3

There are several passages in the OT and NT that describe the "forgetfulness of God" with respect to our sins:

Isa 43:25 “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.”

Jer 31:34/Heb 8:12, 10:17 “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”...“Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”

Micah 7:19 “You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

Ps 103:12 “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”

Many expositors take these statements quite literally, stating that God not only forgives sins, but he literally forgets them as well. As one author put it: "When God forgives... sin he puts it out of his mind; he erases it from the pages of time; he forgets it." Other commentators emphasize the poetic nature of these texts and label them as hyperbole of one kind or another. In general, I think most everyone would agree that these passages indicate God's willingness to "put sins out of His mind", so to speak. It's as if He is saying to repentant sinners, "Don't worry; I won't bring them up again."

However, on the face of it, this seems to contradict the teachings of Paul and others in the NT, such as those in the following verses. So my question is: How can the promises of "forgetfulness" be reconciled with the warnings of future accountability?

2 Cor 5:9-10 "So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." [emphasis added]

Rom 14:10,12 "For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat,... each of us will give an account of ourselves to God." (cf Heb. 4:13)

In these warning passages, Paul is clearly addressing repentant sinners (i.e., "Christians"); he is reminding them of their pending appointment with the One Who apparently intends to review all of their actions.

So, which is it: the former passages seem to teach that God "wipes the slate clean", but the latter passages indicate that even Christians will still be accountable for their sins in the future. How can these two teachings be reconciled?

I realize this question could easily be diverted into a doctrinal/theological debate. That is not my intent. Of course a truly omniscient God can't truly forget anything. But that's not the point. I want to understand how these two sets of passages can be "reconciled" from a hermeneutical standpoint.

Dɑvïd
  • 24,735
  • 4
  • 74
  • 155
kmote
  • 2,259
  • 2
  • 16
  • 26
  • There is a (closed) near-duplicate of this question, which makes me wonder whether this one is best suited for this site as well. Would it get more appropriate handling at Christianity.SE? – Dɑvïd Mar 24 '14 at 20:08
  • An answer to this question would require (1) a discussion of the various kinds of sin, (2) discussion of the results of sin: which are punishments, which are consequences, then (3) a discussion of the kinds of forgiveness. All without resorting to doctrine. This question belongs on ✝.SE. – J. C. Salomon Mar 24 '14 at 20:15
  • 1
    @All-I have to disagree-I believe the question stems from the text, which was pointed out; if an answer resolves the textual understanding, then the OP is satisfied. If the question was worded,"How is Isa. 43:25 reconciled with Rom. 14:10,12; it would have flown under the radar and not drawn the scrutiny it has. – Tau Mar 28 '14 at 07:10
  • Thanks @user2479. I see now, how the wording of my post/title could be construed as a doctrinal question. But as you suggested, that was not my intent. I want to know how to interpret Isaiah 43 (et.al) in light of 2 Cor 5 (and vice versa). How do these two passages inform each other? I would be happy to reword the question if that would satisfy the moderators. – kmote Mar 28 '14 at 20:34
  • @kmote-You could try stating it as I suggested; at least it would give your detractors an opportunity to satisfy their objections and address it as a hermeneutics question-which I believe it rightfully is... – Tau Mar 29 '14 at 01:30
  • This question still isn't a good fit here, but you could ask it on C.SE. I can migrate it if you'd like. – Dan Mar 29 '14 at 15:09
  • 1
    No @Daи, I don't want you to migrate it. I want you to explain yourself. Allow me to quote from the first line of the FAQ: "If your question is about...interpretation of a specific Bible passage... then this is the right place."** That is precisely what I am doing. I am asking about the interpretation of 2Cor 5:10 in light of Isa 43:25. I've made it very clear that I am not asking about doctrine, I'm not asking about theology. I'm simply & plainly asking about an interpretation of SCRIPTURE. That's what this place used to be all about. I'm sorry to see it has drifted from its roots. – kmote Mar 30 '14 at 05:02
  • @kmote I encourage you to read this post, then this one. Your focus is on the application of these texts in contemporary Christian practice, as evidenced by the last two paragraphs (note also the use of first person plural which provides further evidence of this). This has never been on topic here to my knowledge. – Dan Mar 30 '14 at 05:21
  • @Daи- in your 1st link you explain your point more fully, so thank you. Your second link describes how to answer questions, so I don't see how it pertains here. IMO it is a disservice to the text not to recognize that it was written BY Christians and FOR Christians. That is not a statement of intolerance; I am happy for all other faiths to engage in dialog here. But the point remains: we do NOT understand the text if we don't have that initial premise. I trust you share that belief. However, I can concede that it may be useful to stop short of application, so I will attempt another edit. – kmote Apr 08 '14 at 14:51
  • I don't think this is off-topic at all, but I do think it is a shade too broad. My suggestion would be to focus on one verse (eg either 2 Cor or Romans) and phrase it so it is clear that the question arises from the text, then reference the Hebrew Bible passages as relevant passages rather than having them front and centre. – Jack Douglas Apr 08 '14 at 16:51
  • @JackDouglas- That's a very helpful suggestion. Thank you! I don't have the time to make the changes right now, but I will attempt to do so. – kmote Apr 08 '14 at 19:04
  • kmote, this is a classic example of prooftexting. Hermeneutics works with the text as a whole in context. Since 2 Cor 5:10 is not dealing with referencing or quoting Isiah, it is inappropriate to apply Isiah to this text. You might as well be asking how Harry Potter should be interpreted in light of Lord of the Rings. They are unrelated texts and make their points on their own. So to answer your question: "How should 2 Cor 5:10 be interpreted, in light of Isa 43:25" Simply put, it shouldn't be. – James Shewey Sep 11 '14 at 21:16
  • Thanks, @JamesShewey. I certainly agree that context is the primary interpretive key in understanding any given passage. But the 2nd most fundamental principal of interpretation is that "Scripture interprets Scripture". "Regula Fidei" (as it is sometimes called) is a hermeneutical tradition dating back to the Westminster Confession and before. If you consider J.I. Packer a notable authority, as I do, I recommend his discussion on the matter – kmote Sep 13 '14 at 23:27
  • Personally, I have been aware for some time of this concept and have chosen to reject it on the basis that it often results in poor hermeneutics. Also, I reject the inerrancy of scripture. While I still believe in infallibility, I think it is possible to make mistakes in quantity for example while maintaining a message that is true. The details need not be important if they are mistaken if the underlying message that the text is teaching is true and unmistaken. The fact is, Paul is at odds with James on Grace. A literal interpretation of Genesis is in tension with Science. That can be OK. – James Shewey Sep 14 '14 at 08:13
  • I also reject Sola Scriptura due to Wesley's teachings. I think that reason, tradition and revelation play an important role. If Sola Scripture were true, we would not need SE, commentaries, or proselytizing. We would not need to "Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel" because Sola Scritura would be enough. – James Shewey Sep 14 '14 at 08:17
  • Wow, @JamesShewey, you're swinging pretty far afield from the original question. The bottom line is, I dispute your suggestion that this question is anything like prooftexting. (Moreover, if your objective were to understand the meaning of the original author --as mine is-- then asking how to understand Rowling's Potter in light of Tolkien's LOTR is a perfectly appropriate literary question.) – kmote Sep 14 '14 at 23:39

2 Answers2

3

Does God really forget our sins?

The Bible never says that God will "forget" out sins, rather we are told that God will not remember them. Forgetting is passive; like forgetting where you put the car keys. Forgetting is not done deliberately. However, when God declares that he will "not remember" our sins, that is active.

The word "remember" (זָכַר) has the following meanings ascribed to it—

remember, recall, call to mind, usually as affecting present feeling, thought, or action: remember past experiences

God's treatment of sin, at any time, and on any level, is never passive. His promise to us in Scripture is not to forget, but to "not remember," hence—

  • he will not call our sins to mind
  • he will not recall our sins
  • he will not think about our sins
  • etc.

So, from a Biblical perspective, the answer to the original question is, "No," God does not forget our sins, instead, he does not dredge them up and reconsider them. Once forgiven, sins are not remembered ever again.

DrFry
  • 1,071
  • 5
  • 10
1

Your question is really about the meaning of the English word “remember”. “Remember” can be the opposite of “forget”, but is also used simply to mean “think about, ponder, bear in mind”. To say that God will “not remember” your sins does not mean that he will forget them, but simply that he will not hold them against you.

The usage of “remember” in old and new English texts (including the various Bible translations) is amply illustrated here:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/162133?rskey=okFNfW&result=1#eid

fdb
  • 5,300
  • 1
  • 16
  • 23