, is following in the footsteps of Christ (1 Peter 2:21–25). This is the very attitude Christ called for in Matthew 5:39–40: “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.”

Examples of Unilateral Forgiveness

If you are the only injured party, even if the offense was public and flagrant, you may choose to forgive unilaterally. Examples of this abound in Scripture. Joseph, for example, was the victim of a grievous wrong at the hands of his brothers. They plotted to kill him, then sold him into slavery.

But he held no grudge. Years later, when famine drove the wicked brothers to Egypt in search of food, Joseph recognized them and freely forgave them, without any expression of repentance on their part. Before they even realized who he was, he was moved to tears with compassion for them. Finally revealing his true identity to them, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life” (Genesis 45:4–5). His forgiveness was unconditional, unilateral, not predicated on any expression of remorse from them.

In fact, as far as we know from Scripture, the closest these brothers ever came to formally declaring their repentance was after Jacob died. Once their father was no longer there to stay Joseph’s hand, they imagined their offended brother might unleash vengeance against them. The brothers, knowing the gravity of their sin, were evidently unable to believe that his charity toward them was well-meant. They feared he might still secretly harbor a wish for vengeance. So they told Joseph that it was their father’s wish that he grant them forgiveness (Genesis 50:16–17). They did not formally admit their wrong and express repentance, though it is quite clear that they were humbled men by now.

But all their pleading was wholly unnecessary. Joseph had forgiven them long before. Having seen undeniable evidence that the hand of divine providence was working good in his life through the evil that was done to him, Joseph had long since forgiven his brothers fully, freely, and unconditionally. His perspective? “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20). The knowledge that God had a good purpose for his sufferings made it impossible for Joseph to harbor a grudge.

There are also other examples of unilateral forgiveness in Scripture, even when the offense was public and pronounced. For example, on at least one significant occasion David unilaterally and unconditionally forgave the most humiliating kind of public insult.

It occurred during Absalom’s rebellion against David. David was forced to flee Jerusalem so that his defiant son would not destroy the city in his zeal to overthrow David’s throne. During that agonizing and painful exodus from Jerusalem, a worthless character named Shimei publicly taunted the already heartbroken David, trying to humiliate him further (2 Samuel 16:5–8).

Abishai, one of David’s companions, wanted justice on the spot: “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over now, and cut off his head” (v. 9).

But David’s response was a godly forbearance: “If he curses, and if the Lord has told him, ‘Curse David,’ then who shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’ . . . ‘Behold, my son who came out from me seeks my life; how much more now this Benjamite? Let him alone and let him curse, for the Lord has told him. Perhaps the Lord will look on my affliction and return good to me instead of his cursing this day’” (vv. 10–12).

Shimei continued to run along the hillside next to David, cursing and throwing rocks and dirt at the king, but David bore the insults with grace and forbearance—though under the circumstances it would have been perfectly appropriate for David, a sitting king, to demand that the mocker be punished.

Later, after David was victorious over the rebels, Shimei made a show of remorse, begging David’s mercy. David, still over the protest of his men, reaffirmed his forgiveness to Shimei (2 Sam. 19:18–23). Having already forgiven the initial offense unilaterally, David now forgave Shimei formally.

Stephen’s prayers for those who stoned him are another example of unilateral, unconditional forgiveness (Acts 7:54–60). The fact that Stephen prayed for God’s mercy for his murderers shows that he had already forgiven them. It is true that God’s forgiveness was not to be granted apart from their repentance; but Stephen himself had already made a deliberate, conscious choice to relinquish the right to retribution. He had forgiven them in his heart.

Our Forgiveness and God’s Forgiveness

This brings up an important point. Even after we have forgiven offenders for their transgressions against us, God Himself may exact justice for their sins against Him. We can forgive an offense against us. But we cannot grant forgiveness for sin against God. “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” (Luke 5:21). To forgive someone does not convey some priestly absolution, clearing them of sin before God. Those whom we forgive must still give account to God.

For example, Stephen’s forgiving his killers did not assure that their sins would go unpunished if they did not also seek God’s forgiveness. In the case of Saul of Tarsus (who stood by the garments of Stephen’s killers, consenting to the martyr’s death, Acts 7:58; 8:1), his offense was completely blotted out when he fully repented. We are never told what became of those who threw the stones, but if they never embraced Christ as Lord and Savior, they will suffer the wrath of God for the sin of killing Stephen. Stephen forgave the offense against him; the sin against God still had to be reckoned with.

Shimei is another case in point. David kept his promise not to kill Shimei, but Shimei remained an unregenerate and worthless man to the end of his life. Knowing this, on his deathbed David instructed Solomon how to deal with Shimei: “Do not let him go unpunished, for you are a wise man; and you will know what you ought to do to him, and you will bring his gray hair down to Sheol with blood” (1 Kings 2:9).

This is a difficult command to explain, until we realize that David, as the divinely appointed king, was responsible to see that God’s glory was not besmirched in Israel. He had kept his promise to Shimei: he did not kill him for his insult. As far as David was concerned, the personal offense against him was forgiven. But Shimei’s act also involved the most wretched kind of blasphemy against God. And since Shimei remained in wanton rebellion against God, divine justice still had a claim on him. For the sake of the nation’s purity, this needed to be dealt with. It was now time for the account to be settled—for the sake of God’s glory, not David’s. David could overlook a personal transgression against him; he could not ultimately overlook a public act of overt hostility to God.

And Solomon wisely honored David’s forgiveness of Shimei’s insult. Instead of summarily executing him for that past offense, Solomon imposed a restriction on Shimei, forbidding him ever to set foot outside the city of Jerusalem. As long as he stayed in the city, under the king’s supervision, he could move about freely in perfect safety. But the day he set foot across the Kidron Valley, he would be killed. Shimei agreed to the terms, which were gracious (1 Kings 2:36–38). But because he was a wicked man, Shimei broke his word. He left the city in search of some runaway slaves, and when Solomon found out, he summoned him and said:

Did I not make you swear by the Lord and solemnly warn you, saying, ‘You will know for certain that on the day you depart and go anywhere, you shall surely die’? And you said to me, ‘The word which I have heard is good.’ Why then have you not kept the oath of the Lord, and the command which I have laid on you? … You know all the evil which you acknowledge in your heart, which you did to my father David; therefore the Lord shall return your evil on your own head (1 Kings 2:42–44).

In other words, Shimei’s death was the Lord’s, not David’s, reprisal for Shimei’s sin. David forgave the man and kept his promise not to retaliate. But in the end, given Shimei’s refusal to repent, God Himself demanded justice.

Our forgiving an offense does not guarantee that the offender will receive judicial forgiveness from God. God, who knows the heart, always judges righteously. Our part is to be gracious, bear the wrong, and pray for the offender’s full repentance. God Himself will see to it that justice is done if the offender fails to seek divine forgiveness.

All these examples teach us that confrontation is not always necessary. Forgiveness cannot always follow the repentance of the sinner. Instead, we should be eager to forgive unilaterally and abundantly, just as God has forgiven us. Even so there are times when confrontation is necessary. But when should we silently forgive and when should confront the person who sinned? We’ll answer these questions next time.

(Adapted from The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness)