ordinary time The Sánchez Archives

SEVENTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
Year C

By
Patricia Datchuck Sánchez

Forgiveness, A Gift That Frees

1 SAMUEL 26:7-9, 12-13, 22-23
1 CORINTHIANS 15:45-49
LUKE 6:27-38

When Christian missionaries to Alaska first began to minister among the Inuit people, they were surprised to discover their term for forgiveness. A formidable assemblage of 24 letters, the compound word issumagijoujungnainermik is a beautiful expression which means not-being-able-to-think-about-it-anymore. Implied in this term is the notion that the one who forgives will also forget. What a freeing thought! Forgiveness is a noble gift and when it is authentically offered and genuinely received, it never ceases to stir a certain amazement in the human heart.

For example, when Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi was gunned down in 1948, his last gesture was one of forgiveness for his assassin; with his palms pressed together he raised his hands to his lips in the Hindu sign of forgiveness. Pope John Paul II was similarly generous. After recovering from his gunshot wounds, he visited his assailant in jail and assured him of his forgiveness.

Father Lawrence Jenco, upon his release as a hostage in Beirut, said that only when he was able to forgive his kidnappers, was he able to enjoy his freedom. Only by forgiving those who had starved, degraded and brutalized him was he able to move from brokenness to wholeness before God.

The late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who once said that the believer’s relationship with Christ must influence all his/her other relationships (Christ Lives In Me, St. Anthony Messenger Press, Cincinnati: 1970), extended his experience of that relationship to a young man who had accused him of sexual molestation. Even before the man recanted his accusations as false, Cardinal Bernardin had extended to him the gift of forgiveness.

During the race riots in Los Angeles, in the aftermath of the Rodney King debacle, a truck driver named Reginald Denny was pulled from his vehicle and severely beaten with a brick. When the case went to trial in 1993, Denny stunned the courtroom with his offer of forgiveness to those who had almost killed him. Later Denny said that only by forgiving the perpetrators of the crime against him was he able to put the event behind him and move on.

Forgiveness is a freeing gift. The person who is forgiven is freed by the living offer of reconciliation of his/her forgiveness. This offer is tantamount to an invitation to do better, to change one’s life, to rise above past wrong-doing. Freedom also devolves upon the person who offers forgiveness, freedom from harbored grudges, anger, resentment and a desire for revenge. But a gift of forgiveness which is followed by constant reminders of the other’s past guilt is not a gift al all. There is no forgiveness or freedom if dredged up and hurtful memories of faraway sins are brought up again and again. Nothing defeats the freedom of being forgiven more quickly than a comment like “I told you so” or “There you go again” or “You’ll never change!” For this reason, the lengthy Inuit term for forgiveness, “not-being-able-to-think-about-it-anymore,” merits our consideration. This is precisely the quality of forgiveness which the gathered assembly is invited to put into practice today.

In the first reading from 1 Samuel, David had the opportunity to do away with his sworn enemy, King Saul. Jealous of David and resentful of his popularity with the people, Saul was bent upon killing him. Rather than take advantage of Saul when the opportunity arose, David spared the life of the king because of his role as God’s anointed. Although David was motivated more by reverence for a sacred office than by mercy or forgiveness, his sparing of his enemy forms a prelude for the higher demand of the gospel.

Jesus called his disciples not simply to spare the lives of their enemies, or to tolerate their opponents, but to love them, to do good to them, to bless and to pray for them.

As Roland Faley (Footprints on the Mountain, Paulist Press, New York: 1994) has pointed out, this is precisely what Christian holiness or otherness means. God’s own nature is to be reflected in human conduct. If believers operate solely on human values, then the salt and light are gone, Christianity then, has no meaning; we are called to be different. That this thoroughgoing break with the status quo of society is difficult is evidenced in the fact that examples of true forgiveness continue to amaze us. Today, the believing community of forgiven sinners is called to lessen that amazement by extending the gift of genuine forgiveness to all. . . even and especially to our enemies.

1 SAMUEL 26:7-9, 12-13, 22-23

When President Gerald Ford granted former President Richard Nixon “a free, full and absolute pardon” for his participation in the scandalous and criminal activities known as Watergate, many considered Ford’s decision to be an act of weakness. In 1977, when President Jimmy Carter offered amnesty to those who had avoided being conscripted for the war in Vietnam, by seeking asylum in other countries, he was criticized for not taking charge and enforcing the law. Both men, one a Republican, the other a Democrat, “took the heat”, as it were because neither was motivated by partisan politics or the pressure of public opinion. Each had chosen to go beyond the limits of strict justice in order to exercise a mercy that was not dictated by law but by conscience.

David, in this very excerpted text from 1 Samuel was confronted with similar circumstances. King Saul, with 3000 soldiers was pursuing David and his band of 600 loyal supporters. The inept and increasingly unpopular king was out to destroy his younger rival, whom he perceived to be a threat to his throne. At one point in their conflict, David was able to enter Saul’s camp undetected and could easily have done away with his adversary. The conviction of the author of 1 Samuel, concerning the unfolding events, i.e., that they were directed by God, is attested to by a few different clues within the narrative. In his description of the sleeping king and soldiers (vv. 7, 12), the ancient writer used the term tardemah which meant a divinely induced sleep; the same sleep that came over Adam, Abraham (Genesis 2:21; 15:12), etc. The implication seems to be that God was placing Saul, the enemy of David, “under his feet” or in his power (see Psalm 110).

Abishai, David’s companion, also interpreted the sleeping as an advantage given to David by God and he encouraged him to make the most of his opportunity (v. 8).

The belief that God was favoring David over Saul was further affirmed by the fact that David had already been anointed as king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:12-13). Having judged Saul to be an unworthy sovereign, the prophet, at God’s behest, set out for Jesse’s house and designated his youngest son, a shepherd, as Israel’s next king. By means of these several clues, the biblical author illustrated that David rose to power, not because of ambition or human planning but by divine design.

David’s refusal to take advantage of what appeared to be a divinely given opportunity, may have been interpreted as weakness by his contemporaries. Like Ford and Carter, he was not motivated by public or partisan opinion. Out of respect for Saul’s position as God’s anointed, David spared the king and left the judgment of life or death in the hands of God. Because of his unwillingness to exact a lawfully permitted “eye for an eye” vengeance upon his enemy, David can be admired as a type of forerunner of Jesus who would take that very law and raise it from the justice of mere legalism to the mercy and forgiveness of love.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:45-49

Each year, engineers from automotive companies from all over the world gather for conventions at which they unveil their prototypes of the car of the future. Sleek, aerodynamic designs combined with powerful engines and a wealth of luxurious accessories are intended to tempt buyers and boost profits for the year ahead. In today’s second reading, Paul refers the believers in Corinth to the two proto-types who have influenced their present existence as well as their future in eternity, viz., the first Adam, who was the proto-typical human, and the last Adam or the risen Christ, who is a prototype of the resurrected glory each of us shall experience.

Paul’s two Adam imagery is better understood against the backdrop of Hellenistic Judaism, i.e., the non-Palestinian branch of Judaism most influenced by Hellenistic or Greek culture and philosophy. Philo, the foremost representative of this manner of thinking was a contemporary of both Jesus and Paul and his prolific writings seem to have had considerable influence on the world from which Christianity emerged.

Basing his ideas on the two accounts of the creation of humankind (Genesis 1-2), Philo taught that the first Adam (Genesis 1:27) was made “in the image and likeness of God” and the second Adam, “formed of the clay of the ground” was infused with the very breath of God and became a “living being” (Genesis 2:7). The first Adam was the archetypal or prototypical human being as God had intended, viz., spiritual; the second Adam represented humankind as it really was, viz., corruptible.

Using Philo’s two Adam comparison as a starting point, Paul more correctly interpreted the two creation accounts as a doublet, i.e., two versions of the same event deriving from different sources. Paul understood that both versions described the same Adam, a physical or natural, earthly human being (v. 46). For Paul, the spiritual, true and last, or heavenly Adam is Jesus Christ. Whereas the natural body links us to the first Adam, the spiritual body (v. 44) links us to Christ, the risen Lord in whom and by whom believers are saved and gifted with an everlasting, resurrected existence. While we are on earth, our ties with the first Adam involve us in mortality; our ties with the last Adam promise us a share in immortality.

Elsewhere in his writings, Paul explained that the believer’s opportunity to share in the life of the risen Adam-Christ does not commence only at death. On the contrary, through the power of the Holy Spirit, believers are already able to share, here and now, albeit not fully, nor yet forever in the life of the risen Christ. Full and forever sharing will come when we travel the passage which is death to everlasting life.

LUKE 6:27-38

In the Blessings and Woes of the Great Sermon, the Lucan Jesus described those who would find a home in the kingdom or reign of God and those who, of their own volition, would forego membership (see gospel for Sixth Sunday of Ordinary Time, February 15, 1998). Having established the requisites for membership, the Great Sermon then focuses attention on the law of love by which the life of the people of God will be governed (vv. 27-35) and then on the standard or criteria by which members of the kingdom are to measure themselves (vv. 36-38).

At the outset, readers of this challenging gospel should notice that Jesus was addressing his disciples; these had already decided for Jesus and turned from their former way of life to follow him. Having made this initial choice, the disciples were then challenged to make Jesus’ way of life their own. Following in the way of Jesus would require a radical break with their Jewish and/or Greek past. Among the Jews and Greeks, interpersonal relationships were characterized by reciprocity. My friend loves me, I love my friend. My enemy hates me, I hate my enemy. The Jewish legislation regarding this do-ut-des or tit-for-tat mentality was part of the expanded law, called the Holiness Code in the book of Leviticus. The Greek notion of this eye-for-an-eye interaction was reflected in its literature. It was Lysias who stated the Hellenistic view of reciprocity most succinctly: “I considered it established that one should do harm to one’s enemies and be of service to one’s friends.”

Like a well-oiled machine, this principle governed human behavior and relationships until Jesus’ teaching of freely given and unreciprocated love threw a monkey wrench into the works! Because believers belong to the reign of God, merely human norms and criteria can no longer have sole governance of their lives. With the compassionate, forgiving and generous love of God as their standard (“Be compassionate as God is . . .”, vv.36-38), followers of Jesus are called to put aside reciprocity for a love that transforms their minds and hearts and is expressed in their words and works.

Luke Timothy Johnson (The Gospel of Luke, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN: 1991), in his commentary on this passage, has advised readers of Luke to notice the progression in Jesus’ challenge to love, even enemies. Kalos, or the call to love is both an attitude and a mode of action, rather than an emotion. Kalos (v. 27) means to will the good for another and then to act upon that will by doing good as well. By way of elaboration, the evangelist explained that doing good means to “bless those who curse you and pray for those who maltreat you” (v. 28).

Stretching the believer’s capacity even further and drawing it even more closely to the divine norm (“Be compassionate as God is”, v. 36), Luke has Jesus call his disciples to allow their love, blessings, prayers and good deeds to go beyond what is required or demanded. “Give to all. . . if a coat is demanded, give a shirt as well.” If violence is sustained (when someone slaps you on one cheek), answer that affront with non-violence. In other words, as Charles Talbert (Reading Luke, Crossroad Pub. Co, New York: 1984) suggests, people should not return evil for evil but rather respond as they would want to be treated.

Jesus, first disciples and Luke’s readers through the centuries cannot help but wonder what resources make these demands possible. An answer to this question lies in the disciples themselves. Before Pentecost, they tended to lean toward their old ways of reciprocity, responding in kind to others. Recall the time a Samaritan village refused to offer hospitality to Jesus and his disciples. Infuriated, they wanted to call a consuming fire upon the village (9:52-54). Recall also the disciples’ reaction when Jesus was arrested. They were ready to “strike with a sword” and one of them cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant (22:49-50). But after Jesus’ saving death and resurrection and after they were transformed by the Spirit, they “rejoiced that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name” of Jesus (Acts 5:41).

If we look only to ourselves and our own resources, the demands of this gospel are impossible. But with the gift of the transforming Spirit, even the impossible can became a way of life, a life that will, in turn, transform the world.

[NOTE TO USERS: This archive is available for use without charge, but it remains the property of the author and under copyright with Celebrations Publications. Users are permitted to print individual Sunday commentaries for pastoral use, but are prohibited from downloading or copying files or printing any portion of this for sale or distribution.]

http://www.ncrpub.org
e-mail the Celebration editor at patmarrin@aol.com



Copyright © 2000 Celebration Publications

Illustration prepared by Julie Lonneman.

The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company
Celebration Publications
115 E. Armour Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64111
1-816-531-0538