Forgetfulness

Forgetful in the sense of heedless, neglectful, is perhaps still in use collo- quially, but in literary English we should not now say as AV after Tindale in He 13^ ' Bo not forgetful to entertain strangers' (t^s (ptXo^efta! fii} iin\av86.ve<r8i, KV ' Forget not to sliow love unto strangers'). 'A forgetful hearer' (Ja 1") is more modern, hut RV prefers ' a hearer that forgetteth ' (d/cpoaTTjs i-nX-qa/j.oi'ijs, lit.

' a hearer of forgetful- ness,' as in 2 'judges of evil thoughts' = evil- thoughted judges'). In Sir 23' the meaning is again, probably, he^dUss and so unmannerly, ' Remeuiber thy father and thy mother, when thou eittest amon-^ great men. lie not torgetful before them, and so thou by tny custom become a fool ' (tt/, vari iT.Aal^j). But the passage is obscure. Wyolif haa it, ' Lest perauenture Uod forgete Ihee in the sighte of hem,' aft«r Vuig.

A'e forU uOliviacatur U Deujt in cow^jj'^ctH iUtrum ; and he (or the Vulg.) is followed by Kogers", Co\ erdale's, the Bishops", and the Douay versions ; the Geneva has ' lest thou be forgotten in their sight.' RV slightly alters the construction of the sentence, and ao get a new meaning — • Remember thy father and thy mother. For thou sittest in the midst of great men ; That thou be not forgetful before them, And become a fool by thy custom.'

The great men are presumably the father and mother; If to, 'great ones' would have been better; the Gr. is simply «ra >ii»o, ij,iy,rri>ait. Ball, in QPB, follows Fritzsche and AV, and explains, ' Low language reflects upon one's upbringing.' Forgetfulness occurs in Ps 88" 'Shall thy wonders he known in the dark? and thy right- eousness in the land of forgetfulness?' (.

i;;') \~^^), where ' forgetfulness' is not the condition of losing all recollection, but of bein" forgotten, oblivion, — a meaning which Bradley (Oxf. Eng. Diet.) marks as probably obsolete. 'The condition of losing recollection might be represented as a blessed one, OS in Shaks. II Uennj IV. UI. i. 8— ' O sleep ! O gentle sleep t Nature's soft nurse, how have! frighted thee. That thou no more wilt weigh my eyelids down. And 8t*ep my senses in forgetfulness?'

But the Psalmist's thought is rather as in Norton (1501), Calvin's In.it. iv. xviii. 704, 'This Masee B6 FOKGIVEXESS FOEGIVENESS . stianiefnlly . . putteth his death in forget- fulnesse ' ; and Gray, hlegy, 1. 85 — • For who, to dumb Forpetfulness a prey, This pleasing anxious being e'er resifn^ed. Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day. Nor cast one longing ling'ring look behind?'

This is the meaning also of Wis 17 ' they were scattered under a dark vail of forgetfulness ' {d06776t \-fjdi)^ TTapcLKaXt'/x/xaTtf Vulg. tenehroso ob- livionis velamento') ; but in 14^ 16", Sir 11, the word is used in its usual sense of a tendency to forget. J. Hastings. FORGIVENESS In OT three words especially are used to express the idea of forgiveness— "i?? * 'cover' or 'pacify'; n'pp (root meaning unknown) ; t^Vi 'lift up or 'away.'

AV and RV render all three usually ' forgive,' sometimes 'pardon.' The first and second are always used of divine forgive- ness—the first, rarely (I^a 1%^ Jer 18", Dt 2ie, 2 Ch 30"), the second, frequently (e.g. 1 K 8*"-, Lv 4-"-) ; the third is in common use of ordinary human forgiveness as well (e.g. Gn 50", Ex 10", 1 S 15^ 25^).

In nearly all instances the context implies repentance for the offence, and an inten- tion to avoid a repetition of it, as a condition of the forgiveness ; and as a result of it, that the offender is placed again in the position which he occupied before the offence, in the old covenant relation to God, or in the same friendly relation as before to the person affected.

Under the sacri- ficial system the repentance and the amends are represented by the sacrifice which is ottered by the offender through the priest (see Oehler, 'theology of the OT, § 139) ; but in other cases in the Psalms and the Prophets there is no Buggestion of more than acknowledgment of sin, repentance, and that intention of amendment which is expressed by the phrase 'turning to the Lord.'

Forgiveness is a free act on the part of God or of man ; it restores the offender to the state in which there is no obstacle to his communion with him from wliom he has been alienated ; it gives peace of mind (Ps 32), a consciousness of the divine mercy (Ps 103); it removes the fear of punishment and quickens love (2S 121^, Job 33^8, Ps 103^).

Nor is it only an individual matter ; the whole nation may be alienated from God through neglect of his will, and may by forgiveness be restored, — such is the burden of many a prophetic exhortation. It has been said that ' no permanent state of reconciliation ' was established under tlie old cove- nant ; that there was only such forgiveness for the past as might enable men to begin again to seek justification through the works of the law.

It has also been maintained that the old covenant furnished only a ' passing over ' of sin, a ' closing the eyes' to it on the part of God — by which, though satisfaction was not made, tliough there was no real remission of sin, punishment was forgone. The consideration of these questions involves the whole subject of Atonement (wh.

see); but it may be stated here that neither tlie national and individual experiences recorded in tlie OT, nor the words and general language used, seem to suggest any fundamental difference in the idea of forgiveness from that which we find in the NT. When St.

Paul in a particular passage (Ro 3^) uses, with reference to sins committed by men living under the old covenant, a word (jrdpeiris) different from that ((50E<ris) which is in common use in the NT to express ' forgiveness,' he has in mind a different thought. He is arguing that because in former ages God had not exacted from men the punishment which was due for their sins (cf. Ac • On this important term see Oa^. Heb. Lex. *.ii., also Driver, Dtut. 2U, 4'2Dt., and art. Pkopitiation.

l-l'", IT**), his forbearance had been misunderstood) he liad 'passed by' sins till the world was in danger of forgetting that he was a God of righteousness ; and the time had come for a signal exhibition of his liatred of sin in the propitiation made in Christ Jesus (see Ro 3^- ^ RV, the sense of the argument is lost in AV). With men such ' passing by might involve forgetting, it could not be the same aa ' forgiving ' ; with God it would be neither (see Trench, Synonyms, § xxxiii.)

No argument with regard to the nature of forgiveness under the old covenant can be drawn from the passage. Indeed, so far as the relation between the individual and God is concerned, there is nothing to indicate that the forgiveness granted by God in the ex]ierience of his people before the coming of Christ was different in kind from that which Christ pro- claimed.

A difference in the requirement oi it from men in their relations with one another, no doubt, may readily be detected between the teach- ing of the OT and the NT. It is here that the real development in the ethical teaching of the NT on the subject is to be found. The duty of forgiving injuries and wrongs committed against oneself or others cannot be said to occupy the (iro- minent place in the OT that it has in the teaching of Jesus.

It must be recognized that in this respect there is a real distinction to be drawn.

But true as it is that the revelation of the divine will and of the ideal of human life and character, the power of the whole revelation made in Christ, has im- measurably facilitated the individual's opportunity of conscious enjoyment of the divine forgiveness, and stimulated his readiness to bestow forgiveness in his measure upon others ; yet it is none the less true tliat the same forgiveness of sin was offered to previous generations of men — 'they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises.'

The materials for deter- mining the idea of forgiveness are, however, so much richer in the NT than in the OT, tliat we turn to it rather than to the OT for the elabora- tion of the idea. So closely, indeed, is the principle associated with the teaching and work of Christ, that for- giveness has been called ' Clirist's most striking innovation in mor.ality,' and tlie phrase a ' Chris- tian ' spirit is commonly regarded as synonymous with a disposition of readiness to forgive an injury.

The pagan ideal of manly life was to succeed in doing as much good to your friends and as much injury to your enemies as possible ; and if it be not true tnat forgiveness was a virtue un known in the ancient world, it was at all events not one that was demanded or proclaimed as a duty by any ethical system.

Indeed it is clear that without a sense of the need of personal holiness and the con- sciousness of guUt, without — in the widest meaning of the phrase — a conviction of sin, there could ha no true repentance, no sense of the need of forgive- ness. And such a conviction of sin neither Greek nor Roman religion produced. The words which are used in the NT are the Gr. representatives of the Heb. words in the OT.

We have, though rarely, the word (KoXt/TrTu) meaning 'cover' or ' hide ' (Ro 4', 1 P 4, Ja S", all quoted from LXX) ; and once, with reference to former times, the word for ' passing by ' (Ro 3''") ; but by far the commonest word is that which expresses the idea of 'sending away,' or 'letting go' or 'releasing' (506(711), which is rendered in this connexion either 'forgive,' 'forgiveness,' or 'remit,' 'remission.'

The noun occurs in this sense eleven times in the synoptic Gospels (not at all in Jn) and Ac (Mt 26^, ^'Ik 1^ 3=^, Lk 1" 3' 24", Ac 2» 5^' 10« 13^ 26'8 ; eight times in Lk and Ac, a favourite word of St. Luke), and four times elsewhere (Eph 1', Col 1», He 922 W). In eleven of these instancei FORGIVENESS FORGIYENESS 57 there is added 'of sins,' in one 'of trespasses,' in one the same words are in tlie immediate context, and in the two remaining instances the word stands absolutely.

(AV renders nine times 'remission,' six times 'forgiveness.') The verb with the same meaning occurs about forty times in the synoptic Gospels, once in Ac (8, ), three times in Jn [Gospel once (20^), 1 Ep. twice (1* 2'-)], and twice elsewhere (Ro 4', Ja 5"). It is found predominantly with the usual word for ' sin ' {a/mprla) or ' sins ' expressed or implied in the context, but other words — 'debt,' 'trespasses,' 'iniquities' — are also used.

The verb implies the complete removal of the cause of offence. The sin is taken out of the way, out of sight. The debt is cancelled : the debtor released from his obligation (cf. Mt IS-'""*). As far as the offender is concerned, the trespass is done away. He no longer has the sense of sin, of guilt and liability to punishment ; he is restored to the harmonious relations which existed before.

(It is noticeable that though this is the favourite word of the Gospels and Acts, it is scarcely found in the NT outside them : the idea of forgiveness is merged in the wider ones of justification and salvation). Instead of this word St. Paul uses one (xapl^firBat ten times) which has the special sense 'confer a favour on,' ' be gracious to ' — of men towards one another and of Christ in relation to them (2 Co 2'- '" 12'», Eph 4'^ Col 2^ 3"). St.

Luke has this word twice (Lk T""- ■"), each time of a debt ( AV ' frankly forgave '), and twice he has also a word {airoXvw, 637 »u)^ meaning to ' loose from,' ' release,' ' set at liberty.' In the Apocalypse the nearest equiva- lent is found probably in the idea of the olood • loosing ' from sin and 'cleansing' {e.g. Rev 1° 7" ; cf. 1 Jn l'-»)- The teaching of the NT as to forgiveness is sufficiently represented by (1) the sayings of Christ which led up to St.

Peter's question and the answer to it (Lk 17»- , Mt 18>'-" and 18=>- ^-), and the Parables of the Prodigal and of the great Debtor (lik 15"-«^ Mt 18'^->) ; (2) the clause in the Lord's Prayo.' ;>fith the comment which is added Mt 6"- '», ct Mk ll^*- ^); and (3) the allusion to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12^' and parallels), and St. John's mention of sin 'unto death' (1 Jn 5").

(1) The teaching is given much more fully in Mt than in Lk, but the full essence of it is in the words of Lk, ' If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him ; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent ; thou shalt forgive him.' It is clear at once that, if certain conditions are satisfied, the teaching of Christ admits of no limitations to the law of forgiveness.

The account in Mt more vividly enforces this point. It represents Christ as at first only enunciating the general jirinciple. St. Peter seeks for further guidance, wishing to reduce the principle to the compass of a definite rule, and asking, ' Lord, hoio oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him 1 till seven times ?

' and it is in answer to his question that tlie words are elicited which raise the duty out of the sphere of mere numerical calculation — ' I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.' There is to be no limit whatever to the readine.ss of a follower of Christ to forgive. On the other hand, it is equally clear that some- thing is required on the part of the oH'cnder before he can be the recipient of forgiveness. ' If tliy brother . .

turn again to thee, saying, I repent ' — this is the condition : there must be the con- sciousness of sin, the free avowal of error (cf. Lk 1.5^'), the recognition of wrong-doing and the turning away from it, and, it seems, the willingness to make amends (cf. Lk 19').

That there must be such repentance * (change of mind, acceptance of s new ideal of life) is still more plainly shown in the account of Mt : the Christian is not to remain passive till the olicnder of his own accord comes to him penitent and begging reconciliation — he ia, on the contrary, to adopt all rational means he can to bring home to him the error and evil of his conduct ; and should he stiU remain inpenitent and obdurate, there is no forgiveness for him — he places himself outside the pale of Christian life — ' Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.'

The Parable of the Prodigal Son shows the same relation between forgiveness and repentance.

The wish to leave the father — the revolt against his will, his plan of life^was the sin : the return is in itself sufficient proof of repentance, even though it was prompted by the sense of failure and physical himger ; the father recognizes it as such, and hastens to meet and welcome the offender, and forgives him before he has had time to put into words his confession of sin ; the son is in that moment restored to the position in his father's household which he had forfeited.

(The teaching of the apostles as described in Ac lays similar emphasis on repentance as a first condition of salvation [e.g. Ac 2^], baptism being from one point of view the outward mark of repentance). So, too, the publican goes do^-n to his house 'justified' because penitent (Lk 18"). Similarly, a readiness to forgive others is laid down as a condition for a man's own forgiveness (cf. Mt 6", Mk 112»- !», Mt 5').

The Parable of the great Debtor shows that the absence of a for- giving spirit in men prevents their being themselves forgiven. (2) The instances of Christ's teaching which have been cited might be interpreted as having reference only to relations between men, though it is scarcely conceivable that the parables are not intended to be significant of the relations of mankind as sons to God the Father, the ideal of character.

The clause in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6", Lk 11*) makes it evident that human forgiveness and divine forgiveness are represented as strictly analogous. There is indeed no indication of any fundamental difference between the forgiveness which the Christian wins from God and that which he in turn bestows upon his 'brother.'

It is the same phrase which is used throughout— a phrase denoting actual ' remission ' of sin ; and it is used by Christ of his own action, and alike of God's and of man's part in the mysterious process. If it were not so, it would be mockery to oU'er ui; the petition, ' Forgive us our trespass, as we forgive them that trespass against us.'

The comment on the clause, which Mt appends to the Prayer, and the similar saying, wliich Mk introduces in connexion with the exhortation to faith in praying, forbid any differ- entiation (cf. Col 3"). The statements are quite general. Forgiveness is to bo won by repentance and confession, whatever the nature of the offence, whoever the persons concerned may be.

(In view of the indisputably general application of the Parable of the Prodigal Son anu the other references to forgiveness, it seems impossible to accept the interpretation of Mt 18'»-" which would limit its teaching to relations between Christians). (3) There are, however, two references which seem to set a limit to the possibility of divine forgiveness. One is the case ot the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ; the other is St.

John s • Two words are used which iniplv clian^e of mind (iDvolWnjf rccret tor the course pursued anil iluintte of conduct for llio future) Mt 4", Mk !'», Lk \b^■ ">. and chunffc of wiU Mt 21^ (on tlio question whether the distinction liold» or not. »eo Trench, Syiionjimi, i llix.); and llurc are also wordi whiib mean ' turning ' or 'oonirersion,' Lk 2'i^, Ml IS*. B8 FORGIVENESS FORM allusion to 'sin unto death.'

The first of these references declares that there is a supreme sin Tor which no man can ever hope to be forgiven — ' All their sins shall be forgiven unto tlie sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme' (Mk 3**) ; but with these sins and blasphemies there is pointedly contrasted one — 'Whosoever shall blaspheme ajjainst the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin,' and it ' shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come ' (Mt 12'-).

All that can be said witli certainty as to the nature of this sin is that the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees to Christ was a sign and indication of it, and that the Pharisaic charge that it was by the powers of evil that he was enabled to perform his works of healing, was the immediate occasion of his denunciation of it. Augustine regarded the sin as deliberate persistence in evil (for other interpretations see Westcott, note on 1 Jn 5").

It would appear from the rest of Christ's teaching on forgiveness that it was in any case of such a character as to deaden and destroy the spiritual sense in him who yielded himself up to its influence, so that repentance would become impossible to him. The idea of unpardonable sin is further suggested by St. John's exception of ' sin unto deatli ' from the subjects of intercessory prayer (1 Jn 5'*).

To one who thus sins the way of forgiveness is closed ; at least it is not to be opened through the intercession of his brethren, which in other cases would avail. There remains to be considered the problem of the significance of Christ's cry from the Cross, ' Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do ' (Lk 23**). It is evident that it is a prayer for the forgiveness of those who have not repented, who have not even come to knowledge of their guilt.

It cannot, however, be regarded as limited in its scope to the Roman soldiers, and excluding any reference to the share in the final tragedy taken hy the party of the scribes and Pharisees. The soldiers could not be thought of as in any real sense needing forgiveness for carrying out their orders in what they could only consider an ordinary execution : even Pilate was treated as comparatively guiltless.

The cry must therefore be the supreme expression of the human sympathy and love of Christ, of the great principle which he had always inculcated. The sin embodied in the conduct of the Pharisaic party he had condemned in burning words ; towards it there could not be any change of feelin^ ; but they might be brought to repentance late tliough it was, and the words which are under consideration are a prayer for that result, a loving hope for the enlightenment of those blind leaders of the blind.

It may be a hope against hope, but the crj does not constitute an exception to the principles and conditions of forgiveness which are to be drawn from other parts of the NT. It is a crowning example of ' forgi\4ngness,' if so be that the divine mercy may transcend the usual conditions of the bestowal of the boon.

Such a spirit of ' forgivingness ' may be present (it has been noticed that it is required in all cases from the individual who has been in- jured), whether ' forgiven-ness ' (the remission of the offence as regards the person who has ofl'ended ) ensues or not. The word ' forgiveness ' is capable of the active and of the passive sense.

In the active sense it is clear that it is an ordinary Christian duty ; in the passive sense, before it can be realized the conditions which have been elicited must be fulfilled. LiTBRATUHS.— Oehler, Theol. of OT; Sohmid, Bi6. Theol. of NT ; Martensen, ChriitUin Ethics ; Seeley, Ecre Homo ; Dorner, S]/etem of Christian Doctrine. See alao 'Literature under arts. AiomuNT, Propitiahos. J. F. BetHUNE-BaKER.