Is forgiveness dependent upon apology?

[memphis]

Must an offender offer a sincere apology before an offended can offer sincere forgiveness? Discuss.

[fezzyfestoon]

Definitely not for me. I often find myself forgiving before receiving an apology, if ever. Then again there haven't been all that many severe grievances I've taken with anyone that might actually deserve a full-blown apology. Mistakes are almost always immediately forgivable. I sometimes used to not even forgive people even if they apologized, which is just unhealthy. Forgiveness is more about yourself than the person being forgiven anyway.

[DC Al Fine]

Nope, forgiveness is independent of apology in my book.

[John Dibble]

Forgiveness is contingent upon whatever the person doing the forgiving requires for it. Some people need an apology, some don't.

[memphis]

Perhaps we're not all working with the same definition forgiveness. Some are implying it as the offended saying "whatever, I'm not going to worry about it." I see it more as repairing the relationship, something that cannot happen unless the offender wants it. The latter seems more in line with Christian traditions where one must sincerely ask God for forgiveness. Otherwise, the sinner is cast off to the land of the damned.

[Torie]

 I find it hard to forgive without sincere repentance myself.

[Napoleon]

I find it hard to forgive without sincere repentance myself.

It depends on the offense. If the conflict stems from a mutual misunderstanding I find it extremely easy to forgive. On the other hand, a personal betrayal is hard to stomach.

[politicallefty]

I would say that it depends upon the actual offense. For the most part, I'd say no. However, there are instances where I would say that forgiveness is contingent upon a sincere apology. In any case, even if I do forgive I do not necessarily forget. The latter takes considerably more healing than the former (if it can actually ever be forgotten).

[memphis]

I find it hard to forgive without sincere repentance myself.

It depends on the offense. If the conflict stems from a mutual misunderstanding I find it extremely easy to forgive. On the other hand, a personal betrayal is hard to stomach.

If it's a misunderstanding, there's nothing to forgive. By definition, it means that the parties have merely misunderstood each other.

[Napoleon]

I find it hard to forgive without sincere repentance myself.

It depends on the offense. If the conflict stems from a mutual misunderstanding I find it extremely easy to forgive. On the other hand, a personal betrayal is hard to stomach.

If it's a misunderstanding, there's nothing to forgive. By definition, it means that the parties have merely misunderstood each other.

Actions taken during the conflict that started because of a misunderstanding can be very painful actually.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think so.  According to the Bible, forgiveness of sins is dependent upon repentance, and it would obviously have to be sincere to mean anything.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Must an offender offer a sincere apology before an offended can offer sincere forgiveness? Discuss.

Sincere? Not sure about that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think so.  According to the Bible, forgiveness of sins is dependent upon repentance, and it would obviously have to be sincere to mean anything.

Is it?  Think of what Christ said on the cross - "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Not only were they not apologizing, they didn't even recognize they were doing anything wrong, even though they were involved in violence.  Forgiveness comes first.  One might even turn this equation around and say that forgiveness must precede repentance for it to mean anything.  Forgiveness opens the space for the restoration of the relationship, and may be the catalyst for transforming the relationship, and for repentance.

In our relationship with God, we are the ones in need of forgiveness.  But in our relationships with others, it's not always clear where the fault lies.  Sometimes we need to forgive in order to see our own failings.

[angus]

Must an offender offer a sincere apology before an offended can offer sincere forgiveness? Discuss.

You're already forgiven, my son.  No apologies necessary.  

I'm like Jesus, or like ubersturmbannführer Amon Göth from Schindler's List.  Well, not when he went through a phase in which he was shooting prisoners for sport, but later, when he goes around forgiving everyone.  Just assume my forgiveness, because it's always here for you.

Edit:  Damn!  Kalwejt beat me to it.  Wait, is that Uncle Albert?  He doesn't count, so I'm in first.

Seriously, though.  I don't think they're coupled.  You can have forgiveness without apology, and you can have apology without forgiveness. 

[Joe Biden 2020]

Yes and No.  As Oldies pointed out it is mandatory that we repent if we want God's forgiveness, which is a free gift if we just ask.

As shua pointed out, Christ said of those who were crucifying Him "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."  Another instance of forgiveness without prior repentance occurs in Acts 7:60 when Stephen who was the first deacon of the early church, whose death was set up by Saul of Tarsus who would become the Apostle Paul, said in his last words while being stoned to death for proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord Jesus unashamedly "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."

[pbrower2a]

With children, never born with a moral compass, there is much need for forgiveness even from the time of childbirth. It is astonishing that some women can never forgive their children for the pain that comes with childbirth.

Minor stuff, like unintended slights, practically mandates forgiveness. At the extreme, some deeds preclude forgiveness. Large-scale swindles? Extreme abuse of power?

Forgiving a grave sinner depends upon that sinner admitting the wrong done, the principles that determine that a deed is wrong, and showing an unambiguous desire to avoid committing the wrong.   

[anvi]

I've been thinking about this a bit.  I guess, for me, much of the time, it does.  If someone has wronged you, and they never apologize, they either don't know they've hurt you or they know and don't care.  The first case might be relatively easy to forgive absent an apology, but I think it's much harder in the second case.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It sounds like you are confusing forgiveness with reconciliation, anvi.  That is neither surprising nor unusual. Reconciliation is dependent upon apology and many people are unable to forgive in the absence of reconciliation, or are unable to forgive the more serious trespasses without reconciliation.

[anvi]

Good point, Ernest.  I probably do think in terms of reconciliation most of the time.  Of course, it's possible to forgive people without reconciliation, and this would be the only kind of forgiveness possible in the cases of people with whom one has lost contact or who have passed on, for instance.  I tend to favor reconciliation, however, which is why, in my own case, I do try to apologize when I realize I've wronged someone.  There are times when I'm a bit tardy about it, but I try to do it anyway.

[Torie]

I'm a slowly, or so slowly, moving to an emotional place where I may be able to reconcile with my older brother without an explicit apology from him (and without him fulfilling his responsibilities, which are far lighter than mine regarding clan matters, and for which I really get no thanks for him, including managing a host of assets without any compensation), and 3 years of almost total non communication, except over business family matters where it is unavoidable.  In the end, you take folks as you find them, even when they fall short of your expectations as to what is minimally acceptable behavior. Why?  Because what is accomplished that does any good with the status quo?  Nothing really. But I won't ever really trust him again - ever.

And so it goes.

[LBJer]

There's also situations where it's debatable whether the "offender" actually did anything wrong, and therefore whether they have anything to apologize for.  For example, in the show NCIS, Leroy Jethro Gibbs killed a Mexican drug dealer, Pedro Hernandez, who killed his wife and young daughter when he was serving as a Marine in Desert Storm.  During the series, Gibbs is captured and held by Hernandez' daughter, who is full of hatred and moral indignation at what happened to her father.  But Gibbs doesn't think what he did was wrong, and courageously tells her that.  And while what he did was clearly illegal, I agree with him that it wasn't immoral (besides, the daughter herself was a drug dealer who has killed for less morally compelling reasons than Gibbs did, so it's very hard to believe she wouldn't have done the same thing in his place).  If someone doesn't think they did anything wrong, they're not going to give an apology.  Nor should they.  So if the "offended" party needs to receive an apology to forgive, they're not going to be able to in this situation.