According
to A.E. Knoch (and those students of Scripture who have adopted his view on
this subject), the word aphesis (“pardon”
or “forgiveness”) and the word dikaiósis
(“justification”) have mutually exclusive meanings, and refer to two incompatible states or conditions.
According to Knoch, “forgiveness” or “pardon” involves a blessing that is
exclusively for saints outside of the body of Christ (e.g., those who
constitute the “Israel of God”), while justification is a blessing that is
exclusively for the saints in the body of Christ (at least, until the
consummation, when all mankind will be justified). Although I do think there is an important
difference between the pardon/forgiveness that is for believing Israelites and
the justification of those in the body of Christ, I don’t think the difference is found in the inherent meaning of the
word translated “pardon” and “forgiveness.”
Knoch
seemed to assume that, because a believing Israelite could lose his or her
“forgiveness” or “pardon” through unfaithfulness, the word aphesis must inherently
refer to “a temporary respite which may be forfeited or withdrawn” (see, for
example, Knoch’s remarks on Acts 13:38 on page 200 of his Concordant Commentary on the New Testament). Similarly, on pages
257-258 of The First Idiot in Heaven,
Martin Zender contrasts pardon/forgiveness with justification by stating that,
unlike justification, “pardon can be revoked” and “withdrawn,” and that its
permanence “depends on the conduct of the one receiving it.”
Although I think there is some truth to what both Knoch and Zender have
written concerning the pardon/forgiveness of believing Israelites and the justification
of those in the body of Christ, I also think they have erred in seeing “pardon”
and “justification” as mutually exclusive in meaning. I also believe that their
understanding of “pardon”/“forgiveness” becomes highly problematic when we come
to certain verses in which these words are applied to the saints in the body of
Christ.
The
main verses I have in mind as being especially problematic for the view
referred to above are Acts 26:18, Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14. In each of
these verses we find the word aphesis
being used (which, again, is the same word used when the “pardon” or
“forgiveness” of Israelites is in view). However, it is also clear that the
sins and offenses which are said to be “pardoned” or “forgiven” in these verses
are those which have been committed by saints in the body of Christ.
Let’s
consider Acts 26:18 first (for context I’ll include the three verses preceding
it).
Acts 26:15-18
Now the Lord said, “I
am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting.But rise and stand on your feet, for I was
seen by you for this, to fix upon you before for a deputy and a witness both of
what you have perceived and that in which I will be seen by you, extricating
you from the people and from the nations, to whom I am commissioning you, to
open their eyes, to turn them about from darkness to light and from the
authority of Satan to God, for them to
get a pardon of sins and an
allotment among those who have been hallowed by faith that is in Me.”
Notice
that the “pardon of sins” is spoken of by Christ as something which would be
received by those among the nations who would be saved through Paul’s apostolic
ministry (i.e., those destined to be in the body of Christ). Either Christ
understood what he was saying and spoke truthfully when he declared these words
to Paul, or he didn’t. If he did, then it follows that those to whom Christ
commissioned Paul (i.e., the nations) did, in fact, receive the “pardon of sins”
by their faith in the evangel which Paul heralded to them. And if that’s the case, then the “pardon of
sins” that Christ declared would be received by believing gentiles as a result
of Paul’s commission is perfectly consistent with their being justified by
faith. Any perceived inconsistency or contradiction must, therefore, be due to
a misunderstanding of what “pardon of sins” actually means. In A.E. Knoch’s
remarks on Christ’s words here (see page 221 of his commentary), we find no
explanation as to how Christ’s use of the word “pardon” in Acts 26:18 can be
reconciled with Knoch’s understanding of the meaning of the word “pardon.”
Let’s
now consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 (as with Acts
26:18, I’ve included some preceding verses for the sake of context):
Ephesians 1:3-8
“Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who blesses us with every spiritual
blessing among the celestials, in Christ, according as He chooses us in Him
before the disruption of the world, we to be holy and flawless in His sight, in
love designating us beforehand for the place of a son for Him through Christ
Jesus; in accord with the delight of His will, for the laud of the glory of His
grace, which graces us in the Beloved: in
Whom we are having the deliverance through His blood, the forgiveness of
offenses in accord with the riches of His grace, which He lavishes on us;
in all wisdom and prudence…”
Colossians
1:12-14
“…at the same time
giving thanks to the Father, Who makes you competent for a part of the
allotment of the saints, in light, Who rescues us out of the jurisdiction of
Darkness, and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in Whom we are having the deliverance, the
pardon of sins…”
What’s
interesting is that, in the immediate context of both Eph. 1:7 and Col. 1:14,
Paul used two Greek words that were also
used by Christ in Acts 26:15-18: the word translated “forgiveness”/“pardon” and
the word translated “allotment” (see Col. 1:12 and Eph. 1:18). I strongly doubt
that this is a mere coincidence, but I won’t press the issue here. What I do
want to emphasize is that Paul used the word aphesis not once but twice
in his “later epistles” in reference to the saints in the body of Christ. If
the word aphesis really has the
meaning that Mr. Knoch and others have claimed that it has, why would Paul so
freely use it to refer to the present status of those who are in the body of
Christ?
Knoch
seems to be aware of there being at least a potential problem with Paul’s use
of aphesis in Eph. 1:7, but I’m not
entirely sure of what to make of his remarks on this verse. On page 289 of his
commentary we read, “’Pardon’ of sins
becomes forgiveness when associated
with offenses” (emphasis his). It
would appear that Knoch interpreted aphesis
as meaning something different than “pardon” when associated with the word
“offenses” (rather than “sins”) in Eph. 1:7. Elsewhere, however, Paul seemed to use the words
interchangeably (see, for example, Romans 5:12-21). So it's at least possible that it was for the sake of emphasis only that Paul used one word rather than the other. And even if one were to argue that not every “sin” is an “offense” (in the scriptural sense of the word), it could still be the case (and, I think, is the case) that every “offense” is a “sin.”
Thus, for Knoch
to try and give aphesis a different
shade of meaning in Eph. 1:7 (by translating it “forgiveness” rather than
“pardon”) simply because Paul used the word “offenses” rather than “sins” is, I
believe, somewhat dubious and unhelpful (it's certainly not as "concordant" as it could've been!). Regardless
of whether one wants to translate the word as “forgiveness” or “pardon,” the fact remains that Paul clearly had no
problem with using the word aphesis
in reference to those in the body of Christ.
Things
get a little more complicated (unnecessarily so, I believe) when we come to
Knoch’s comments on Colossians 1:13-14. Rather than taking the words of Paul at
face-value (and then simply reconsidering the meaning of aphesis in accord with its inspired usage by Christ and
Paul), Knoch – working under the assumption that aphesis inherently and necessarily referred to a state that was
“temporary” and which could be “withdrawn” – was forced to ascribe a figurative meaning to what Paul wrote. In
his commentary on Col. 1:13-14 (see page 303), Knoch remarks as follows:
“The
kingdom of His Son is a figurative allusion to the kingdom of Christ. Messiah’s
kingdom is literal and future and destroys and displaces earth’s kingdoms (Dan.
2:44). The kingdom of the Son here spoken of is a present spiritual power. We
are not rescued from earth’s governments but from the powers of Darkness which
direct and dominate them. The term “pardon” is borrowed from the kingdom
phraseology to accord with this figure.”
In
other words, Knoch believed that Paul’s use of aphesis in
Col. 1:14 was “figurative,” and simply an extension of his “figurative” usage
of the word “kingdom” in verse 13. However, it’s simply not the case
that, when understood literally, the expression “kingdom of the Son of His
love” (along with the expression “kingdom of God,” which refers to the same
future kingdom during the eons to come) refers exclusively to Christ’s kingdom on the earth (i.e., the kingdom that we’re told will be restored to Israel). Scripture is clear that, in
addition to being on the earth, Christ’s kingdom will be established in the
heavens and among the celestials as well (Rev. 12:9-12), thus making the
“kingdom of God” a future reality that pertains to the body of Christ just as
much as it pertains to Israel (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50; Eph. 5:5; Col. 4:11; 1
Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:18). For a defense of the view that Paul had in mind the kingdom of God in its celestial location in 1 Cor. 15:50, see the following article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/03/clearing-up-some-confusion-concerning_7.html.
Since those in the body of Christ will, in fact, be enjoying an
allotment in the kingdom of God (which, again, is the “kingdom of the Son of
His love” during the eons), there is no reason to believe that Paul had in
mind the kingdom of God on earth in Col. 1:13. This means that there's no
reason to think that Paul's use of the word aphesis in Col. 1:13 has anything at all to do with Israel or Israel’s “salvation program.” And this fact alone completely
undermines Knoch’s reason for ascribing a figurative meaning to Paul’s use of
the word “pardon” in v. 14.
The fact is that we have no good reason to think that Paul
understood the word aphesis to mean what Knoch understood it
to mean. Instead, the meaning of the word aphesis is
simply neutral with regards to whether one’s deliverance from
the consequences of one’s sins/offenses is to be understood as conditional and
“probationary” in nature, or as unconditional and permanent. But if that’s the
case, then what is the meaning of the word?
Answer: The word from which aphesis (FROM-LETTING) is derived is aphiemi (FROM-LET). Like aphiemi, the word aphesis expresses the idea of a person’s sins or offenses being “sent away” from them, and of God’s no longer reckoning their sins and offenses to them. Thus, for people’s sins/offenses to be “pardoned” or “forgiven” by God can be understood to mean that God is not reckoning their sins/offenses to them. He is, in other words, relating to them as
if they’d never committed them.
In support of this understanding of what it means to be “pardoned,” consider David’s words in Psalm 32:1-2:
“Happy he whose transgression is lifted away, whose sin is
covered over! Happy the human to whom Yahweh is not reckoning depravity, in
whose spirit there is no deceit!”[1]
When,
in Romans 4:7-8, Paul quoted these verses from Psalm 32, he was following the
Septuagint (LXX) and translated the Hebrew nâśâ' nâsâh (“lifted
away”) with the word aphesis. It’s
evident, then, that these verses refer to David’s happiness following the
pardoning, or forgiveness, of his transgressions by God. What, exactly, this
pardoned status involved is clear from the ideas that David linked together. It
involved (1) a person’s transgressions being “lifted away” or “pardoned”; (2) their
sin being “covered over”; and (3) Yahweh’s not reckoning depravity to a person.[2]
We
find the same general idea expressed by David in Psalm 103:8-14:
Yahweh is merciful
and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He will not always
chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. He does
not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our
iniquities.
For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is
his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our
transgressions from us. As a father shows compassion to his children,
so the Lord shows
compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame;
he remembers that we are dust.
Psalm
85:2-3 also seems to covey the idea that the pardon of sins involves God’s
ceasing to reckon a person’s sins to them, and his ceasing to relate to them as
if they had sinned:
“You forgave the iniquity of your people;
you covered all their sin. Selah You withdrew all your indignation; you turned from your
hot anger.”
It’s
clear from other verses that for God to pardon/forgive someone’s sins involved
his “blotting out” their sins from his sight (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 51:1, 9; Jer.
18:23; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Acts 3:19) and his no longer remembering their sins
(Jer. 31:34; Isa. 43:25; Ez. 33:16; Heb. 8:12). And this, I believe, involves
nothing less than a deliverance from the negative consequences of
one’s sins/offenses (which, as I’ve argued
elsewhere, is ultimately death).
The pardoning or forgiveness of sins has
nothing inherently to do with a conditional state or status that can be
“revoked” or “withdrawn” based on one’s conduct. The word aphesis does not, in itself, tell us why God is not reckoning one’s sin and offenses to a person, or
whether or not there are any conditions that must be met by the one pardoned in
order for them to stay pardoned. When
used in reference to a believing Israelite (whose salvation is conditional, and
depends on their present perseverance in faith and good works),
“pardon”/”forgiveness” is a conditional state that's dependent on their own faithful conduct
(at least, relatively speaking). However, when used in reference to those in
the body of Christ, “pardon” or “forgiveness” is to be understood as
unconditional and permanent, and as having nothing to do with our conduct. Our
pardon/forgiveness takes place when we believe Paul’s evangel, and (like our
justification) is a “once for all time” deal.
When
we understand the word aphesis as
being inherently “neutral” with regard to the conditional or unconditional
nature of a believer’s deliverance from sin’s penalty, it does not need to be
understood as being in conflict with the meaning of “justification.”
Being pardoned and being justified need not be understood as mutually exclusive
states or conditions, but rather as “two sides of the same coin.” As noted
earlier, David described the state of those who have been pardoned as one in
which God is not “reckoning depravity” to them
(Ps. 32:2).
Moreover,
there is indisputable scriptural evidence that justification is
just as “neutral” in meaning as is the word “pardon,” and that it can apply to
both saints in the body of Christ and
to saints outside of the body of Christ (I go into more depth on this subject
in my study on justification). Many who see justification and pardon as
mutually exclusive terms seem to forget the fact that Paul was not the only inspired author to use the word
“justified” when writing to a group of saints! In his letter to the
twelve tribes, James used the word three times (2:21, 24, 25). However, the
justification he had in view was a declared righteous status that is based on
the faith and conduct of those to whom
he wrote, and was something that could be lost if one’s conduct ceased to
involve the faith and works that are necessary to receiving eonian life in the
kingdom of God. In contrast to this, the justification of which Paul wrote is a
declared righteous status that is based solely on the faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ (Rom. 3:24; Gal. 2:15-17).
For
one to be “justified” simply means that one has been declared “just” or
righteous by God. The word “justification” does not, in itself, tell us why (i.e., on what basis) a person has
been declared “just” or righteous by God, or whether or not there are any
conditions that must be met in order for someone to stay justified. Like the word “pardoned,” the word “justified” is
neutral in this regard. For saints outside of the body of Christ (e.g., those
constituting the “Israel of God”), both pardon and justification are conditional blessings that are based on one’s
own faith and works (and which can be forfeited and lost if one does not
continue to meet the requirements that must be met in order to be saved).
However,
for those in the body of Christ (and, eventually, for all mankind at the consummation),
pardon and justification are unconditional blessings based on God's super-abundant grace (and, as such, can never be lost or forfeited).
Unlike the present justification of believing Israelites, our justification
does not involve our own faith and our own works; rather, our justification is
“through the faith of Christ.” And insofar as our “pardon” or “forgiveness” is also based on this fact, it is just as
unconditional in nature. The sins and offenses of those in the body of Christ
will never (and could never) cease to be pardoned by God; there is nothing we
could ever do or not do that could ever result in our sins and offenses being
reckoned to us by God.
[1] By referring
to a pardoned individual as one “in whose spirit there is no deceit,” David was
not claiming to be (or implying that others were) without sin, or absolutely
pure and righteous. Rather, he had in mind those who refused to deny or hide
their sins, and who honestly confessed their sins to God (see verses 3-5).
[2] Some have
argued that the way in which Paul quotes Psalm 32:1-2 in Romans 4:8 conveys a
stronger idea than that of “mere” pardon. Paul’s quotation of this verse reads,
“Happy they whose
lawlessnesses were pardoned and whose sins were covered over! Happy the man to
whom the Lord by no means should be
reckoning sin!” It is the words “by no means”
that some point to as evidence that Paul had in mind something distinct from
(and greater than) the idea of “pardon.” However, this presupposes that pardon
could never be (or refer to) a permanent state, and thus begs the question against
the position for which I’m arguing in this article.
As argued above, the
“pardoning” of one’s sins/offenses can be either conditional (and thus possibly lost) or unconditional (and thus permanent in nature). Whether “pardon” is
to be understood as conditional or unconditional simply depends on whom it is
being pardoned, and the basis on which their pardon rests (the word “pardon”
is, in itself, neutral in this regard). The context in which the word appears
is, therefore, of the utmost importance in determining the exact nature of the
“pardon” in view. Thus, insofar as the words “by no means” in Rom. 4:8 are to
be understood as referring to a permanent, unvarying state, it simply follows
that the “pardon” that Paul had in view here is not something that he believed
could ever be revoked or withdrawn.