Forgiveness in the Bible is mainly volitional, and judicial or forensic. It is a voluntary cancellation of an objective debt. The debt is incurred toward God when a person violates God’s commands, and also when one inherits guilt — both a guilty verdict and a guilty nature — from mankind’s federal head, Adam. Between men, the debt is incurred when one person thinks or behaves in a way about or toward another person such that he violates God’s commands regarding how one must treat another.

Forgiveness in human relationships is also mainly volitional and objective, not emotional. Jesus said that if someone has wronged you, even multiple times on the same day, but returns and says “I repent,” you are to forgive him. This seems to imply that forgiveness is possible or required only when the other person repents. But elsewhere, Jesus also says that when someone wrongs you, you are supposed to confront him, to rebuke him and show him his fault. Then, if he admits to wrongdoing and repents, you are to forgive him. Both sides have the responsibility to resolve the issue. The one who has sinned ought to know that he has sinned and ask for forgiveness. And the one who is wronged ought to confront the offender, and make a case for the charge based on Scripture, and the offender is then supposed to repent. When that happens, the one who is wronged must forgive.

God demands reconciliation, especially among brothers and sisters in Christ. The biblical approach is to fix it, not just to forget it. If the offender refuses to repent, then the one who is wronged can bring the matter before the elders and the church. The unrepentant offender is finally excommunicated.

Some people take this further to say that forgiveness must mean a total removal of the debt such that the relationship must become the same as before, as if the transgression has never occurred. They claim that true forgiveness in human relationships means instant and total restoration. This is often what should happen, but when they teach it as an obligation, it is not only unbiblical, but foolish and dangerous. It is irresponsible to impose a false principle like this on believers such that they think they are morally compelled to always proceed as if nothing has happened.

When some Pharisees and Sadducees came to John the Baptist, he said, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:7-8). Why did John say this? Why didn’t he welcome them? Because he was not stupid. He knew that people can say they are interested in your message, and people can say that they repent, but few people actually change. John would not accept an empty gesture, but insisted, “Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God” (NLT). In human relationships, we can extend formal forgiveness to someone who repents, but it is often dangerous and destructive to continue as if nothing has happened. Consider cases like murder, rape, fraud, and so on. Would you allow a known child molester to babysit for you just because he claims he repents? You would be a criminal parent.

Suppose someone worked for you and committed a costly error so that you fired him. Now he returns and says, “I was careless and did not take the work seriously. I repent.” You forgive him, but it would be unreasonable to insist that you must hire him back. You might no longer be angry with him, but his error probably showed that he was not right for the job in the first place. If he receives additional training and if his work ethic obviously improves, then give him another chance if you wish. But don’t rehire him if he has not changed. What if he is a bus driver? What if he was drunk while operating dangerous factory machinery? How many opportunities will you give him before he kills somebody? Let him produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

This is true even with milder situations. Suppose a friend wronged you and damaged the relationship. Now he returns and repents. By all means, forgive him, but it does not necessarily mean that you have to be friends again, or that the relationship must return to the way it was before. Perhaps the two of you have conflicting priorities in life. There is no reason to force both of you to keep wasting time. It does not mean you are angry with him. You might even help him when he gets into trouble. But not everyone has to be your friend. The same is true with ministry. You do not have to offer personal attention to everyone who asks for it. When some people do not listen to me, after a while I stop making the effort and cut them off. It does not mean I resent them. I am not the only preacher in the world, and we should not keep wasting time. They might listen to other people.

The procedure is not possible with non-Christians. They operate by a different standard of right and wrong. It is impossible to bring an unbeliever to the church elders or a church court. There is no excommunication since he has never been in fellowship with the congregation. However, the Christian can still take the first step toward reconciliation by confronting the non-Christian offender about his wrongdoing. The non-Christian’s repentance must first entail conversion to the Christian faith. If this does not happen, then the Christian cannot offer forgiveness in the objective sense. We can pray to God, “Father, forgive him.” This is answered only when God turns him into a Christian. If he does not become a Christian, God will throw him into hell for his sins anyway, including the sin that he committed against you. There is no forgiveness of sins other than by the blood of Christ.

A person transforms from an enemy to a friend only when he becomes a Christian. Any other friendship is superficial. Suppose a non-Christian owes you ten dollars and refuses to pay it. You can “forgive” that in an objective sense by not pursuing the matter, but there is no way to forgive the objective moral wrong that he has done. If you confront him about the moral wrong, you do so on the basis of God’s commands about stealing, telling the truth, and so on, but whether he happens to agree or not, he does not affirm the same standard for the same reason; therefore, it is impossible for him to repent in the right sense (“I have wronged you by violating God’s commands in my behavior toward you”). He must become a Christian, and then repent on the basis of God’s commands, or there can be no true reconciliation. As for the emotions, a Christian is not supposed to harbor resentment toward another person, but to let that go is a private matter of self-control and the fruit of the Spirit, and is not forgiveness in the objective sense.

Let us summarize. If we use the word “forgive” in a very loose sense, then it is possible for a Christian to forgive a non-Christian, or for a non-Christian to forgive another non-Christian. However, the Bible uses the word and the idea in a more specific sense. Forgiveness in the Bible entails true reconciliation with God and men instead of putting the matter aside without resolving it. This is why for a non-Christian to receive forgiveness in a biblical sense, he must become a Christian. There is no true love, forgiveness, humility, or any other moral virtue in non-Christians, because these are the fruit of the Spirit, and non-Christians cannot have the Spirit. What they seem to have or think they have is an imitation. Any “forgiveness” toward the non-Christian or an unrepentant person can at the most mean releasing emotional resentment toward him or releasing him from any material debt (such as money borrowed). But this is not forgiveness in the specifically biblical sense.

Then there are those who declare that it is unbiblical to apologize, but one must always ask for forgiveness. This is from the same group of people who claim that true forgiveness must always mean instant and total restoration even in human relationships. They are from a theological tradition that tends to strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Here I think it depends on what we are talking about. If someone accidentally bumps into you on the train and says, “I am sorry” or “I apologize,” I don’t think you should seize him by the collar and demand, “NO!!! You must repent and ask me to forgive you!” Sometimes a polite gesture like “I am sorry” or “Excuse me” is more than sufficient, and we should not be so easily offended. However, if a person does something that God’s word defines as a sin, and it is something that is concrete and significant, so that we can investigate it and discuss it, then the proper procedure for forgiveness is necessary. And often when someone realizes the seriousness of the situation and says, “I apologize,” he indeed means, “I was wrong, please forgive me.” In those case, it is usually more important to achieve reconciliation first, and then settle the proper terminologies later.