CHAPTER 13

FORGIVENESS AND GRACE

 

 

 

For if you forgive men their trespasses,

your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

But if you do not forgive men their trespasses,

neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Gospel of Matthew 6:14-15

 

 

 

In this chapter we will deal with forgiveness and grace, which are particularly central to salvation. We will discover how the meaning attributed to these words in Jesus' time implied concepts significantly different from those we attribute to them today, due both to the cultural gap and to certain manipulations that have taken place over the centuries, with the aim of supporting a vision of salvation different from what Jesus let us understand. We will also shed light on a misunderstanding that has conditioned much theology and that it is important to clarify to give new meaning to the lives of Christians; that is, we will try to show that the idea of the forgiveness of sins is not the ultimate aim of Jesus' work, but only an intermediate, though necessary, step towards a much broader perspective.

 

 

13.1. Forgiveness

 

Firstly, we need to start with the meaning of forgiveness in Jesus' time and the weight given to this word in Jewish culture. The word used in the New Testament for “forgiveness” is aphesis which literally means “to let go”. This idea may be rather foreign to our culture as it has to do with the concept of indentured servitude which no longer belongs to our time. In a nutshell, if someone had accrued a monetary debt to another person, he or she would remain “tied up” until the debt was paid in full. Non-satisfaction of the debt not only entailed the loss of all assets, as is still the case today, but could also involve the debtor’s subjection to servitude by the creditor. The right extended to all members of the debtor's family, who could also be put at the service of the creditor until the debt was repaid in full. This habit, which is difficult for us to understand, was accepted and widely practised in Jesus' time; even, with regard to foreigners, it was not servitude but slavery. Jewish laws, however, were softer than those of the Romans, since slavery was reserved only for non-Hebrews and lasted for a maximum period, coinciding with Jubilee celebrations; nevertheless, non-payment of a debt meant harsh treatment even for Jews who were subjected to servitude²⁷⁶ or arrested and given into the hands of torturers.²⁷⁷

Therefore, forgiveness was not intended as an emotional gesture towards a person as we understand it today, but meant “letting go”, “untying” the debtor,²⁷⁸ thus restoring his freedom. From a spiritual point of view, if we apply the same concept, committing sin against someone would trigger a moral “debt” of the offender towards the offended party. It is worth noting that this bond, albeit in different forms, would somehow affect the freedom of both in the relationship, which now takes on a different dynamic than before. From this it follows that forgiveness would be advantageous for both parties because it dissolves the debt that in some way binds the subjects in a relationship that is no longer equal; to forgive therefore means to untie, to let go, so that the persons involved regain freedom with respect to each other. In the light of what has just been said, the words of Jesus, when he said that whoever commits sin is a slave to sin, make sense;²⁷⁹ it is well understood that any act that causes damage or offence to another person or to God, creates a constraint that in some way limits personal freedom, as in the case of slavery. Given that God has no interest in having legalistic claims against us which are limiting and could damage the authenticity of our relationship with him but is instead interested in reconciliation and restoration of genuine relationships based on love, it follows that he must always be fully willing to forgive. It is in this sense that we should understand the words of Jesus when he said: “The Spirit of the Lord […] has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”²⁸⁰ The acceptable year referred to the year of Jubilee, established in Chapter 25^th of Leviticus, according to which every 49 years (7 times 7 years) all slaves were freed, debts were cancelled and a new beginning was made. Jesus came to communicate God's intention to let go all debts, to forgive all sins, without any kind of compensation or punishment, as was the case in the year of the Jubilee, because it was his intention to bring about a new beginning, a new covenant that he would make with mankind.

This idea of the Jubilee announced by Jesus would seem to be in stark contrast to the whole medieval theology of Satisfaction and Penal Substitution, that we saw in the first part of the book, according to which God would demand a satisfaction of honour or punishment to forgive sinners. This rather questionable interpretation is inconsistent with what Jesus announced; the remission of a debt implies that the creditor bears the entire loss, not that he transfers the burden to another, otherwise it would not be remission at all. Similarly, the forgiveness of sins consists in assuming the burden of the injustice suffered to facilitate reconciliation, as we shall see in the parable of the prodigal son.

 

 

13.2. The prodigal son

 

This parable, one of the best known, is recorded in the Gospel of Luke²⁸¹ and it tells the story of a rebellious young man who, even before his father dies, asks for his share of the inheritance so that he can enjoy it. The father gives it to him, and the young man leaves for a faraway country to live a dissolute life. When he has squandered all his money and is reduced to starvation, the young man decides to return to his father and give himself to him as a servant, to have a roof over his head and something to eat.

Firstly, we need to understand some essential aspects; in Middle Eastern cultures, as in the Jewish one, asking one's father for inheritance before his death is considered a very serious offence; it means burying him before he is dead. This young man, apart from the financial damage, was offending his father and betraying his family on a scale that we find difficult to understand. Secondly, we note that the son, on his way back, aware of the damage done, wants to offer himself as a servant to his father to repay the debt with his own work, as we have seen he was used to doing. This intention would certainly have created an obstacle to the authenticity of the relationship between father and son, replacing it with a subordinate, legalistic, unfree relationship.

We know well how the story ended, but it is necessary to dwell on some details. When the son came home, the father saw him from a distance and felt compassion for him, ran up to him and, even before he had time to speak, embraced and kissed him; a man who should have been infinitely offended and angry, showed no sign of rancour, on the contrary, his joy at being able to embrace his son again was overwhelming. He did not ask him for anything, he did not hold anything against him, he did not order him to repay what he had squandered or to restore the offended honour, he did not punish him. The son regretted, acknowledged his guilt, and by saying, “I am no longer worthy to be called your son”, was offering himself as a servant to repay the debt incurred. But the father would not listen to reason, made him wear the finest clothes, put a ring on his finger (symbolising family membership) and had the fattened calf (considered the most precious food) slaughtered to celebrate his return.²⁸² What Jesus expounds in this parable represents the dynamic of forgiveness that was, and still is, practised by the Jews; it is not possible to think that Jesus, in telling this parable, had a different idea of forgiveness from this one, the main points of which can be summarised as follows:

 

• It is necessary to return to God to receive forgiveness. The word translated in English as “repentance” in the Hebrew language corresponds to teshuva which literally means “return”, or more precisely it indicates a “turning” and “returning”; it is therefore constituted by a double movement: turning one's back on sin and returning to God, in order to meet a radical change of life.²⁸³ This double movement is perfectly represented in the parable when the young man turns his back on sin and returns to his father;
• Only once one has returned it is possible to receive forgiveness; it is therefore a free choice that the person must make, to abandon the ways of sin to return to God. This suggests that forgiveness cannot be forced upon anyone, but must mature in a free choice;
• Forgiveness does not require any payment, punishment or satisfaction whatsoever, but only a sincere heart willing to receive it. In fact, we see that the father, even before the young man opens his mouth, has already forgiven him, and does everything he can to persuade him he is forgiven (kisses, clothes, ring, party, etc.). The father, in this way, is taking charge for the injustice suffered, without recriminating anything against the young man. The slaughtered calf and its spilt blood do not serve the father to forgive, but the son to convince himself that he has been forgiven and to understand that his father holds no grudge against him;
• At this point the “ball” is in the son's court. He must either accept the forgiveness and recover his place in the family or continue to live as a servant in consternation at the wrong done. He will certainly have to go through a healing process to free himself from the sense of guilt and shame, and to regain possession of his lost affections, but this is a long process, whereas we have seen that on the father's side there is no obstacle to immediate reconciliation. It follows that salvation is a long process of liberation and healing from the effects of sin;
• The parable therefore tells us that God has no problem in forgiving freely and wholeheartedly; he does not need to be appeased, satisfied or repaid, but it also suggests that we have a problem in receiving forgiveness, because this is a long and painful process that challenges our pride as we are faced with our failure.²⁸⁴

 

This mode of return/repentance and forgiveness of sins was what God had required by speaking through the prophets in the Old Testament, and it was an idea perfectly embraced by Jesus; God is not divided in himself and did not require different things in the Old and New Testaments, for the word of God is one and the same. In fact, we read in the book of the prophet Ezekiel:

 

Ezekiel 18:30-32 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

 

It is surprising to see how, even today, some of the reference systems for the forgiveness of sins in Christianity are far from what Jesus taught in this parable. He never spoke of sacrifices, atonements, penances, punishments or payments that should be made in order to obtain forgiveness of sins; on the contrary, he said that he wanted mercy and not sacrifices.²⁸⁵ He would be disassociated from himself if he asked for mercy from men when he was not disposed to the same mercy; and this is exactly what we shall see in the next parable, that of the wicked servant.

 

 

13.3. The wicked servant

 

The parable of the wicked servant is found in the Gospel of Matthew,²⁸⁶ where Jesus tells of a king who wanted to come to terms with his servants. One of the servants appeared and owed him ten thousand talents (a hyperbolic sum that would be equivalent to several billion dollars today) and his lord ordered him and his whole family to be sold into slavery to repay the debt. But he began to plead, saying that he would repay the debt and begged for mercy; the king, moved by compassion, let him go and forgave him the entire debt. In turn, the servant met another servant who owed him a hundred denarii (a few tens of dollars) and, taking him by the throat, urged him to pay. He asked for patience, promising to repay the whole debt, but the first servant showed no mercy and had him locked up in prison until he had repaid the debt. The lord, on hearing of this, called him and reproached him for not having shown the same mercy he had received, and then, enraged, gave him into the hands of the torturers. The parable closes with the following statement by Jesus: “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.” Let us see what principles we can draw from this parable:

 

• Again, we understand how it is necessary to return to the Lord to obtain forgiveness; it is our choice and limitation, not his;
• Similarly to the parable of the prodigal son, forgiveness is “free”, it requires no compensation or atonement, no payment, by the very nature of “letting go”; indeed, if there were any kind of payment or punishment it would not be a remission;
• Moreover, a new concept is introduced here, that of conditionality, according to which, just as the servant received remission of the debt, he was obliged to remit in turn. This indicates that forgiveness, although free, is conditional and can be revoked at any time if the recipient does not fulfil the moral commitment to practice the same mercy.

 

As a further confirmation of this principle, Jesus said: “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”²⁸⁷ From what we have just seen, it follows that if God asks us to exercise mercy and then he is not willing to grant mercy himself, he will turn into the evil servant of the parable. All the theories that hold that God demands satisfaction or payment through our suffering or that of Jesus, as the price for our sins, are projecting onto God the image of the wicked servant of the parable, denying what Jesus taught and sullying God’s name: “Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”²⁸⁸

 

 

13.4. Grace

 

In the context of forgiveness, the concept of “grace” takes on a central meaning, the understanding of which is fundamental to our study of salvation. Grace can be defined as follows:

 

Grace: an extraordinary concession (of a benefit, favour or other required thing) made through an act of generosity.²⁸⁹

 

This definition reflects the concept expressed by the New Testament word “charis” (gratia in Latin), which meant a gift received through the favourable disposition of the giver, in short, “favour”. However, as we understand it today, favour is a free and unconditional gift, but this was not the case for the ancients. In Greco-Roman culture, grace, although a benevolent concession, always required reciprocation from the recipient and gave rise to an obligation to repay; from a favour granted, a return was expected, not necessarily of the same nature:

 

Reciprocity was fundamental to Roman culture. Gifts and reciprocal favors were expected between members of the same family, friends, or patrons and their clients. […] The ethics of reciprocity were based upon three social norms in which honor was seen as being at stake: benignitas (liberality), gratia (gratitude), and fides (loyalty or credibility). Benignitas meant benevolence, which, in turn, was only considered sincere when it revealed itself in liberality. Gratia was the accepted recognition that one was under an obligation to repay a favor. Although this was an obligation that one could not escape, the acts resulting from it, no matter how symbolic, could nevertheless be freely chosen.²⁹⁰

 

Reciprocity is the principle and practice of voluntary requital, of benefit for benefit (positive reciprocity) or harm for harm (negative reciprocity). It is to be found in various kind of Greek practice and discourse […] as an ethical value, as a factor in interpersonal relations, as an element of political cohesion, as economically significant, as a way of structuring human relations with deity.²⁹¹

 

The concept of grace, for the ancients, was therefore subject to a moral obligation of restitution, the non-fulfilment of which would have caused dishonour. This idea developed in the context of economies originally based on barter in which, from a performance, a counter-performance of equal value arose, but it had then also spread to other spheres based on custom and was called “reciprocation”; whoever did a favour, would therefore expect to receive an adequate counterpart, nothing was done without expecting a benefit in return. On these assumptions, Anselm's theory of Satisfaction was forged in the eleventh century, which is still the substratum of the most accepted theories of salvation today. He believed, in fact, that people had to give something back to God for the forgiveness of sins, but not being able to do so, Jesus provided in their place.

However, Jesus went beyond the system of reciprocity, whether positive²⁹² or negative,²⁹³ by instituting a new revolutionary paradigm, that of solidarity, according to which whoever gives a favour must do so without expecting a subsequent personal benefit. In doing so, he laid the foundations and created the conditions for the transition from an archaic society based on reciprocation to an advanced society based on solidarity.²⁹⁴ To achieve this objective, however, it is necessary for the members of such a society to show solidarity with one another, to form a social fabric based on love. Grace is therefore free but conditional and requires nothing more than equal shared mercy. We have seen, for example in the parable of the wicked servant, that the grace granted for the forgiveness of debt carried with it no material obligation, other than the condition of granting equal grace to others. Similarly, in the parable of the prodigal son, the father does not expect any reciprocation other than the son's commitment to resume his place in the family and accept the mercy received. Likewise, anyone who has received the grace of forgiveness of sins is not called upon to render anything to God, but only to accept and practise mercy, and to undergo a change of life marked by justice, as we shall see in the next paragraph.

 

 

13.5. The adulterous woman

 

This story, recounted in the Gospel of John,²⁹⁵ tells of a woman who, caught in the act of adultery, was brought by the Scribes and Pharisees to Jesus to be judged. In their twisted minds they knew well that the law of Moses punished adultery with stoning, so they sought to frame Jesus, for if he had condemned the woman to be stoned according to the law, he would have shown little of the mercy that he repeatedly preached, whereas if he had forgiven her, he would have been accused of violating the law of Moses. But, as we know, Jesus took them unawares and said to them: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” This, besides confronting them with their own moral corruption and the duplicity of their attempt to discredit Jesus, made the crowd realise that there is no one who is not in need of forgiveness and healing, and that the mercy God offers is available to anyone who returns to him. In fact, the woman, like the prodigal son, was forgiven by Jesus before she had even opened her mouth, but here Jesus showed that he expected something from her: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more”, and he said the same to the paralytic healed at the pool of Bethesda: “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.”²⁹⁶ So, Jesus' request was clear, paraphrasing we could say: “I forgive you by way of favour, I let you go without any merit or punishment whatsoever (grace), but I expect you to change your conduct, i.e., to change your life in such a way that you do not make the same mistakes again, so that nothing worse will happen to you.” This was also what John the Baptist had announced, who preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, inviting to a change of life and to bear fruit worthy of conversion.²⁹⁷

Let us see in the next parable what the outcome is for anyone who refuses grace.

 

 

13.6. Wicked vinedressers

 

We have seen, in the previous paragraphs, how God grants grace, from the height of his mercy to anyone who asks for it by returning to him with a sincere heart and a humble disposition, ready to accept a change of life. But what happens if, once one has received forgiveness, does not abide by the moral obligation? To understand this case, let us refer to another parable told by Jesus, the parable of the wicked vinedressers, found in all three synoptic gospels.²⁹⁸

In the parable, a landlord planted a vineyard and provided it with all the necessary infrastructure to function properly; then he entrusted it to vinedressers and set out on a long journey. When it was the harvest season, he sent his servants to receive the fruits, but the tenants, some drove them away, others stoned them and still others killed them. Then the master sent his own son, thinking: “They will respect my son”, but the vinedressers, when they saw his son, said among themselves: “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance”, and they drove him out of the vineyard and killed him. When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers? The answer is clear: He will destroy those wicked men miserably and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons. Let us see the general principles expressed in this parable:

 

• It is understood that God's grace is patient and abundant, and always takes the first step. Even though the servants sent, representing the prophets, had been driven out or killed, the master continued to send others, even going so far as to send his son to restore the relationship with them;
• It follows that justice, which in the parable is represented by good management, consists in listening to God's message received through the prophets and through the Son, from the acceptance of which, derives a renewed moral commitment to a change of life that produces good fruits;
• Finally, it can be deduced that salvation and forgiveness of sins are a return to God and a paradigm shift resulting from listening to his word. The rejection and killing of the Son represent the point of no return, after which only the wrath of God remains.

 

In the light of the parable we have just seen, the killing of Jesus was not intended by the Father to balance some cosmic equation between justice and mercy but was at the hands of evil men. Peter Abelard's words are confirmed when he wrote: “Did the death of the innocent Son please God the Father so greatly that through it he is reconciled to us, we who perpetrated this by sinning, on account of which the innocent Lord was murdered?”²⁹⁹ No, it did not please God,³⁰⁰ it is the hearing and acceptance of the word that pleases God, and that is what conveys forgiveness; the word announced by the prophets and then made flesh in Jesus Christ. Whoever accepts the word has forgiveness of sins and eternal life, but whoever rejects it, is despising God's grace; for him there is nothing left but eternal separation and darkness, because God is light and outside of him there is only darkness, the absence of all that is good. This is the destruction of which the parable of the wicked vinedressers speaks, and it is the fire mentioned by the Baptist: “Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”³⁰¹

In conclusion, God grants mercy and expects us to submit to a process of regeneration that, through our personal commitment and the spiritual action of his word, will lead us to a radical change of life in righteousness, that will produce good fruit for his Kingdom.

 

 

13.7. Summary

 

It is appropriate to summarise the many points we have seen so far, by giving a practical example to aid understanding, by referring to a modern legal system, which we will find to be strikingly like that set out by Jesus in his parables:

 

1. God's forgiveness and grace always take the first step towards the sinner, to free him from bondage and guilt and restore him to righteousness;
2. Repentance and conversion consist of abandoning the ways of sin and turning back to the ways of God, his word and his teachings;
3. Forgiveness is free, but is conditional on the sinner's duty to show others the same mercy received;
4. The grace of God, the divine favour received through forgiveness, gives rise in the sinner to a moral commitment to a change of life that may honour the favour received;
5. Forgiveness and grace can be withdrawn, if the sinner's commitment to walk the path of change is lacking, and if fruits worthy of conversion do not ripen in his or her life.

 

The values expressed here, thus mark the transition from a society based on reciprocity to one based on solidarity, where the p