Forgiveness (Systematic Theology)

Editorial Note
Links to other media and further information regarding this topic can be found in the German version of this article.

1. What Is Forgiveness?

In systematic theology, the concept of forgiveness addresses the question of the nature of God’s salvific action toward human beings. Thus, the concept of forgiveness stands alongside other concepts such as reconciliation, justification, and redemption, which are also used to describe God’s gracious acts toward humanity.¹Cf. Härle, Wilfried, Dogmatik, Berlin/Boston ⁶2022, 330–343. In this respect, the various terms do not denote different subjects, but rather reflect different emphases in the understanding of God’s work of redemption for humanity.

Insofar as divine forgiveness refers to the forgiveness of sin(s), our understanding of this forgiveness stands or falls with the way we understand its object, sin. Different understandings of sin give rise to different understandings of forgiveness. What the various understandings of sin have in common, however, is the fundamental understanding of sin as something that prevents human beings from being in communion with God (and consequently also with their fellow human beings), whether due to individual violations of laws or commandments, or due to a fundamental perversion of the human will or structural and systemic relationships of dependency, oppression, and power (see sections 2 and 3).²Cf. Härle, Dogmatik, 461–496; Joest, Wilfried/Lüpke, Johannes von, Dogmatik, vol. 2: Der Weg Gottes mit dem Menschen, Göttingen ⁵2012, 58–86. In the Christian tradition, talk of divine forgiveness accordingly expresses the assumption or hope that God restores humanity’s capacity for communion with him (and with fellow human beings). This assumption or hope can refer both to the present moment and to a relationship with God and the world that is continually restored in the practice of faith, as well as in an eschatological sense (i.e., in relation to what happens after death or the end of the world) to the outcome of the last judgment.

2. Understandings of Divine Forgiveness throughout the History of Theology

2.1. Overview

The understanding of divine forgiveness has changed over time and continues to evolve. While what is translated in the Old Testament and much of the New Testament as God’s forgiveness (of sins) often refers to sin or guilt resulting from specific human wrongdoing – which God forgives in an abstract sense (סלח/sālaḥ),³Cf. Stamm, Johann Jakob, Erlösen und Vergeben im Alten Testament. Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Bern 1940, 47; Hausmann, Jutta, Art. סָלַח, in: ThWAT 5 (1986), 859–867. but also metaphorically covers (כסה/kāsāh),⁴Cf. Ringgren, Helmer, Art. כָּסָה, in: ThWAT 4 (1984), 272–277. lets pass or transfers to another place (עבר/῾āḇar),⁵Cf. Fuhs, Hans Ferdinand, Art. עָבַר, in: ThWAT 5 (1986), 1015–1033. removes (נשא/nāśāʼ),⁶Cf. Freedman, David/Willoughby, B. E., Art. נָשָׂא. I. Grundbedeutung, in: ThWAT 5 (1986), 627–629; Freedman, David/Willoughby, B. E., Art. נָשָׂא. III. Verwendung im AT, in: ThWAT 5 (1986), 633–640. remits (ἀφίημι/aphiēmi),⁷Cf. Leroy, Herbert, Art. ἀφίημι, in: EHAT 1 (1980), 436–441; Bultmann, Rudolf, Art. ἀφίημι, in: ThWNT 1 (1990), 506–509. shows favor (χαρίζομαι/charizomai),⁸Cf. Berger, Klaus, Art. χαρίζομαι, in: EHAT 2 (1981), 1093–1095. etc. – then a shift in understanding can be observed with the increasing emancipation of Christianity from Judaism and with the development of its own doctrine away from a theocentric to a Christocentric understanding of the forgiveness of sin(s), i.e., increasing emphasis was placed on the necessary role of Christ in the act of forgiveness.⁹Cf. Frankemölle, Hubert, Art. Vergebung der Sünden. III. Neues Testament, in: TRE 34 (2002), 668–677, 669.676f. This development goes hand in hand with a radicalization of the understanding of sin as the object of divine forgiveness. Increasingly, it is not individual human transgressions but rather the whole of human existence – defined as sinful – that gains significance as the object of divine forgiveness. Through this, the forgiveness of sin(s) develops into a soteriological concept, that is, a concept that addresses humanity’s fundamental need for redemption.

2.2. The Early Church and the Middle Ages

In the early church, the focus is primarily on the life renewed through the forgiveness of sin(s) and a way of life consistent with that renewal. The promise of forgiveness of sin(s) in baptism gives rise to the duty to live a holy life. With the development of the distinction between everyday, venial, forgivable sins and unforgivable mortal sins, the foundation is laid for a differentiated system of penance designed to lead to absolution or forgiveness of sin(s).¹⁰Cf. Holze, Heinrich, Art. Sünde/Schuld und Vergebung. VI. Kirchengeschichtlich und dogmengeschichtlich. 1. Alte Kirche, in: RGG 7 (⁴2004), 1881–1883; Joest/Lüpke, Dogmatik 2, 97–101. In the early Middle Ages, this initially took shape in the requirement of penance intended to facilitate the forgiveness of venial sins. As the focus shifted increasingly from liability for the act itself to liability for intent, inner, sincere contrition became more important for obtaining absolution or forgiveness of sin(s).¹¹Cf. Holze, Heinrich, Art. Sünde/Schuld und Vergebung. VI. Kirchengeschichtlich und dogmengeschichtlich. 2. Mittelalter und Reformation, in: RGG 7 (⁴2004), 1883–1886.

2.3. Reformation

At the same time, the practice of indulgences emerged as a means of mitigating the penalties for sin, and later the sale of indulgences, which served as a stumbling block for Luther  and, in its wake, led to numerous theological reevaluations and shifts in perspective, including regarding the understanding of the forgiveness of sin(s). The departure from a “domestication of the forgiveness of sin in the sacrament of penance.”¹²Askani, Hans-Christoph, Art. Vergebung der Sünden. IV. Systematisch-theologisch, in: TRE 34 (2002), 678–686, 679, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Domestizierung der Vergebung der Sünde im Bußsakrament.” goes hand in hand with – and is at times driven by – a radicalization of the way in which human beings are understood as sinners. The power of sin is understood as corrupting the heart and the mind (cf. art. Reason) of human beings in such a fundamental way that they are not even capable of feeling sincere contrition. Instead, granting divine forgiveness is understood as an event that befalls human beings in a purely passive (mere passive) manner. With regard to terminology, the concept of the justification of the sinner is more formative for Reformation theology than the concept of the forgiveness of sin(s). In this tradition, however, both concepts are closely linked or even identified with one another.¹³Cf. Lohse, Bernhard, Dogma und Bekenntnis in der Reformation. Von Luther bis zum Konkordienbuch, in: Andersen, Carl/Ritter, Adolf Martin (Eds.), Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, Bd. 2: Die Lehrentwicklung im Rahmen der Konfessionalität, Göttingen ²1998, 1–164, 87.92. Insofar as the forgiveness of sin(s) does not primarily concern individual acts (peccata actualia), but rather the fundamental sinfulness, the original sin (peccatum originale) of human beings, it aims at the same thing as the justification of the sinner (see section 3.1.).

2.4. The Modern Era

From the Reformation to the present day, numerous different understandings of the forgiveness of sin(s) have coexisted and competed with one another. During the Enlightenment, the Reformation’s understanding of sin and its forgiveness was subjected to fundamental criticism because it was seen as corrupting the necessity and capacity of human beings to act virtuously, that is, morally well.¹⁴Cf. Abraham, Martin, Art. Sünde/Schuld und Vergebung. VI. Kirchengeschichtlich und dogmengeschichtlich. 5. Neuzeit, in: RGG 7 (⁴2004), 1886–1887, 1886. In a similar vein, Schleiermacher  criticizes such an understanding of the forgiveness of sins. Also drawing on Enlightenment ideas, Schleiermacher further points out that the notion of forgiveness of sin(s) coming purely from outside has magical traits: “Forgiveness of sins is brought about just as magically when the awareness of deserving punishment is supposed to cease simply because another has borne the punishment”¹⁵Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhang dargestellt 1, ed. Martin Redeker, Berlin ⁷1960, 101 (§101, 117f.), translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “Ebenso magisch wird die Sündenvergebung bewirkt, wenn das Bewußtsein der Strafwürdigkeit aufhören soll deswegen, weil ein anderer die Strafe getragen hat.” See also Härle, Dogmatik, 326f.

In the twentieth century, Karl Barth  emphasizes that forgiveness of sin(s) is the basis for recognizing sin, contrary to the view held by some that an awareness of sin, mediated through an encounter with the law, is first necessary to recognize one’s own dependence on salvation or forgiveness of sins.¹⁶Cf. Barth, Karl, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik II/2, Zürich ³1948, 835–847. Paul Tillich , however, points out above all that the question of modern times is not one of a merciful God and the forgiveness of sin(s), but rather one of self-alienation and meaninglessness, so that divine forgiveness is accordingly seen as overcoming self-alienation and as the creation of meaning and hope.¹⁷Cf. Tillich, Paul, Systematische Theologie I, ed. Christian Danz, Berlin/Boston ⁹2017, 53.466–472.

Various liberation theological approaches and strands of feminist theology understand sin primarily as structures of oppression, power relations, and social, economic, and political asymmetries, such that forgiveness of sin(s) is reinterpreted from this perspective as liberation from or the overcoming of these conditions.¹⁸Cf. Suchocki, Marjorie Hewitt, Art. Sin, in: Dictionary of Feminist Theologies (1996), 261f.; Tamez, Elsa, Art. Justification by Faith, in: Dictionary of Feminist Theologies (1996), 162f.; Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth, Gibt es eine feministische Rechtfertigungslehre?, in: EvTh 60 (2000), 348–359, 352f.; Askani, Vergebung, 680f.

3. Approaches to the Forgiveness of Sin(s)

3.1. Forgiveness of Sin(s) as the Justification of the Sinner

The identification of the forgiveness of sin(s) with the justification of the sinner stems from the Reformation tradition (see section 2.3.) and is still upheld today. The theology of justification is used to explain the “how” of the forgiveness of sin(s). It does this primarily through legal terminology and the imagery of the judicial process. God sits in judgment over humanity and holds them accountable for their fundamental sinfulness. The just verdict regarding sinful humanity would therefore have to be a guilty verdict. The justification of the sinner now consists in the counterfactual, solely by grace (sola gratia) effected acquittal of the sinner on the basis of Christ’s righteousness (iustitia aliena). Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinner; conversely, the sinfulness of humanity is borne by Christ, who goes to the cross for it. The so-called “joyful exchange”¹⁹Luther, Martin, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, 1520, in: idem, D. Martin Luthers Werke (Kritische Gesamtausgabe 7), Weimar 1897, 20–38, 25, translation by Jacob N. Cerone. German original: “fröhliche Wechsel.” takes place between Christ and the sinner. Forgiveness of sin(s) in this sense is thus primarily a resolution of the problem of the individual human being separated from God and the world by their sinfulness, and thus shares the concern of Reformation theology to explore theological realities existentially.²⁰Cf. Luther, Freiheit; Elert, Werner, Morphologie des Luthertums I, München 1953; Elert, Werner, Der christliche Glaube. Grundlinien der lutherischen Dogmatik, Hamburg ⁴1956; Ebeling, Gerhard, Dogmatik des christlichen Glaubens III, Tübingen ²1982; Ebeling, Gerhard, Dogmatik des christlichen Glaubens I, Tübingen ³1987; Jüngel, Eberhard, Das Evangelium von der Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen als Zentrum des christlichen Glaubens. Eine theologische Studie in ökumenischer Absicht, Tübingen ⁵2006; Bayer, Oswald, Martin Luthers Theologie. Eine Vergegenwärtigung, Tübingen 2003; Roth, Michael, Die Bedeutung der Rede von der Sünde für das Selbstverständnis des christlichen Glaubens, in: Lasogga, Mareile/Hahn, Udo (Eds.), Gegenwärtige Herausforderungen und Möglichkeiten christlicher Rede von der Sünde. Klausurtagung der Bischofskonferenz der VELKD, Hannover 2010, 37–65; Roth, Michael, Für dich gegeben. Lutherische Theologie, ed. Claas Cordemann/Gundolf Holfert i. A. d. Kirchenleitung der Vereinigten Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands (VELKD), Hannover ²2018; Slenczka, Notger, Der Tod Gottes und das Leben der Menschen. Glaubensbekenntnis und Lebensvollzug, Göttingen 2003, 210–226; Slenczka, Notger, Lebendiges Erbe. Von der erschließenden Kraft der dogmatischen Sünden- und Erbsündenlehre, in: Gräb, Wilhelm/Laube, Martin (Eds.), Der menschliche Makel. Von der sprachlosen Wiederkehr der Sünde (LoPr 11/08), Rehburg-Loccum 2009, 31–51. The resulting consequence – that is, making the salvation brought about by the forgiveness of sin(s) existentially relevant to the individual person – is criticized by various feminist and liberation theologians as an individualistic narrowing of salvation.²¹Cf. Sölle, Dorothee, Gott denken. Einführung in die Theologie, Stuttgart 1990, 107–128; Wartenberg-Potter, Bärbel, Der Gerechtigkeit Gottes begegnen. Anmerkungen zum Diskurs über die Rechtfertigungslehre aus ökumenisch-feministischer Perspektive, in: EvTh 60 (2000), 360–370. In contrast, various feminist and liberation theological approaches understand sin and the forgiveness of sin(s) less in terms of the individual and more in structural terms (see section 3.3.).

3.2. Forgiveness of Sin(s) as a Distinction between Person and Work

Recently, the forgiveness of sin(s) has also been expressed as the distinction between the person and their works. This view draws primarily on Luther  as well as on the Lutheran theologians Gerhard Ebeling  and Eberhard Jüngel . When forgiveness of sin(s) is discussed in terms of this distinction, the argument is generally that God distinguishes the person from their works that are unworthy of justification and grants forgiveness of sins by accepting the person apart from their works.²²Cf. Härle, Dogmatik, 334; Beintker, Michael, Vergeben, in: idem/Großhans, Hans-Peter (Eds.), Menschliches – Allzumenschliches. Phänomene des Menschen in den Horizonten theologischer Lebensdeutung, Leipzig 2020, 319–334; Moos, Thorsten, Vergebung und Sühne. Zum religiösen Umgang mit Schuld, in: idem/Engert, Stefan (Eds.), Vom Umgang mit Schuld. Eine multidisziplinäre Annäherung (Normative Orders 15), Frankfurt a. M. 2016, 89–114; Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (Ed.), Das Reformationsjubiläum 2017 feiern – Leichte Sprache, 2017 (https://www.ekd.de/Vergewissern-28582.htm), accessed on 25.08.2026; Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (Ed.), Rechtfertigung und Freiheit. 500 Jahre Reformation 2017, Gütersloh ⁴2015. However, this does not correspond to Luther’s discussion of person and work, which, on the contrary, attributes works to the person.²³Luther, Freiheit, 33; Dieter, Theodor, Der junge Luther und Aristoteles. Eine historisch-systematische Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Theologie und Philosophie (TBT 105), Berlin 2001, 234f. Nor does it correspond to the distinction between person and work as made by Ebeling and Jüngel.²⁴Cf. Ebeling, Gerhard, Das rechte Unterscheiden. Luthers Anleitung zu theologischer Urteilskraft. Karin Bornkamm zum 60. Geburtstag am 21. Juni 1988, in: ZThK 85 (1988), 219–258; Ebeling, Gerhard, Luther. Einführung in sein Denken. Mit einem Nachwort von Albrecht Beutel, Tübingen ⁵2006, 157–177; Jüngel, Eberhard, Der menschliche Mensch. Die Bedeutung der reformatorischen Unterscheidung der Person von ihren Werken für das Selbstverständnis des neuzeitlichen Menschen, in: ZdZ 39 (1985), 35–43; Jüngel, Evangelium, 191f., 227–230. According to them, “person” is exclusively the term for the justified human being, as such a human has always been regarded; the unjustified human being would not be a person in this sense. Thus, the distinction made there is merely between the result of justification before God (the justified human being, i.e., the person) and works as the basis for judging people in the world. While person and work are distinguishable in this respect, forgiveness of sin(s) does not take place as such.²⁵For more details, see Peisker, Ulrike, Zwischenmenschliche Vergebung. Phänomenologische Betrachtungen in protestantischer Perspektive (Religion in Philosophy and Theology 128), Tübingen 2024, 76–89.189–218.

3.3. Forgiveness of Sin(s) as Overcoming Structural and Systemic Dependencies and Power Relations

Various feminist and liberation theological approaches focus primarily on the social dimension of sin. According to them, sin manifests itself not exclusively in the individual but also, or even primarily, structurally and systemically in social asymmetries, (patriarchal) power relations, and structures of oppression of a social, economic, or political nature.²⁶In contrast, for example, Suchocki, Sin, 261f.; Moltmann-Wendel, Rechtfertigungslehre, 352f., drawing on earlier feminist-theological approaches, also emphasize the individual form of sin in a manner distinct from male sin. Against this backdrop, forgiveness of sin(s) is understood as liberation or, more broadly, as overcoming these structures. This also occurs through the (modified) theological concept of justification. Through justification or the forgiveness of sin(s), everyone is called upon to work toward improving and breaking through these sinful, destructive structures.²⁷Cf. Sölle, Gott, 107–128; Moltmann-Wendel, Rechtfertigungslehre; Tamez, Justification, 162f.; Wartenberg-Potter, Gerechtigkeit. Although all people, regardless of group affiliation, are trapped in the structures of sin, not all people are equally victims of these structures.²⁸Cf. Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth, Art. Heil/Rechtfertigung. Feministisch-theologische Perspektiven, in: Wörterbuch der Feministischen Theologie(²2002), 272–274; Scherzberg, Lucia, Sünde und Gnade in der Feministischen Theologie, Mainz 1991; Schaumberger, Christine/Schottroff, Luise, Schuld und Macht. Studien zu einer feministischen Befreiungstheologie, München 1988; Tamez, Justification; Moltmann-Wendel, Rechtfertigungslehre; Wartenberg-Potter, Gerechtigkeit; Jäger, Sarah, Jenseits des Patriarchats. Ansätze feministischer Theologie (FEST kompakt 2), Heidelberg 2021. Approaches of this kind are frequently criticized for an “ethicization” and a lamented loss of theological depth regarding sin and forgiveness of sins.²⁹Cf. Abraham, Sünde, 1887; Askani, Vergebung, 680f.

4. Relevance to Everyday Life

In Protestant theology, the concept of unconditional forgiveness granted by God solely through grace is central. However, whenever the depths of human depravity are revealed in particularly stark terms, Protestant theology faces the question and challenge of reexamining this theological concept for its plausibility and validity and giving an account of it. This was the case in the past, for example, in the process of coming to terms with Nazi crimes; today the concept of unconditional forgiveness of sin(s) must be reexamined, for instance, in light of sexualized violence and the abuse of power within the church. Some theologians suspect this is a gateway to perpetrators’ lack of remorse or conscience,³⁰Cf. Huizing, Klaas, “Toxische Traditionen”. Erste Schritte zur theologischen Auseinandersetzung mit der Missbrauchs-Studie der EKD, 31.01.2024 (https://zeitzeichen.net/node/10966), accessed on 25.08.2026; Zippert, Thomas, Blinde Flecken der evangelischen Theologie. Warum geraten von sexualisierter Gewalt Betroffene immer wieder aus dem Blick?, in: PrTh 58 (2023), 91–96; Kellenbach, Katharina von/Klein, Mechthild, Falsche Vorstellungen von Schuld und Vergebung? Wenn Missbrauchstäter keine Schuld verspüren, 13.08.2024 (https://www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/232737/13-08-2024/falsche-vorstellung-von-schuldvergebung-wenn-missbrauchstaeter-keine-schuld-verspueren), accessed on 25.08.2026. while others seek to clarify to what extent the notion of unconditional forgiveness of sin(s) can only be such a gateway if misunderstood, but is indeed one as such.³¹Cf. Peisker, Ulrike, Kann theologische Reflexion zweitem Missbrauch und sekundärer Viktimisierung vorbeugen? Überlegungen in Anschluss an die ForuM-Studie, in: Pulte, Matthias et al. (Eds.), Der Schutz der Integrität der Person. Prevention and Safeguarding (Mainzer Beiträge zum Kirchen- und Religionsrecht 17), Würzburg 2026, 113–133.; Peisker, Ulrike, Unterscheidung zwischen göttlicher und menschlicher Vergebung. Dem Zusammenhang zwischen Vergebung und Gerechtigkeit auf der Spur, in: Evangelische Kirche im Rheinland (Ed.), Umgang mit Macht – Gewalt – Schuld. Positionspapier, Düsseldorf 2025 (PDF-Dokument, https://mediencenter.ekir.de/resource/A/93805), accessed on 25.08.2026, D1–D3; Fischer, Johannes, Ist Luthers Lehre schuld? Rechtfertigungslehre und sexueller Missbrauch in der evangelischen Kirche, 12.02.2024 (https://zeitzeichen.net/node/10977), accessed on 25.08.2026.

Finally, divine forgiveness may have implications for the possibility of interpersonal forgiveness. Causal or analogical links between divine and human forgiveness are not uncommon, but are sometimes criticized as inappropriate.³²Cf. Peisker, Vergebung, 189–234.