It is well known that, at Charlie Kirk’s memorial, his widow, Erika, forgave the man who is charged with his murder. This has reignited a debate that I first became aware of perhaps 15 years ago. There are two sides to this discussion: 1) forgiveness is conditioned upon the penitence of the sinner, and 2) forgiveness is unconditional. Here I am arguing for the latter.
In defense of the first approach, one writer argues,
First of all, forgiveness in the Bible is only to be granted to a brother or sister in Christ after there is evidence of repentance. “Be on your guard! If your brother or sister 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 (Luke 17:3-4).” If this is true of a brother or sister in Christ, how much more of an unbeliever. Without repentance, there can be no forgiveness.
When we pray in the Lord’s prayer that God forgive us as we forgive our debtors, Christ, no doubt, is assuming repentance on the part of those who have sinned against us. Even so as we repent before God of the sins we have committed against Him.
This approach seems to know a priori (i.e., before we have examined the text of Scripture) how things must come out, and it assumes things it does not prove. “Christ, no doubt is assuming repentance…” begs the question. It is true that we are to forgive those who ask for forgiveness, but it does not follow that, therefore, we only forgive those who ask for forgiveness.
Is forgiveness, biblically considered, necessarily conditional? The first passage that comes to mind when answering this question is doubtless the greatest example of forgiveness in all of Scripture:
Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 12:32–38; ESV).
How should we understand this passage? One defender of the conditional approach, quoted above, explains:
Some argue that the Old Testament rules have changed. Jesus said on the cross, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” However, a careful reading of the text demonstrates that he was referring to those who had a part in the actual execution on Calvary on that day. “But Jesus was saying, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.’ And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves (Luke 23:34).” Jesus asked the Father to forgive those competing for his garments (and those who nailed him to the cross) who did not really understand who was being crucified, as did the unrepentant murderers who sentenced Him to death.
Does this explanation, however, hold up under scrutiny? I think not. First, the question is whether the “Old Testament rules have changed.” The moral law of God is immutable. The religious and judicial laws have certainly changed. They were intentionally temporary. To use the language of Westminster Confession 19.3 and 4 they have been “abrogated and they have “expired.” The moral law, however, continues to be “a perfect rule of righteousness” (WCF 19.2) and it “forever” binds all, both “justified persons” and everyone else. For those who are outside of Christ, it is a covenant of works that continues to demand “personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience” (WCF 19.1) but to those who are, by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide), in Christ, it is not a covenant of works (WCF 19.6). This is what Paul means when says that we are no longer under law but under grace (Rom 6:14). The substance of the covenant of grace is one under the types and shadows and under the New Covenant.
When Jesus said, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do,” he was echoing the Old Testament. Consider the case of Joseph in Genesis 50:15–21. Was Joseph’s forgiveness of his brothers conditioned upon their repentance? Did he say, “Well, now that you have met the legal conditions by repenting sufficiently, I forgive you”? He did not. Scripture says: “But Joseph said to them, ‘Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.'” (Gen 50:19–20; ESV). It is evident that he had already forgiven them.
What did the Lord command Hosea regarding his unfaithful wife? “And the LORD said to me, ‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins’ (ESV).” Was Yahweh’s love conditioned upon Israel’s repentance? According to Scripture, the repentance of Hosea’s wife was to be the fruit or consequence of his love for her (Hos 3:3) and afterward “the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days” (Hos 3:3; ESV).1
In the New Testament, our Lord Jesus taught Peter (and us) to forgive not seven times but “seventy-seven” times (Matt 18:22). The case that Peter brought to Jesus mentions nothing about the offender being repentant. In the parable Jesus gives to illustrate forgiveness, the sinner does plead for forgiveness (Matt 18:26), but, as it turns out, the forgiven sinner was himself ungracious (Matt 18:33–34) and refused to forgive those who had offended him, and for that he comes under judgment. Does this mean that forgiveness is conditional? It would seem difficult to square refusing to forgive someone with the language of v. 35: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart” (ESV).
In explaining the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer, our Lord says, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt 6:14–15; ESV). There is a condition here, but our forgiveness of fellow sinners is not conditioned upon the repentance of the offender. Indeed, the whole burden of the explanation is that we should be forgiving, not that we should be finding reasons to be unforgiving. After all, if our forgiveness of others is conditional, then we may always find some reason why we do not have to forgive. There will always be some defect in the confession by the offender. In the argument for conditional forgiveness, the author points to the ignorance of those who crucified our Lord as a ground for our Lord’s forgiveness. Is this the Christian doctrine of forgiveness? Does our Lord forgive us because of something in us? Does he also justify us because of something in us? Where does this approach stop? How does conditional forgiveness not make Christianity a legal religion, i.e., a covenant of works?
To be sure, there are legal aspects to Christianity. Our Lord Jesus is our federal head. That is a legal relation between him and us. He actively obeyed and suffered all his life for us and all that he did is credited to us who believe. In justification we are declared righteous, even though, in ourselves, we are not actually righteous. These are legal aspects of our faith. The good news is that Jesus fulfilled the demands of the law for us. We are gracious with sinners, even impenitent sinners, because God was gracious to us while we were yet impenitent. We forgive because we are not under a covenant of works but under a covenant of grace.
Not even our faith is a condition of our justification. Faith is improperly called a condition of our justification. Properly, it is the sole instrument. Herman Witsius explained,
To speak freely, the first opinion [that faith is a condition of justification] seems to me indeed to be the introduction of a new law, whereby the most pleasant, the most gracious, and the, most glorious nature of the gospel of Christ is not a little corrupted.2
He insisted on making faith the instrument because that is the confession of the Reformed churches in Belgic Confession article 22:
However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us—for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness. But Jesus Christ is our righteousness crediting to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place.
By analogy, making forgiveness conditional upon the sinner’s repentance is the same sort of mistake, and this gets us back to our Lord’s words from the cross:
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:34–38; ESV).
The “for” in v. 34 is not a cause but an explanation. It is a statement of fact, not a legal ground of forgiveness. The argument that Jesus’ forgiveness of those who crucified him was conditioned upon their ignorance collapses in v. 36: “the soldiers also mocked him.” Yes, they were ignorant, but they were impenitent. They were not just pawns. They hated Jesus.
Calvin explains,
By this expression Christ gave evidence that he was that mild and gentle lamb, which was to be led out to be sacrificed, as Isaiah the prophet had foretold, (53:7.) For not only does he abstain from revenge, but pleads with God the Father for the salvation of those by whom he is most cruelly tormented. It would have been a great matter not to think of rendering evil for evil, (1 Pet. 3:9;) as Peter, when he exhorts us to patience by the example of Christ, says that he did not render curses for curses, and did not revenge the injuries done to him, but was fully satisfied with having God for his avenger, (1 Pet. 2:23.) But this is a far higher and more excellent virtue, to pray that God would forgive his enemies.3
We are meant to understand that the people whom Jesus forgave were actively impenitent. They were, as Calvin said, enemies. These are the very sort of people that American Christians on the cultural right and the cultural left tell us we should not forgive, but these are the very sort of people that Jesus did, in the hours of his agony for us sinners, forgive.
Forgiveness does not mean that there are no temporal consequences for sins and crimes. The murderer of Charlie Kirk will face temporal consequences for his crimes, but Erika was right to forgive him. The two are not mutually exclusive.4
In the Christian life, people will sin against you, and many times they will never ask for forgiveness. You have a choice. To wait for them to repent or to forgive them and pray that they repent and ask forgiveness. The former course leads to bitterness. The latter is the better course and more faithful to Scripture and the example of our Savior.
notes
- I am grateful to correspondent Dale Hill for pointing me to this passage.
- Herman Witsius, Conciliatory or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain, 10.8, trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807), 112.
- John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle vol. 3 (Logos Bible Software, 2010), 300.
- See the discussion Paul’s forgiveness of Alexander in Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (Elm Street Printing Company, 1888), 652.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Dear Dr. Clark,
Thank you very much for these thoughts. By God’s providence, this is a topic (forgiveness) that is very important to me and the church I belong to in our current situation. However, my questions do not relate specifically to our situation, but to forgiveness in general.
Until now, I have been an advocate of the position that forgiveness is only granted when a request for forgiveness has been made. That is why I am glad that my convictions are being challenged here. This raises a number of questions for me:
1. What is forgiveness, actually? Is it unilateral? What happens when forgiveness is granted without a request for it (spiritually speaking)? Which passages can help us to define it?
2. When we look at God’s forgiveness, it is a forgiveness that always goes hand in hand with reconciliation, correct? Or speaks Jesus prayer on the cross against this? How can we imitate this (Eph 4:32)? Can our forgiveness then be separated from reconciliation?
3. If there is a distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, can we prove this biblically? Can the former be granted without the latter?
4. How can the request for forgiveness and the psalms of vengeance be reconciled?
I think that the definition of forgiveness is crucial here. I look forward to your response.
Perhaps you could also recommend some resources on this topic for further study.
God bless you.
Kevin,
The key to getting this right is to understand the progress of redemptive history. If we act like we’re still in the types and shadows, then we’re always going to be trying to figure out who the Canaanites are and what we should do to them. Once we understand redemptive history and we realize that we’re the Canaanites, and that Christ underwent the curse for us, that he’s made us part of the covenant people and that we’re not in a covenant of works but in a covenant of grace, the rest of it comes fairly easily.
There will be time for justice and judgment. The fiery flood is coming (according to Peter) but now is not that time.
When the Charleston shooting happened at The Mother Emmanuel Church. The families of the victims that were killed forgave Dylan Roof. That was such a hard time in Charleston when that happened. When the families forgave the man that did the shooting. We all came together. We still talk about that when things happen.
Dr. Clark,
I’m certainly inclined to agree that, biblically, we are to forgive unconditionally.
However, perhaps you can help untangle a particular point of confusion: you cite the example of Christ forgiving from the cross, but does this really demonstrate unconditional forgiveness?
Unless we are to adopt some form of Barthian universalism, it cannot be the case that God forgives unconditionally. In fact, he forgives based on the condition of his own effectual call and imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness in the heart of the believer. Those who do not repent will not receive forgiveness, and their sins will be held against them for all eternity.
So it seems that while our unconditional forgiveness of others is analogous to God’s conditional forgiveness, it is not the same. After all, we can’t give our own good works to others as a substitute when we forgive them.
Should we understand our need to forgive as being analogous to God’s forgiveness, or am I looking at this incorrectly?
Ben,
I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.
When our Lord Jesus said, ““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” he did not intend for us to infer that humans have the ability to resist the divine will. Jesus was not a polytheist. The Spirit recorded those words in Matthew 23 to reveal to us a stance toward lost humanity. We are to model that stance. The attitude modeled in Matthew 23 doesn’t obviate the divine decree nor does it change our Lord’s words in John 17, where he indicated that the Father had given him the elect from all eternity. Ditto for John 10. Both things are true.
One difference between us mere creatures and God the Son is that we don’t know who are the elect. Thus, we call, cajole, and invite everyone everywhere to come to the Savior. In so doing we are imitating our Savior. We are responding to his words in Matthew 23 in the intended way, without making more or less of his words than we should.
In this case, our Lord forgave those who were brutally abusing and murdering him. That forgiveness in no way implies universalism or that Jesus died for all men and every man. As in the case of the free offer, we imitate our Lord by forgiving those who have offended us even before they ask or even when they do not ask, without implying that 1) there are no consequences for being impenitent (we confess in HC 87 that there aer the most dire consequences) or 2) implying that salvation is universal.
Well said, Dr. Clark.
In addition to your article., may I recommend, Chapters 7 & 8 in David Powlison’s “Good and Angry: Redeeming Anger, Irritation, Complaining, and Bitterness.”
Well worth digesting for all Christians.
So your conflation of churches and others being sucked into the MAGA universe negates a Christian widow forgiving the murderer of her husband? Is the power of the gospel restricted only to those of your ilk rather than others who may not believe exactly as you do? Would it not be reasonable for one to conclude that you are not much different than those you disparage.?
This was a reply to Jp but wouldn’t embed in the thread . . .
I don’t think she should be held up as a paragon of Christian living within the church community. Individuals can think what they like, but the church should stay neutral when it comes to politics. And she is politics.
You are entitled to disagree with her politics. I probably do on some things. That doesn’t negate the fact that she stood before the world and forgave the man who murdered her husband.
That is an example worth emulating whatever one thinks of her politics.
Individuals can think what they like. Tens of thousands of Christians attended vigils for Kirk. I would hope that churches would not have encouraged anyone to attend those from off the pulpit. It’s not the Church’s business. Neither is it their business to venerate his wife.
I appreciate this.
I’ve tended to notice Ball, and I like many of his articles, likes to be a contrarian as of late…
People often conflate forgiveness and reconciliation. The latter requires both parties. The former does not.
Unfortunate that you use her as an example.
Please explain.
Because she is political as is TPUSA and a strong MAGA supporter . There are other examples of forgiveness that aren’t splashed across the news. Christians being killed and forgiving their assassins. Not to mention the ultimate examples in the Bible, which you also spoke about.
You’re going to have to explain your reasoning. Why does it matter that she is “political,” part of TPUSA, or a MAGA supporter? Why do these characteristics disqualify her as an example?
Was her husband not murdered?
Did she not forgive the murderer?
Her case is why people are discussing this question again.
This is my concern, and my opinion . Her act draws the Christian community towards MAGA, making people they are an upstanding organization, regardless of the wickedness that goes on within that administration. Matt 7:15 “ Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves”
Matthew 24:24: “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect”.
Jp,
So, this all comes down to politics?
We all live in two spheres. In the secular sphere we make common cause with people with whom we have sometime deep philosophical or political disagreements. That’s the nature of life in a twofold kingdom.
Politics isn’t the church. It’s politics, which deals with the temporal. It’s messy and chaotic. It’s full of sinners.
Is the Trump administration more wicked than the Biden or Obama or Bush Administrations? When we as the last pure administration?
I was also appalled at the martyr status given to Kirk off the pulpit of reformed churches.
The difference is the Christian community is revering this administration. That’s a dangerous thing. Particularly when Church is revering this administration and those who support it. The church has no business doing that. Subject to them, yes, but not revering them.
JP, I agree that too many Christians or so called Christians blindly support this administration and evil policies.
Dr. Clark clearly does not, and in my eyes I understand why he mentions Erika.
Dr. Clark, thank you very much for this article. I really appreciate it personally.
Agree. I appreciate Rev. Ball’s reminder on the importance of repentance for sin. My immediate thought was the passage in Acts 7:60, which he does not adequately address. It is true that Stephen never said “I forgive you.” But he said the functional equivalent: “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” (LSB) Clearly there was no repentance in the hearts of the offenders, as Stephen asked God to forgive (demonstrating his own forgiving disposition) EVEN AS they were killing him. In my opinion, we can take Stephen’s as a normative example.
(BTW, sorry for the gratuitous, random, unrelated quote. But I too live in Western PA, and just ran across my new favorite from T. David Gordon: “Why all of this prophet-killing? Why not hunt deer, as we do in western Pennsylvania?” PROMISE, LAW, FAITH: COVENANT-HISTORICAL REASONING IN GALATIANS, p.293. No one says it quite like him!)