Ever Wonder What Forgiveness Means?

Returning to the church as an adult, I experienced people often invoking biblical terminology and ideas while not at the same time seeming to possess a well-understood notion of what the terminology meant in a biblical sense or a well-thought out picture of how the ideas fit within the larger biblical context and teaching.  Further personal experience coupled with additional anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that my experience represents the experience of many in the church, and that these experiences reveal a potentially frightening level of biblical ignorance in the church today.[1]

I begin with this observation because the topic of forgiveness strikes me as a subject easily impacted by a state of biblical ignorance in the church.  Some conceptions of forgiveness largely fail even to recognize the possibility of a need to distinguish between secular notions of the topic, on the one hand, and a biblical notion of the topic, on the other.[2] To the extent the possibility of such a distinction is recognized, agreement has not been reached regarding whether there is, in fact, a distinction to be made or how one properly makes that distinction.[3] Thus, the idea of forgiveness exists within a state of relative disorder, and such disorder feeds into the tendency of Christians today to customize and personalize their understandings of the Bible to suit their own needs.[4]

Given Jesus’ imperatives on forgiveness (e.g., Mt. 6:14-15), this state of affairs indicates a fundamental need to begin a discussion on the topic of forgiveness by turning first to Scripture.  Accordingly, this paper begins with an examination of the biblical material related to the idea of forgiveness.  Using the insights gained from this examination, the paper then offers an opinion of what the material suggests the biblical notion of forgiveness is and is not.  Finally, the paper explores the implications of forgiveness for the context of abuse.

I. The Biblical Material

Looking to the Old Testament to inform an understanding of the human act of forgiveness at first glance seems unhelpful.  This is because the most common Hebrew root for forgiving, סלח, never appears in the Old Testament with reference to one person forgiving another.[5] God is always the subject.[6] This is also the case with the other Hebrew roots expressing the same semantic range.[7] Perhaps, though, one finds relevant meaning for the biblical idea of forgiveness in the Old Testament in the suggestion that human forgiveness was a concept foreign to its social structure.[8] From a societal point of view based on notions of honor and shame, injury or insult demanded retribution.  In this system, the equivalency requirement of the lex talionis can be regarded in hindsight as a seed for the later New Testament development of the concept of human forgiveness.[9]

Moving into the New Testament, primarily two Greek words – ἀφίημι and χαρίζομαι – communicate the vision of what it means for one person to forgive another.[10] Ἀφίημι most frequently represents the New Testament idea of forgiveness, and it is the term used by Jesus himself to speak of the idea.[11] A comprehensive examination of ἀφίημι within the complete range of contexts in which it is used indicates that the term generally conveys a sense of leaving or removing.[12] Applying this sense to the various contexts relevant to the idea of forgiveness indicates that forgiveness involves a leaving behind or a removing of a person’s sin or moral obligation arising as a result of sin.[13] When Jesus enjoins his followers to forgive, he places the injunctions in the context of God’s offer of forgiveness to humanity, something which by implication also incorporates God’s call to repentance.[14]

The second New Testament term used in contexts relevant to forgiveness, χαρίζομαι, nuances the picture of forgiveness portrayed through the use of ἀφίημι.  It is a nuance which comes to us primarily from the writings of Paul.  Conducting a similarly comprehensive examination of the use of χαρίζομαι in the New Testament indicates that the term generally communicates a notion of giving motivated simply by the desire to benefit another.[15] Specifically in contexts where χαρίζομαι is translated as “forgive,” it emphasizes the relational context of forgiveness and speaks to its benevolent and active natures.[16]

II. The Biblical Notion of Forgiveness

Bringing together the material creates a clearer picture both of what the biblical notion of forgiveness is and what it is not.  Forgiveness in its very essence is a theological matter.  Stated differently, an act of forgiveness constitutes a specific manifestation of a proper biblical theology.  To begin, particularly because ἀφίημι constitutes the strongest voice on the topic in the biblical witness, one sees most clearly the idea that the action of forgiveness takes place within a judicially-oriented context.  That is, the action of forgiveness recognizes in a given situation the reality both of transgression and of guilt.  In this sense, recognizing the issue of justice created by a particular offense becomes a requisite feature of the biblical notion.  At the same time, the idea of forgiveness does not claim to be the means by which the demand for justice is satisfied.

From a secular perspective, the manner in which the idea of forgiveness recognizes transgression and guilt while not at the same time containing its own means of resolving those particular issues creates a crisis.  As discussed further below, the inability of non-biblical notions of forgiveness to resolve this crisis, an inability which encourages approaches like “forgive and forget,” stands as the center of their inadequacies.  Importantly, though, the biblical material does not function in a way that conveys the sense that the issue of justice is somehow forgotten or ignored by an act of forgiveness.[17] Forgiveness in this sense does not approve of the transgression nor does it fail to condemn it.  Instead, the use of ἀφίημι in contexts of forgiveness communicates a result whereby the offense committed, on the one hand, and the people affected by the offense, on the other hand, are separated from one another as part of the act of forgiveness.  Forgiveness in a biblical sense says that they should be handled separately.

This separation frames forgiveness primarily in the eschatological promise of justice articulated by the whole of the biblical witness.[18] In other words, this is a theological separation that removes the anxiety of a personal need to exact vengeance from the situation.  It is an act of faith in a reality controlled in every respect by a God who is just.  Forgiveness in a biblical sense takes the consequences of a transgression (e.g., injustice and broken relationships) and responds to them in a theologically-based manner, a manner revealed in terms both of justice and of grace.

The biblical teaching is clear on this issue.  Justice is a divine matter.[19] Human responsibility is to love neighbor and enemy.[20] In a very basic sense, this responsibility is the responsibility to be in relationship with another to the extent it depends on you, for love depends on the nature of the lover, not that of the beloved.[21] Love for God and love for one’s neighbor cannot be separated.[22] This is the implication of the Jesus’ response to the question of the scribe about the first commandment.  In this light, then, the relational aspect of forgiveness reflected in χαρίζομαι is as equally theologically based as is the separation notion of ἀφίημι.  The two ideas work together within the larger idea of forgiveness in a way which shows forgiveness ultimately as a theologically-based way of relating to others which enables one to live in right relationship with God.  The most wonderful aspect of the biblical notion of forgiveness is thus the way it serves to reorient people from the paradigm of judgment and its associated tensions to the paradigm of God’s relation to humanity and for humanity.  In this later paradigm, even controlled human vengeance in response to transgression does not achieve a good outcome.  Only grace and love suffices.

Significantly, nothing about the idea of forgiveness outlined above limits its applicability to a party who has been offended in a particular situation.  The biblical notion of forgiveness concerns everyone impacted by a transgression, regardless of whether the person is the offender, the offended, or a person derivatively impacted by the situation.  This is because, again, it is about proper theology, and about how that theology works in the context of relationships to remind those involved of the reality that exists outside the walls of constraint erected by the transgression.  This is a reality which offers deliverance, salvation, and restoration to all.

Important differences distinguish the biblical notion of forgiveness from many of the notions of forgiveness alternatively articulated, even ones specifically represented to be Christian versions.[23] One finds the most fundamental difference in the difference of primary orientation.  As argued throughout this paper, the biblical notion of forgiveness is oriented toward God as he reveals himself through the Bible.  Non-biblical notions of forgiveness, in comparison, tend to be psychologically based, oriented toward the individual.[24] Where restoration of relationships (not the least of which are those relationships involving God) constitutes the chief end of biblical forgiveness, pain management constitutes the chief end of such psychologically-based notions of forgiveness.[25] Many more important differences exist in their details, but the significance of these two differences alone reveal the far superiority of the biblical notion over the secular notion, as the application of the two conceptions of forgiveness in the context of abuse will illustrate.

III. Forgiveness and the Context of Abuse[26]

Probably the most difficult aspect of the biblical notion of forgiveness for a context of abuse is the very thing that makes it biblical in the first place – its theological grounding.  Abuse exists within a system of its own creation, and the participants within that system view the world in ways which distort reality as a result of such abuse.  Specifically, this means that participants within an abusive system hold false images of God, themselves, and others.  Because of such distorted understandings, if prematurely rushed into a consideration of the biblical idea of forgiveness, the notion will not compute.  But this is not a weakness of the biblical idea of forgiveness.  Rather, this simply goes to show why forgiveness should not be conceived of as an initial or relatively early step in an individual’s healing process, which is how many other notions of forgiveness understand its role.[27] Instead, the theological grounding of biblical forgiveness not only indicates, but by its very terms, requires that for one to engage the idea, they must understand in a meaningful way the actual reality of God – his justice, his love, and his grace, as well as how those things influence the ways people are to relate to one another.  Healing must begin before forgiveness can occur, and though concepts underlying the notion of forgiveness (i.e., correcting distortions) are important parts of the healing process, framing the healing process in terms of forgiveness is probably not helpful throughout most of the healing process.

It also goes to show why notions of forgiveness rooted in the self really lean more toward sentimentalism rather than toward meaningful reflections of wellness for any of the people involved in the situation.  If a person within an abusive system envisions God, herself or himself, and others in materially distorted ways, what capacity does that person have to heal herself or himself?[28] Additionally, what does such forgiveness suggest to the person?  If the purpose of forgiveness is to reduce negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, a conception of forgiveness often described in terms of “letting go,” then forgiveness either fails to tell the truth about the context of abuse or else it fails to treat the truth with the level of seriousness it demands.[29]

Such ideas of forgiveness address symptoms in hopes of future healing, but by failing to work from beyond the system of abuse, they transform forgiveness into a harmful drug that itself becomes part of and abused by the system.  For example, from the perspective of the one suffering from abuse, a psychological notion of forgiveness that attempts to reduce one’s own negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors tends to encourage thoughts, feelings, and behaviors which swing to the opposite end of the spectrum in the form of judgment, superiority, and condemnation vis-à-vis the offender or others within the system of abuse.[30] This is because a successful act of forgiveness in this sense becomes the virtue of the better person.  And while this may produce some base level of satisfaction for the person abused, to the extent it transforms one distorted vision of self into a different distorted vision of self, it is unhealthy.

From the perspective of the abuser in a situation, a psychological notion of forgiveness makes forgiveness into a tool, and one that may be used to coerce and control others within the system.[31] This is because forgiveness in this sense becomes a matter of expectation.  If forgiveness is conceived of as a first step in a healing process, then on what basis could anyone fail to offer it in response to a request for it?  Failing to meet this expectation either turns another in the system into an offender or into a lesser person who lacks the capacity or the will to move forward.  And even if forgiveness is offered, the false sense of finality that comes with such forgiveness allows the abuser to “let go” of whatever motivating forces encouraged him or her to engage the idea of forgiveness in the first place.

In summary, the biblical concept of forgiveness is different than this.  Because it concerns itself first and foremost with truth in all respects, it exists as an attractive force whereby healing necessarily occurs as one moves toward it.  Instead of a first step in a long journey of healing, it is more of the destination of that same journey, even if not explicitly made so.  The biblical notion of forgiveness makes real demands on the basis of specific claims of truth about God, self, and others.  It recognizes both the truth about abuse and its effects at a personal level as well as the truth about the distorted reality it creates at a systemic level.  For one to approach the biblical idea of forgiveness, that person must by definition acknowledge that the reality of the abusive system is a false reality from which God seeks to deliver them.  In the same respect, the biblical idea of forgiveness also reflects the new reality into which the person is being called to enter.  It is a reality where right is right and wrong is wrong, where justice matters and prevails, and where grace and love define relationships instead of distortions and abuse.  The biblical notion of forgiveness is not a tool to be used for healing.  It is rather what it means to be healed, from a proper theological point of view.  Alternative conceptions of forgiveness do not change the cycle of abuse.  They simply function within it.

 

 

---

[1] Barna Group, “Barna Studies the Research, Offers a Year-in-Review Perspective” (2009), http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/325-barna-studies-the-research-offers-a-year-in-review-perspective?q=biblical+literacy (accessed June 8, 2010).

[2] L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995), 35-36

[3] Cf. David Augsburger, The New Freedom of Forgiveness (Chicago: Moody Press, 2000) with Louis Smedes, “Keys to Forgiving,” Christianity Today 45 (2001): 73.

[4] Barna Studies the Research.

[5] Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Reconciliation in the Middle East: A Biblical Perspective,” Theology Today 65 (2008): 347.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] P. Ellingworth, “Forgiveness of Sins,” pages 241-43 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 241.

[11] Ibid.

[12] 143 occurrences in the New Testament examined.

[13] E.g., Mt. 6:12, 6:14-15, 9:2, 9:5-6, 12:31-32, 18:21, 18:35; Mk. 2:5, 2:7, 2:9-10, 3:28, 4:12, 11:25; Lk. 5:20-21, 5:23-24, 7:47-49, 11:4, 12:10, 17:3-4; and Jn. 20:23.  In these contexts, the biblical witness more often connects ἀφίημι with either ἁμαρτία (i.e., “sin” as a departure from either human or divine standards of uprightness) or ὀφείλημα (i.e., “debts” as a metaphor for a moral obligation) as the object of the action.  Still, the biblical witness does at times connect ἀφίημι with a person or people as the object of the action, but does so in a context which considers things they have done.  Thus, in these contexts, whether the sin/obligation is the object or whether a person is the object does not change the term’s sense of meaning.

[14] E.g., Mt. 6, 18; Mk. 3-4, 11; Lk. 11-12, 17.

[15] 23 occurrences in the New Testament examined.

[16] 2 Cor. 2:7, 2:10, 2:13; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13, 3:13

[17] Cf. Augsburger, The New Freedom of Forgiveness, 36.

[18] Shelly Matthews, “Clemency as Cruelty: Forgiveness and Force in the Dying Prayers of Jesus and Stephen,” Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 136-37.

[19] E.g., Prov. 16:5, 29:26; Rom. 12; Heb. 10.

[20] E.g., Mt. 5:43, 22:37-40; Mk. 12:29-31; Lk. 6:27, 35; Jn. 13:34-35, 15:12

[21] Augsburger, The New Freedom of Forgiveness, 111; L. Morris, “Love,” pages 492-495 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 492.

[22] J. R. Michaels, “Commandment,” pages 132-136 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 134.

[23] Jones, Embodying Forgiveness, 48.

[24] Kathleen A. Lawler-Row, et al., “The Varieties of Forgiveness Experience: Working toward a Comprehensive Definition of Forgiveness,” Journal of Religion and Health 46 (2007): 235-36.

[25] See, e.g., Louis Smedes, “Five Things Everyone Should Know About Forgiving,” The Chicago Sunday Evening Club, http://www.csec.org/csec/sermon/smedes_4101.htm (accessed June 5, 2010).

[26] Many of the ideas reflected in this section come from class lectures.  For practical reasons, they have not been individually cited as such.

[27] Smedes, “Five Things Everyone Should Know About Forgiving.”

[28] Cf. ibid.

[29] Lawler-Row, “The Varieties of Forgiveness Experience,” 235; David Augsburger, “The F Word: Forgiveness and it’s (sic) limitations,” The National Association for Christian Recovery, http://www.nacronline.com/emotional-issues/the-f-word-forgiveness-and-its-imitations (accessed May 29, 2010).

[30] Such an attitude can be seen in discussions of such notions of forgiveness where offenders are referred to as “the drunk” or “the lout” or the “wretched man.”  See, e.g., Smedes, “Five Things Everyone Should Know About Forgiving.”

[31] Augsburger, “The F Word.”

Advertisement