Wherever men acknowledge the Biblical teaching about human depravity; wherever men acknowledge the unique bearing of God’s name on the human conscience; wherever men trust in God’s promise to make truth prevail when His name is invoked, oaths will be required of all witnesses in church courts.  

In 2023, the PCA General Assembly considered an overture that would allow those who deny the existence of God and/or a future state of reward and punishment to testify in her courts.  This would render it unnecessary for witnesses to swear, or explicitly affirm before God that they will tell the truth.  The rationale for amending the Book of Church Order conditions (BCO 35-1, 35-8) for a “competent witness” was straightforward.  Would not the Lord and Savior of the Church, whose name is Truth (Jn. 14:6), allow as many true witnesses to testify in His courts as possible?  The victim of abuse by a church member would typically be among the most important witnesses to that crime.  Yet, the victim may be an atheist.  Ultimately, the overture was defeated by a slim margin.  That the vote was unsettling to a large portion of the assembly was clear from the many signatories of the minority report in favor of the overture.  Some have suggested that a theological test for witness competency is but a manmade tradition, the likes of which Jesus, not to mention the apostles and prophets, condemned (Matt. 15:1-14; Mk. 7:1-13; cf., Isa. 29:13; Col. 2:21-23).  If the Lord Jesus would have His church admit atheist testimony, then not only must the BCO undergo amendment, but the Presbyterian Church in America must also repent for an injustice it has allowed to exist for decades.
Sharing my brethren’s longing for truth to prevail in PCA courts, it will come as a surprise to many that I am compelled to oppose recent efforts to remove the oath requirement.  The Scriptures are unambiguous that Jesus Christ, the Head of the body has ordained oaths for the preservation of the truth, and for the protection of all parties in a world smitten by depravity and dishonesty.  In short, oaths are a divine ordinance, whereby a competent witness (a) acknowledges God as the lone sufficient Reason to tell the truth; and (b) the lone sufficient Helper who can make the truth prevail.  Invocation of the Almighty brings a weight of burden to the human conscience altogether different from manmade ethical codes.  The same invocation reflects the humble awareness, without which no witness can be competent, that even the most principled people need divine help to overcome the human proclivity to falsehood and error.  Most importantly, oaths (even false ones) effectively seize upon the Living God’s providence to vindicate the truth, in a manner that the strongest human resolve cannot.  Unfortunately, too many arguments for (and against) atheist testimony betray a lack of regard for the divine function of oaths, not to mention the depths of human depravity which necessitate them.
Human Depravity and Truth Telling
An underlying assumption in most of the GA discussion concerning oaths seems to have been that humanity is divisible into two groups—those who are competent, in themselves, to testify in a court, and those who are not.  Does it occur to proponents (and opponents) of the overtured change that the situation is rather more dire?  The Scriptures teach us that Epimenides’ evaluation of his countrymen is no less true of humanity: “Cretans are always liars” (Tit. 1:12; cf., Rom. 3:4, 13; Ps. 116:11).  On its surface, Epimenides’ statement is something of a paradox.  It might seem that it cannot be true, since the poet was himself a Cretan whose own speech, if the statement were true, must always be false!  Yet, speaking via the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit adds His infallible witness that Epimenides’ “testimony is true” (Tit. 1:13).  The Holy Spirit is neither affirming a flat contradiction, nor encouraging muddled thinking (1 Cor. 14:23).  “Always” might be hyperbole, in which case Epimenides’ statement may be true despite the prevalence of Cretan dishonesty.  More attractive is the solution that recognizes a subtle but important distinction.  Epimenides does not declare that Cretans’ every statement is a lie, but that Cretans are, at all times, liars.  It is very much in keeping with the theology of Paul (and the rest of Scripture) to declare that men who make innumerable true statements are always lying in other respects: suppressing their knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18; Jn. 1:9-10); underestimating their sin (Rom. 2:1-8; Lk. 18:11); overestimating their gifts and abilities (Rom. 12:3, 16; 2 Cor. 10:12); deceiving themselves about the extent of their virtues (Gal. 6:3); twisting the Scriptures for selfish gain (2 Pet. 3:14; Matt. 15:5-6); overlooking the most significant details of an enemies’ good character to justify hostility toward him (Jn. 7:24; 12:37-40); indeed, transgressing the Ninth Commandment in all the ways listed in Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 145.  Common grace prevents fallen men from lying every time they speak, even though they are always liars.  It is exactly because sinners recognize, utilize, and publish true information in medicine, physical sciences, mathematics, ethics, business dealings, etc., that they are culpable for their unrelenting dishonesty about the most important (Christian theistic) implications of every fact.
It is true that personal interests are often sufficient to prevent fallen people from making false statements, especially when they might conflict with well-established truths or admit for simple investigation.  Lies of this sort can easily be exposed and met with social or legal repercussions (Matt. 21:25-27; Mk. 11:31-33; Lk. 20:5-8; Rom. 13:1-4; 2 Pet. 2:13-14).  Thus, the courts of the Presbyterian Church in America have always accepted police reports, receipts for monetary transactions, public records, etc. as admissible evidence, regardless of whether the person who initially recorded them professes belief in God.  Again, the public nature of the information combined with the penalties that accompany inaccurate recording are appropriately counted as a sufficient guarantee of their veracity, until and unless one can cite reasons to doubt them.  The situation is quite different when it comes to witness testimony.  Witnesses are brought forward in courts to testify (a) about disputed matters, (b) of considerable consequence, (c) to which the public lacks direct means of investigation.  From the outset, the veracity of a witness’s testimony is challenged by the accused, if not others as well (1 Kings 3:16-22; Jer. 26:16-18; Acts 24:13).  At least one party must be badly mistaken at best or lying at worst.  The Scriptures warn us about false accusers and “malicious witnesses” (Ps. 35:11; cf. Gen. 39:13-23; Ex. 23:1; Esth. 3:8; Ps. 27:12; Prov. 19:5; Acts 6:11), of whom Satan is the chief (Job 1:11; Rev. 12:10).  Other scoundrels are not their only targets, but often men of considerable integrity (Joseph, David, Job, Stephen, etc.), not to mention the God-man, Jesus Christ (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59) along with His Father and Spirit (Gen. 3:4-5).  The Mosaic requirement that false witnesses shall incur the punishment they sought for the accused functioned as a weighty deterrent against that crime (Deut. 19:18-19; cf., 1 Tim. 1:9-11).  Lesser penalties for perjury in civil courts still exist today.  Noticeably, church courts lack the same deterrent, particularly in the case of non-member and atheist witnesses.  To them, PCA courts cannot apply any penalties; nor may atheists experience any social repercussions for dishonesty.  Of even greater significance is the fact that not even civil courts regard their penalties to be a sufficient safeguard against false testimony.  Instead, the requirement of a divine oath in civil courts reflects the bearing of natural law, imposed on the human conscience by God, and heeded by nearly all cultures.[1]
The very same personal interests that prevent lying in cases where one is likely to be caught may be the source of dishonesty in matters difficult to investigate, or in which one simply has much to gain from deceit (Lk. 16:3-8).  These include false suspicion about enemies, which the wayward heart treats as fact (1 Sam. 18:9; 22:8); reports and recollections of events lacking other witness (1 Kings 3:6-22; Jn. 21:23); personal, unrecorded business dealings (Amos 8:5-6; Jas. 5:4); welcome lies, that are sure to go uninvestigated by the relevant communities and courts with whom they are registered (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59); etc.  Somewhere between willful deception and error is the human tendency to remember only those truths that we find useful, disregarding inconvenient details.  Apart from any conscious effort, fallen men often discern the interests of a community with lightning speed, and proceed to share only the information that the community welcomes (1 Sam. 22:9-10; 2 Tim. 4:3).  For example, atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell incorrectly recalls Titus 1:12-13 as a clear instance of Biblical “contradiction.”[2]  He cites the passage as if Epimenides reported that Cretans only speak lies when, as we have seen, the poet wrote that they are always lying.  If one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 20th century can misrepresent the facts, exactly what is the profile of a competent witness?
Given the inadequacy of self-interests to ensure that men will tell the truth; given that the human “heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9); given that “all [mere] men are liars” (Ps. 116:11), and always lying (Tit. 1:12), it is misguided to ask the question, “how can church courts refuse atheist testimony, which may very well be true?”  The quandary is just how any court, civil or ecclesiastical, can rely on human witnesses at all when it comes to matters that are sharply disputed from the outset.  If men like Epimenides are the most credible when they testify to their dishonesty (Tit. 1:13); if men are the most deceived when they insist on their own intelligence and integrity (Prov. 3:7; 14:12; 16:21, 25), how can anyone be judged a competent witness to the difficult and disputed matters before courts?  To this problem, faced by men in every corner of a fallen world, the Living God ordained oaths and vows as a genuine remedy.
Westminster Confession 22, “On Lawful Oaths and Vows”
In the course of a Lord’s Day sermon, I asked my congregation who would mention “Lawful Oaths and Vows” as one of the major headings under which to summarize the Christian Faith?  Not one parishioner raised his hand.  I suspect it also strikes many church officers as odd that the Westminster Divines devoted so much attention to that topic.[3]  Yet, the Westminster Divines’ careful discussion of the ordinance (WCF 22, WLC 111-114, and WSC 53-56) was equitable to the teaching of Scripture.  God ordained personal vows and public oaths as a powerful means to confirm a matter, even safeguarding against human deceit and error.  Oaths may be “promissory,” attesting to one’s determination to perform some future action(s), or “assertory,” attesting to one’s resolution to tell the truth about past events (2 Chron. 18:13 Matt. 26:63).[4]  Reserved for matters of great consequence (Jer. 4:2), vows or oaths belong to marriage covenants (Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17); binding agreements between individuals (Ex. 22:11; 1 Sam. 18:3; 23:16-18; 2 Sam. 2:12-25), families (Gen. 21:22-34; 26:26-33; 1 Sam. 20:2-17), and nations (Gen. 14:13; 1 Kings 5:12; 15:19; 20:34; 2 Chron. 16:3); covenants between a populace, or a military with its leaders (2 Sam. 5:3; 11:17; 2 Kings 11:4; 1 Chron. 11:3; 2 Chron. 23:1, 3, 16; Jer. 34:8-11); and even covenants between God and men (Gen. 22:16-18; Ex. 24:3; Isa. 45:23; Heb. 6:13-14).  The courtroom, civil and ecclesiastical, is a distinct setting where assertory oaths are justly required (Lev. 5:1; Prov. 29:24; 1 Kings 22:16; 2 Chron. 6:22-23; 18:13, 15), Jesus Himself bearing testimony only after He was adjured (Matt. 26:63[5]).
An oath is a safeguard because of its two indispensable, mutually supportive functions.  First, an oath calls on God as the lone sufficient power by whom the truth can be made to prevail in one’s testimony, and in the judgment of the court.  Second, an oath acknowledges God as the lone sufficient reason why the truth must be told.
WCF 22:1—A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth on God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Power
The first function of an oath, according to Westminster Confession 22:1, flies in the face of the naturalistic materialism to which our age is prone.  Although men can tell the truth, they are also accustomed to the opposite.  Therefore, to confirm that they will tell the truth, God allows men to invoke His name, calling Him to bear providential witness by directing their testimony to its proper end.  In other words, the oath-taker is not merely calling on the Divine Judge to take notice of his testimony.  If that were the meaning of, “solemnly calleth on God to witness,” the statement would be superfluous.  For, God’s awareness of our oaths is sufficiently presupposed in the clause that follows, where God is invited to “to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.”  Instead, the earlier clause indicates that oaths call God to active witness, ensuring that the oath-taker’s words will be accurate, and that his avowed actions will come to fruition.  This reading is confirmed beyond all doubt by a consultation of those divines whose writings inspired; whose efforts produced; and whose subsequent writings interpreted WCF 22.  They uniformly testify that oaths have two functions, one of which is to “beg his [God’s] help” in confirming the truth of our witness.[6]  This concept is even retained in contemporary civil courts, where many witnesses still affirm their intent to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
The proof texts cited in the original (and PCA) Westminster Confession also testify to the active divine witness upon which oaths call.  Solomon prays that God will respond to oaths sworn before the bronze altar, at the gate of the temple where trials would occur (cf., Jer. 26:2, 16-19).  Specifically, he asks God to cause the honest oath-taker to prevail, and the perjurer to fail within the course of the court’s proceedings (2 Chron. 6:22-23).  A typical Old Testament oath formula began, “As the Lord lives” (Isa. 5:2; cf., Ruth. 3:13; Judg. 8:19; 1 Sam. 14:39, 45; 19:6; 20:21; 1 Kings 2:24; 22:14; 2 Kings 2:4; Jer. 4:2; 12:16; 44:26).  The one who swore it was calling on the LORD whose life is certain, to make the fulfillment of his oath certain as well (Num. 14:21, 28; Deut. 32:40; Isa. 49:18; Jer. 22:24; 46:18; Ezek. 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 16:48; 17:16; 18:3; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:11, 27; 34:8; 35:6, 11; Zeph. 2:9; Rom. 14:11).  When God’s people rebelled against Him, they ceased to swear in His name.  They lost confidence that their neglected LORD would actively confirm their oaths (Jer. 44:26-27).  Again, when Paul calls on “God as [his] witness” (2 Cor. 1:23; cf., Rom. 1:9; 9:1; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; cf., Jer. 42:5), he is not simply asking God to take note of his words with a view to judging them.  Paul pleads for God to authenticate his stated desire to edify the suspicious congregations to whom he wrote, by imparting to credulity to his claims.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Reason
If they were only pleas for divine assistance, it would be beneficial to attach oaths to all our commitments, as expressions of the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer—“…deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13; cf., WLC 195).  While the Scriptures require that we “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17; cf., Eph. 6:18), we are never instructed to “oath without ceasing.”  Quite the opposite.  Christ is clear that with respect to mundane matters men should “make no oath at all” (Matt. 5:34; cf., Jas. 5:12; Prov. 20:25; Eccl. 5:5).  This points us to the second function of oaths.  They are always self-maledictory, invoking God as a “a Revenger” if we should break them.[7]  This follows from the third commandment: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7; Deut. 5:11; cf., Ex. 31:13-16; Lev. 26:2; Deut. 28:58; Zech. 5:3-4).
The Westminster Catechisms call our attention to the “reason” annexed to the Third Commandment (WSC, 56; cf., WLC, 114).  God Himself, in His capacity as judge, is the lone sufficient Reason why an oath-taker must devote the most focused efforts to bear honest witness (Deut. 23:21, 23; cf., Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Job 22:27; Eccl. 5:4).  Whereas cunning liars may manage to “escape punishment from men, yet the LORD our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment” (WSC, 56).  Some oaths are accompanied by specific curses (Num. 5:19-31; Ruth. 1:17; 1 Sam. 20:13-14; 25:22; 2 Sam. 3:9; 1 Kings 2:24; 2 Kings 6:31; Ezek. 16:59; Zech. 5:4).  All oaths presuppose God’s threat of punishment, as an omnipotent and omniscient Judge.  The Bible supplies ample and frightening testimony to God’s faithfulness in punishing broken oaths (2 Kings 5:17-27; Jer. 34:8-22), even centuries after they were first sworn (Josh. 6:26-27 with 1 Kings 16:34; Josh. 9:26-27 with 2 Sam. 21:1).  Alternatively, God promises to bless oath-keepers, especially with deeper fellowship with Himself (Lev. 26:11-12; Ps. 63:11; Isa. 19:18; 45:23; 65:16).  In the Old Covenant, the appropriate response to divine deliverance was to vow a sacrificial feast in God’s presence.  The votive offering served as a public witness to God’s faithfulness (Lev. 7:16; 22:18-23; Deut. 12:6-7; 50:14; 61:5; 65:1; 116:14, 18; cf., Job 22:27).  In the New Covenant, the Lord’s Supper is a taste of that celebratory meal Christ vowed to enjoy after being vindicated by His Father and Spirit in the resurrection (Ps. 22:25; Lk. 22:18).
Oaths Are the Seal of Witness Competency
As the BCO (35-1) makes clear, witness competency is not ultimately defined by a person’s ability to tell the truth.  The standard parties deemed incompetent—young children, the mentally ill, the intoxicated—frequently tell the truth.  Nor is abnormal intelligence sufficient.  A competent witness must also manifest good character,[8] at the heart of which is the humility to recognize that he needs divine help to accurately report the truth concerning disputed matters.  Hence, a competent witness must understand the seriousness of the court’s proceedings, and the ramifications for himself and others if he should (a) intentionally, or (b) unintentionally misrepresent the truth.  Acknowledgment of God as Judge is the lone sufficient reason why witnesses should not lie intentionally; and reliance on God as Helper is the only ground of hope that a witnesses will not bear false report inadvertently.  Hence, the atheist who cannot swear the assertory oath required in BCO 35-8 is necessarily excluded from a court’s proceedings as an incompetent witness.
Read More
Related Posts:

If, following careful consideration (Prov. 14:15), it is reasonably clear that the non-collection of a large debt or non-prosecution of a great evil, holds unique promise of achieving greater ends, Christians must be ready to extend unimaginably forgiving gestures.  As Paul prevailed upon Onesimus to forgive his fugitive servant Philemon, by setting him free (Philem. 1:10); as Barnabas prevailed upon the Apostles to forgive Paul for his former hostility to Christians (Acts 9:26-27), by eventually extending him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9); likewise, all Christians must be open to the Holy Spirit’s reasonable persuasion to remit truly great debts of others, with a view to advancing the Kingdom of Heaven.

All Things Forgiveness
Forgiveness is central to the Christian ethic. D.L. Moody once said: “The voice of sin is loud, but the voice of forgiveness is louder.” As a forgiven people the glory of the children of God is to be a forgiving people. But, important as forgiveness is, it’s also misunderstood, trivialized, and in the hands of some even weaponized.
The following is a guest essay from Rev. Dr. Brant Bosserman. This essay biblically and pastorally addresses the subject of forgiveness. Even if it takes a little longer to read than a normal blog post, I highly encourage it to every reader!
Forgiveness: Objective DeedsForgiveness: Subjective DispositionForgiving the UnrepentantKinds of ForgivenessFalse RepentanceForgiveness and ConsequencesForgiveness and ImprecationRadical Forgiveness
Jesus taught us to pray, “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12; cf. Lk. 11:4).  It is fascinating that the only fact that the Savior asked us to mention about ourselves in prayer is that we practice forgiving.  However, exactly what forgiveness is, to whom it is due, and how it relates to correction and punishment are not widely understood.  Critics of the Faith have alleged that Jesus’ lofty ideal of forgiveness is either dangerously liberal, at odds with other details of His ethic, or laudable, but widely disregarded by Christians.  Given the central significance of forgiveness to the Gospel of how God saves sinners by faith in Jesus Christ; and given that a forgiving attitude is a fundamental mark of those who have been forgiven by God in Christ, believers can only benefit from sustained meditation on the topic.  Jesus, after all, set forth the following promise and warning as the grounds making forgiveness central to prayer: “if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” (Matt. 6:14-15; cf. Mk. 11:25; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13).
Below, we will advance the following points.  As to essence of forgiveness, it is the non-collection of a debt (or non-application of a penalty) accompanied by the expulsion a vengeful disposition.  Christ’s ethic emphasizes the importance of a forgiving disposition, without neglecting the necessity of forgiving deeds, for two reasons.  Outward forgiveness can be exercised hypocritically, apart from the more difficult work of a reformation of heart.  Also, those who have forgiven a neighbor from the heart may, nevertheless, seek the application of a penalty out of love for the same party.  The potential objects of Christian forgiveness are all people, but in different fashions.  Even toward unrepentant offenders, Christ’s disciples must be prepared to repay evil with genuine kindness, entertaining a more hopeful vision of their enemies than their deeds deserve.  However, only repentant believers can be forgiven in the fullest sense, by being treated and confidently acknowledged as brothers who enjoy mystical union with Christ and oneself.  To scrutinize whether another’s repentance is genuine, and to enforce ongoing consequences for egregious sins and heinous crimes is perfectly consistent with forgiveness.  For, to forgive a party is to will their good, and to facilitate rather than impeded what is best for them (and others).  Finally, believers must be prepared to perform radical acts of forgiveness, especially in situations where one is powerless to pursue justice and/or the total forgiveness of a significant debt is likely to advance (rather than hinder) the kingdom of God.
FORGIVENESS: OBJECTIVE DEEDSWhen most people talk about forgiveness, they tend to have in mind feelings and subjective dispositions toward others.  However, the Greek and Hebrew words for “forgive” often refer to objective actions.  For example, the most frequent sense of the verb in the Gospel of Matthew is simply “to leave” something tangible behind, like fishing nets (4:20), crowds (13:36), stones (24:2), etc.  In the context of monetary debts and criminal offenses, “forgiveness” involves foregoing the right to exact a payment (Matt. 18:23-34) or pardoning rather than prosecuting and punishing a crime (Ex. 34:9; Rom. 12:17).  In His “Sermon on the Mount,” Jesus enjoins a radically forgiving disposition, setting forth the example of one who foregoes his right to retain basic property—“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also” (Matt. 5:40); and again, “whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back” (Lk. 6:30).  Of course, Jesus’ directives on the topic of forgiveness are not entirely new.  The Mosaic Law required objective remission of debts every seventh year toward all of one’s Israelite neighbors (Deut. 15:1-6), regardless of whether they had squandered a loan by vice or simply fallen on hard times.
It is noteworthy that the objective forgiveness of a debt and/or penalty may be extended in greater and lesser degrees.  For example, in the Mosaic economy, the convicted thief of livestock normally had to make restitution by returning the stolen animal, and paying retribution by returning four or five times its value (Ex. 22:1).  If, however, he confessed his theft and offered the requisite “guilt offering” at the tabernacle (Lev. 6:1-6), his crime would be significantly, but not entirely, forgiven.  The thief who confessed prior to being caught only had to return the stolen property to the victim, plus a mere one-fifth of its value.  But even under the Law, direct victims could forgive certain criminal offenses entirely by foregoing legal proceedings altogether.  Well before Jesus’ ethical discourses, His father Joseph showed himself to be a “righteous man” by choosing not to prosecute, and thereby significantly forgiving, Mary for her apparent adultery (Matt. 1:19).  And yet, Joseph seems not to have initially extended the fullest objective forgiveness that could be imagined.  Although he forewent civil prosecution of Mary, he still resolved to “send her away secretly,” breaking off their plans for marriage.  This clearly indicates that an offense can be forgiven in certain objective respects, even though other consequences may be retained (for more on this point see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below).  What renders the Sermon on the Mount unique in relationship to the Mosaic Law is not that Jesus’ commands His followers to forgive in various ways.  Rather, its novelty resides in how clearly Jesus sets forth the imperative to more than forgive; that is, to remit material debt and even extend additional favor to one’s debtors.  Still, Jesus understood the substance of His ethic to have always been implied, even if not so expressed, in the Law itself (Matt. 5:17-20; Lev. 19:18).
FORGIVENESS: SUBJECTIVE DISPOSITIONParallel to the non-collection of a debt and non-prosecution of a crime, forgiveness is a determination from within not to seek personal vengeance, and to expel the ill-will that we harbor toward offenders.  Everyone knows, after all, how unpleasant it is to be despised and hated, even when disdain isn’t expressed in overt acts.  When he denounced the human tendency to regard certain men as “good for nothing” (Matt. 5:22), Jesus meant to censure an unforgiving attitude that writes-off a person forever.  Positively, subjective forgiveness must involve crediting an enemy with a better estimation of his person than his deeds deserve.  Without this constructive effort, our best attempts to expel hateful feelings will be to no avail.  If our estimation of our neighbor were a sculpture, we could think of his misbehaviors and sins as chipping away at and reducing his effigy to something distasteful that elicits ire.  Forgiveness entails an active effort to reform our image and estimation of those who have sinned against us.  This forgiving attitude is often described, figuratively, as “forgetting” or no longer “counting” a person’s crimes (Jer. 31:34; 1 Cor. 13:5; Ps. 103:12).  This is because the non-resentment that one harbors after extending forgiveness resembles the attitude he might have had if the sin had never been committed in the first place (see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below).  In its most robust expression, subjective forgiveness is not a mere disposition of indifference toward an offender as if his image were merely undeformed.  Paralleling His demands for radical deeds of forgiveness—not just remitting debt but extending undeserved credit to defaulters (Matt. 5:40-42)—Jesus requires an equally robust disposition of heart.  Christian forgiveness entails entertaining a better vision of our enemies than their deeds deserve, with the result that we are able to gladly heed the command: “bless those who persecute you” (Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14; cf. Matt. 5:44; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:9).  Practiced properly, subjective forgiveness is neither an exercise in fantasy nor a surrender to naivete about just how evil and dangerous certain foes may be.  Rather, there are objective grounds for crediting all men with a better estimation than their sins deserve, and unique grounds for esteeming repentant brothers the most highly of all.
The objective and subjective dimensions of forgiveness have a paradoxical relationship that forces us to appreciate the central significance of the latter.  On the one hand, it is possible to forgive another person’s financial debt begrudgingly (perhaps, for example, out of a desire to be perceived as gracious), without expelling a hateful disposition toward him from within.  Jesus denounces this sort of forgiveness as disingenuous, not being “from the heart” (Matt. 18:35).  Such forgiveness is as displeasing to God as alms given under compulsion rather than cheerfully (2 Cor. 9:7).  As pleasant as it might be to have a large monetary debt forgiven, even if not from the heart, it is far more dangerous (and potentially costly) to incur for oneself a life-long enemy.  That is why Christians are called to make peace (Rom. 12:18), and to make friends so far as they are able (Matt. 5:25).  On the other hand, one might deny a criminal complete objective forgiveness (by remitting a debt partially, or seeking a reduced penalty for a crime), and yet extend to him the fullest sort of subjective forgiveness (genuinely seeking his well-being).  God’s discipline of His people epitomizes this combination.  He often applies objective penalties with the most holy intention to bless and to sanctify His people, rather than to finally harm and destroy (see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below).  Another curiosity is that at first glance the extension of a forgiving deed may appear rather more difficult than cultivation of a forgiving heart.  Initially, one may be greatly disinclined to forgive, outright, a neighbor’s financial debt for backing into his car, but surprisingly willing to restrain the tendency to despise and/or hope the worst for that neighbor.  However, in the course of time, feelings of resentment for the car-incident may resurface again and again.  Thus, the conscious resolve to forgive from the heart may need to be repeated many times for one and the same crime.  In that respect, subjective forgiveness often proves to be rather more difficult than the one-time deed of remitting or reducing a debt.  Moreover, if one finds it difficult to renew his forgiving disposition, say, seven times, for one offense, he will find it even more challenging to expel contempt for his neighbor after seven similar offenses.  Recognizing that repeated forgiveness from the heart is profoundly difficult, Jesus nevertheless requires that His disciples be prepared to forgive their brethren “seven times in a day” (Lk. 17:4), and “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22).
BELIEVERS ARE REQUIRED TO FORGIVE THE UNREPENTANTHaving discussed forgiveness as both deed and disposition, we turn to the controversial question, are Christians are obligated to forgive the unrepentant?  And if so, what is the rationale?  That Christ requires his disciples to forgive unrepentant foes is clear from His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.  It is impossible that in commanding His disciples to lend your coat to “anyone” who “wants to sue you and take your shirt” (Matt. 5:40), Jesus meant to limit the prescribed response to repentant aggressors.  The picture Jesus paints is that of a heartless enemy seeking to take the very shirt off our backs.  Toward this kind of person, even in his state of aggression, Jesus requires what we might call a “super-forgiving” disposition.  This conclusion is reinforced by the imperatives that precede and follow Matthew 5:40.  To “not resist an evil person” (5:39a), to “turn the other [cheek]” to the person who slaps you (5:39b), to go a second mile with the person who “forces you to go one mile” (5:41a), and to “love your enemies” (5:42) all imply that the offending party is still yet evil, an enemy, and unrepentant when the radical forgiveness is extended to him.  Most importantly, Jesus grounds His imperatives in the character of God.  The Father extends profound gestures of kindness to all men without exception (Matt. 5:45-48; Acts 14:16-17), repaying their offenses with longsuffering patience (Rom. 2:4; 3:25; 2 Pet. 3:9), rather than immediate retribution.
When we survey other Scriptural imperatives that require a forgiving posture toward all, we can begin to see the practical wisdom of this feature of a Biblical ethic.  We are told that the wise man seeks to “overlook an offense”—that is, to forgive rather than prosecute—wherever they can without aiding or encouraging evil (Prov. 19:11).  Evidently, this is because in a fallen world we are bound to be victims of so many sinful behaviors that it is not even so much as possible to seek tangible recompense for them all.  Biblical calls to generosity (1 Tim. 6:18; Eph. 4:28), some of which explicitly encompass our enemies (Lk. 6:35; Matt. 5:42), prescribe a super-forgiving stance, in part, because it garners respect and kindness in return (Lk. 16:1-9).  Moreover, there are “weightier provisions of the law” about which we are obligated to correct our neighbor lest he suffer the terrible consequences in this life, not to mention the life to come (Prov. 26:5; 2 Tim. 3:24-25; Gal. 6:1; 1 John 5:16-17).  On account of these, we must be prepared to simply forgive lesser debts, lest we become overbearing and lose the opportunity to gently address more serious ones.  Sometimes monetary debts must be forgiven, and loss accepted, because our debtors are so financially destitute that collection is futile (Deut. 15:1-6; Lk. 7:42).  Others are in such a calloused state of mind, that it would be folly on our part to enter upon any course of correction whatsoever for mere interpersonal slights (Prov. 9:8; 26:4; Matt. 7:6).  This non-corrective stance toward committed fools, rebels, and belligerents is the very lowest sort of forgiveness that one can exercise in this life.  For, in not collecting on his debts or seeking a corrective penalty, the hard-hearted man is being surrendered to the consequences of his own self-destructive behaviors.  Even in handing the unrepentant “over to Satan,” the disposition of a believer’s heart is not to be one of cruelty, but of tough-love and hope that the evil fruits of his rebellion might be a means through which he is brought to final repentance (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20).  This is also one reason why Biblical prayers for another person’s judgment are compatible with forgiveness.  (See “Forgiveness and Imprecation” below.)
If Jesus positively requires that believers forgive the unrepentant, and there is manifest wisdom in doing so, what compels many to conclude that forgiveness ought to be reserved for the repentant?  To begin, we have already seen that the Mosaic Law only prescribes a reduced penalty for theft if the criminal confesses and repents of his crime.  In keeping with this provision of the Law, Jesus explicitly taught, “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.  And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him” (Lk. 17:3-4).  Although God is, in many concrete gestures, “forgiving” to all of humanity through the course of history (Matt. 5:45-48), He withholds eternal forgiveness and imputation of righteousness (what the New Testament frequently calls “justification”) from all but those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ (Matt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:13-15).  Indeed, the point of the “Parable of the Forgiving King” (Matt. 18:23-35) is that those who experience God’s forgiving patience in history but fail to repent of their own merciless disposition will assuredly not be forgiven in eternity.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF FORGIVENESSJohn Calvin solved the apparent contradiction between Jesus’ calls to pardon everyone (even the unrepentant) and His limitation of the same to those who repent, with reference to the objective and subjective dimensions of forgiveness (see Calvin’s comments on Matt. 18:21-35).  First, Christians must forgive unrepentant sinners (especially for non-criminal, personal offenses) by “laying aside the desire of revenge,” and repaying their evil with objective deeds of “kindness” (Matt. 5:43-48; Rom. 12:14, 17; Prov. 20:22; 24:29).  However, it is appropriate, according to Calvin, “to entertain an unfavorable opinion” of unrepentant parties.  Second, a more robust “kind of forgiving” must be reserved for the repentant brother.  Upon confessing and turning from his evil, Christians must not only treat that brother kindly but “think favorably” of him.  Calvin’s solution, although basically correct, is not entirely adequate.  Whereas the extension of kind deeds and the suspension of personal vengeance must be extended to the repentant and unrepentant alike, Calvin denies that one aspect of subjective forgiveness may be extended to the latter, namely the development of a higher estimation of his person than his deeds deserve.  We agree with Calvin that there is a qualitative difference between the forgiveness extended to the unrepentant and the repentant.  However, we submit that in all its expressions, forgiveness must entail an alteration of our very thoughts and opinions of our fellow man.  In short, we forgive the unrepentant by entertaining higher thoughts of what they may become, while we forgive a repentant brother by upholding a confident vision of the character that he presently has on account of Christ’s dwelling in Him
Read More
Related Posts: