www.faithtrustinstitute.

org

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament

by Frederick W. Keene

The relationship of forgiveness and repentance is among the most difficult concepts in Christian
theology. The argument usually is carried out along the lines of whether repentance is required
for forgiveness to be granted, or whether forgiveness is (or should be) granted unconditionally,
with repentance required in order to recognize and accept the unconditional forgiveness. The
first position usually is regarded as one taken by more conservative Christians and, biblically,
is based on such texts as Mark 1:4(//Luke 3:3),

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance

(metanoia) for the forgiveness (aphesis) of sins.

The second position is usually regarded as more liberal, and finds its biblical roots in
passages such as Mark 2:1-12(//Matthew 9:2-8//Luke 5:17-26), especially Mark 2:5,

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, Son, your sins are forgiven
(aphimi).

This is a somewhat more nuanced position than the first. It finds much of its basis in Pauls
explicit assertion of unconditional grace, with a classic expression in Pauls Tillichs famous
sermon, You Are Accepted. (Tillich *1948+, 153-163)

With respect to forgiveness in human interactions, the model of forgiveness usually is taken to
be that of divine forgiveness. This again raises the question as to whether repentance is required
for forgiveness, the answer usually depending on the answer accepted with respect to divine
forgiveness. Biblically, of course, this can be traced back to such passages as the Lords Prayer in
the Sermon of the Mount, Matthew 6:12(//Luke 11:4),

And forgive (aphimi) our debts,

as we also have forgiven (aphimi) our debtors,

where human beings are to model their forgiveness on divine forgiveness, and possibly find
their access to divine forgiveness contingent upon their forgiving others. Snaith, for example,
puts forward a version of the conservative stance by claiming that the moral of the parable
of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) is that the person who does not forgive cannot
repent. (Snaith *1972+, 86) The more liberal position, which posits unconditional divine
forgiveness, runs into trouble here. It wants human forgiveness to be unconditional too, reading
Matthew 6:12 as a description of how the petitioner is to emulate divine forgiveness, not as an
expression of the contingency of that forgiveness. Unfortunately, though, the liberal also tends
to believe in justice. But if forgiveness is always to be available, would a requirement that the

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 1 of 14 Permission Granted to Duplicate

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

oppressed and the abused must forgive their oppressors and abusers be just, or even possible?
In human interactions, does unconditional forgiveness conflict with a cry for justice-or to
reverse the question, does an insistence on justice deny a requirement that the abused must
forgive the abuser? These are hard questions, even if they often are raised by those who would
support and protect oppressors and abusers, and who would never dream of claiming divine
forgiveness is unconditional.

An alternative model to the repentance required versus unconditional models of

forgiveness with respect to human interactions can be found by looking at the structure of the
way the New Testament treats forgiveness. The development of this model looks briefly at the
cultural anthropology of the New Testament world, but primarily examines the words for and
ideas about forgiveness that occur in the texts themselves. Once this alternative model is set up,
it becomes possible to reexamine justice and abuse issues.

The concept of forgiveness would have been difficult, and sometimes even dangerous, in the
agonistic society of the first century Mediterranean world. One person forgiving another would
have been seen as laudable only if the forgiver were in a higher socioeconomic position than the
forgiven, and hence in a position to act as a patron. Even then, the receiver of forgiveness would
have been expected to seek the forgiveness-that is, the receiver would need to offer to become a
client, unless already born into clientship. This is because in an agonistic society an offer of
forgiveness is a challenge to the honor of the person being forgiven, at least in the case of a male
recipient (Malina [1981], 30-33, 79-82; Malina and Neyrey [1991], 49-52); it may have been a
positive challenge, but a challenge nevertheless. Such a challenge from an inferior would be an
insult, but from a superior or an equal could be accepted. It would depend on how it were
proffered. Thus in the first century Mediterranean world, the problem with forgiveness would
not be with whether repentance was required, either before it was offered or in order to accept
it. The problem with forgiveness would lie in the context in which it was offered or available:
who forgave, who was forgiven, and what was the nature of the relationship between them that
caused the question of forgiveness to arise in the first place.

This cultural-anthropological picture points to a model of forgiveness, and possibly of

repentance, that can be examined in terms of the words and the structures of the New
Testament. The model would posit that, from the point of view of the New Testament,
interpersonal forgiveness is possible only when, within the context of the interaction in which
the question of forgiveness arises, the putative forgiver is more powerful than, or at least an
equal of, the person being forgiven. In particular it is not possible from the point of view of the
New Testament for one person to forgive another person of greater power. This would mean
that if a tenant has a grievance against a landlord as part of their landlord/tenant relationship,
the tenant not only is not called upon to forgive, but in fact cannot forgive the landlord so long
as that relationship exists-and this is independent of whether or not the landlord makes
restitution. It would also mean that if a man beats his wife, the battered woman not only is not
required to forgive her husband, but in fact should not forgive him so long as the hierarchical
power relationship exists within the marriage. The tenant can forgive a financial wrong only of

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 2 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

a financial equal (or inferior). A wife can forgive a marital wrong only as a marital equal. Within
the Christian context, a landlord might be expected to forgive the debts of his tenants, but he
cannot and should not expect to be forgiven for any wrongs he has committed-unless, possibly,
he ceases to be a landlord.

From a linguistic perspective, how does this model fit the New Testament? There are only three
Greek words used for the verb to forgive in the New Testament: aphimi () with its
associated noun aphesis (); charizomai (); and apoluo (). Apoluo occurs in
the sense of to forgive only in Luke 6:37c (twice). It usually means to dismiss or to divorce; it is
used in Matthew 5:32//Luke 16:28 and in Mark 10:11-12 in the pronouncements on divorce.
Divorce in the New Testament context being a hierarchical process controlled by the husband,
Luke 6:37c would carry a connotation of the forgiveness coming from the more powerful person.

The predominant verbs of forgiveness are aphimi and charizomai. The words aphimi and aphesis
occur with this meaning almost exclusively in the Synoptic Gospels and in Acts, while
charizomai is almost exclusively Pauline. Aphimi and aphesis have two basic meanings which can
be related. The first is an essentially juridical meaning of to leave or to release. This can be
seen in Luke 4:18, He has sent me to proclaim release (aphimi) to the captives. This can be
extended to many cases where someone or something is leaving, for example the earliest
disciples leaving their livelihood to follow Jesus in Mark 1:18(//Matthew 4:20),

And immediately they left (aphimi) their nets and followed him,

and in Mark 1:20(//Matthew 4:22),

<and they left (aphimi) their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and
follow him.

The other meaning is essentially commercial, to remit or forgive, especially a debt. This carries
over from both common Greek usage and from the LXX, and can be seen in Matthew
6:12(//Luke 11:14),

And forgive (aphimi) us our debts,

As we also have forgiven (aphimi) our debtors,

and in the parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Matthew 18:27 and 32,

<and forgave (aphimi) him the debt<I forgave (aphimi) you all that debt.

The two meanings can be seen to be related by the use of the noun aphesis to mean release from
debt or obligation or penalty. (TDNT [1985], 48; Ringe [1985], 65-66) The use in LXX shows a
shift from Hebrew words for forgiveness that connote a cultic removal and expiation of sin to
Greek words that have juridical and commercial meanings of release or remission. This in turn

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 3 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

gives a religious connotation to the secular words. (Ringe [1985], 65-66, 112-113) What should be
noticed, however, is that the words for forgiving and forgiveness now have an implication of a
more powerful being, whether God or a person, releasing another from a debt or an obligation
or a penalty. The term aphesis ton hamartia, forgiveness of sins, takes on an implication of a
release from sin (or from the penalty of sinning) or a release from debt; it does not have an
implication of a religious or a cultic cleansing.

Paul prefers the verb *charizomai+, to be generous, perhaps because it stresses the
generous and personal character of Gods action and avoids the juridical associations of
*aphiemi+. (Quanbeck [1962], 319) Charizomai, to give freely, is from the same root as charis,
which is the word usually translated as grace in the Pauline literature. (TDNT *1985+, 1298ff)
In the New Testament, it occurs only in Luke, Paul, and the deutero-Pauline literature. In
secular Greek, it usually meant to show pleasure or to show oneself to be pleasant. (TDNT
[1985], 1301) In Luke, it usually refers to favors granted to someone (TDNT [1985], 1304); in Acts
4:14, for example, it is said that Barabbas was released as a favor to the people,

But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given
(charizomai) to you.

In fact, Luke uses charizomai in the sense of forgiving debts in Luke 7:42-43,

<When they could not pay, he canceled *RSV: forgave+ (charizomai) the debts of both of
them. Now which of them would love him more? Simon answered, I suppose the one
for whom he canceled [RSV: forgave] (charizomai) the greater debt.

In the Lukan story of Jesus anointing by a woman. (We note, however, that when Jesus forgave
the womans sins in Luke 7:47-48 he used aphiemi rather than charizomai.) For Paul, though, it is
the giving freely part of charizomai that tends to emphasized, as in Romans 8:32,

He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave [or delivered] him up for all of us, will
he not with him also give (charizomai) us everything else?

This giving freely is almost always by God, and very rarely in the sense of forgiving anything,
whether sins or debts.i

For a concept that has achieved such prominence in Christian theology and piety, there are
relatively few references to forgiveness of sins, with Jesus forgiving of anothers sins, or,
especially after the Resurrection, a blending of these two categories in which Gods forgiveness
is mediated in some way by Jesus. All of these references are of necessity hierarchical: within
the context of the New Testament, God and Jesus are always in a (or the) position of power with
regard to sin. Furthermore, the words used are almost always aphimi or aphesis, giving this
forgiveness of sin juridical or commercial overtones. When it comes to people forgiving other

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 4 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

people, there are not very many references. When Synoptic parallels are taken together, there
are seven such references in the gospels, and four in the epistolary literature.

One of the major themes in the treatment of forgiveness by human beings is its relationship to
forgiveness by God. This can be seen in the forgiveness petition of the Lords Prayer, Matthew
6:12//Luke 11:4,

And forgive us our debts, And forgive us our sins,

As we also have forgiven for we ourselves forgive
our debtors. everyone indebted to us.

This relationship can be expressed in several ways, depending on the bias of the speaker. Thus
one can say that humans must forgive one another in order to be forgiven by God, or one can
say that humans must forgive each other in order to be able to accept the forgiveness of God.
The petitions, of course ask God to forgive human beings because they forgive others, leaving
open the question of whether God would forgive humans if they did not forgive others. But the
petitions do more than that: they set up hierarchy. In Matthew 5:12, the petition says that since
we have forgiven (aphimi) our debtors (opheiletes), then God should forgive (aphimi) our
debts (opheile). These all have a primary reference to commercial or financial terms, although
they can be extended to cover spiritual usage, (TDNT [1985], 746-748) Luke does in 11:4 by
asking God to forgive (aphimi) our sins (hamartia) as we forgive (aphimi) everyone who is
indebted (opheilo) to us. To be indebted in a commercial transaction is to be in the inferior
position; the creditor is in the position of power. Thus the hierarchy is that we forgive those
over whom we have power; therefore we can ask God, who has infinite power, to forgive us.
Nothing is said about those who have power over us and against whom we might have a
grievance. In this situation, forgiveness flows down, from the more powerful to the
less powerful.

Forgiveness continues to flow down from the more powerful to the less powerful in the
discussion in Matthew 6:14-15 of the forgiveness petition from the Lords Prayer, and in the
similar discussion Mark 11:25. (Mark 11:26, which carries the discussion forward along the lines
pursued by Matthew is not admitted into most modern translations.) Here, instead of debts
(opheile) or sin (hamartia), it is trespasses (paraptomata) that are to be forgiven (aphimi), but again
in the line of the Father forgiving the person, who then forgives the trespasses of others.

This trend also is found in the unique saying in Luke 6:37-38a in the Sermon on the Plain,

Do not judge, and you will not be judged;

do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.
Forgive (apoluo), and you will be forgiven (apoluo);
give, and it will be given to you.

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 5 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

(Luke 6:37a parallels Matthew 7:11.) In each of these commands, the clause in the passive voice
is in the divine passive used to avoid a direct reference to God. This would point to a
replication of the power driven hierarchy already seen, except that the word for
forgive/forgiven used here is apoluo, not aphimi. In fact, this is the only place in the New
Testament where apoluo is used to indicate forgiveness. It usually means to divorce or
dismiss, and is the verb used in the divorce discourses in Matthew 5:31 and 19:7 and in Mark
10:4. Divorce was a purely hierarchical act in biblical times, of course, a fact pointed out in the
divorce narratives. The man, who had all the power, could divorce his wife, but she did not
have the power to give him a bill of divorcement. While a case can be made that Jesus
allowed divorce if mutually agreed upon,ii the meaning of apoluo contains no hint of mutuality;
it was strictly a hierarchical concept where the one with power is the one who performs the
action of the verb.

The gospels also treat the concept of forgiveness in two narrative complexes, Luke 7:36-50 and
Matthew 18:21-35. Both contain parables or illustrative stories that, while capable of other
interpretations, are used to carry on the discussion of forgiveness in the received redactions.
The Lukan passage is Lukes treatment of what in the other three gospels is presented as the
anointing at Bethany. A complete discussion of this passage is beyond the scope of this study;
Ringe (Ringe [1983], 66-71) studies the Lukan passage, while Schussler Fiorenzaiii has an
excellent presentation of the Synoptic parallels. The Lukan presentation differs substantially
from the others. It not only is removed in time-from the week before the Crucifixion to early in
Jesus ministry-and place-from Bethany to Galilee-but also its entire emphasis is different. While
the other three presentations emphasize the anointing, and the Synoptics play with the idea that
the anointing of the head is both the anointing of the messiah/king and an anointing for burial,
the anointing in Luke seems to be secondary. In Luke, the primary emphasis is on forgiveness:
forgiveness of the woman, who in stark contrast to the other three gospels is described as a
woman of the city who was a sinner, but also, in an illustrative story the forgiveness of
debtors.iv The story is in Luke 7:41-43,

A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
When they could not pay, he canceled [RSV: forgave] (charizomai) the debts for both of
them. Now which of them will love him more. Simon answered, I suppose the one for
whom he canceled [RSV: forgave] (charizomai) the greatest debt. And Jesus said to him,
You have judged rightly.

The use of charizomai for debt cancellation is particularly noticeable here; it emphasizes the free
gift part of the forgiveness, but does not disguise that Jesus is talking about creditors and
debtors, and hence a hierarchy of power. Later in the narrative, when the discussion turns to the
forgiveness of the womans sins, Jesus ties it to the debt language by switching from charizomai
to aphimi in vv 47-48,

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 6 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven (aphimi); hence
she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven (aphimi), loves little.
Then he said to her, Your sins are forgiven (aphimi).

This illustrates the hierarchical nature of forgiveness even when Jesus forgives sins: a woman
of the city who was a sinner was near the bottom of any power hierarchy of the time, and
Jesus, as a Teacher who was a guest, albeit mistreated, of a Pharisee, was well above her.

The other narrative complex, Matthew 18:21-35, includes the parable of the Unforgiving Servant
(vv 23-34), framed by a passage (vv 21-22 and 35) paralleled by Luke 17:3-4,

The Peter came and said to him, Be on your guard! If another

Lord, if another member of the disciple sins, you must rebuke
church [RSV, NRSV margin: my the offender, and if there is
brother] sins against me, how repentance, you must forgive
often should I forgive (aphimi) (aphimi). And if the same
him? As many as seven times? person sins against you seven
Jesus said to him, Not seven times a day, and turns back to
times, but I tell you, seventy- you seven times and says I
seven [RSV, NRSV margin: repent, you must forgive
seventy times seven+ times. (aphimi).

In Matthew 18:21 the NRSV, presumably reacting to this passage coming at the end of chapter
18, much of which is devoted to church discipline, reads member of the church; the RSV
(and the NRSV margin), reflecting the actual Greek, reads brother. (For consistency, the
NRSV should read a brother or a sister.) This parallels another disciple in Luke 17:3. Here is
one of the few cases where an absolute hierarchy is not set up; a brother or another disciple
or a member of the church is neither above nor below the person offended, but is an equal.
While forgiveness is neither expected nor required when the offender is higher in the power
hierarchy-indeed, it probably is neither possible nor desirable-it is expected when the person is
an equal in the power structure. This frame in Matthew is concluded at verse 35,

So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive (aphimi)
your brother or sister from your heart.

Here the NRSV goes back to its inclusive language convention, and continues to reinforce the
idea of equality-but not of forgiving the more powerful. The rest of the verse is an effort within
the context of the Matthean redaction to present a particular interpretation of the parable of the
Unforgiving Servant.

Within the Matthean redaction, the parable of the Unforgiving Servant is a parable on the
necessity of forgiving others.v A lord (kyrios) forgives a slave with a large debt, but this slave
refuses to forgive one of his debtors. This causes the lord to revoke the original forgiveness and

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 7 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

turn the unforgiving slave over to the torturers. The verb to forgive is aphimi throughout,
emphasizing the financial aspects. The story itself could hardly be more hierarchical, and the
way Matthew presents it makes it an almost paradigmatic form of the forgiveness petition in
the Lords Prayer.vi Yet again, forgiveness comes down from the most powerful to the least
powerful-and if the progression is broken at one place it is broken everywhere. As Ringe puts it,

if one opts to live with the pattern of forgiveness, that choice must govern those
situations from which one benefits as well as those where ones own debt is
insurmountable. (Ringe [1985], 95)

But the progression of forgiveness can be broken only by a more powerful person refusing
forgiveness to a less powerful person. The progression of forgiveness does not move up the
structure of power, only down.

The final example of humans forgiving humans within the gospels is also the only example that
presents the question of one with less power forgiving those with relatively more power. It is
Luke 23:34,

Then Jesus said, Father forgive (aphimi) them, for they do not know what they
are doing.

one of the Last Words on the Cross.vii This is a situation where Jesus has no power; he is
speaking from a cross about those who have crucified him. What is noticeable is that he does
not forgive them. Instead, he asks his Father, he asks God, to forgive them. Having no power
within the situation, he cannot forgive. About the only way the structures of power can be
invoked for forgiveness is the way Jesus chose: to ask God, who remains all powerful, to
forgive. This is the one place where, if Jesus wanted the weak to forgive the strong, he could
have indicated it. He did not. He asked the strongest to forgive, and, being the less powerful,
did not offer the forgiveness himself. The relative positioning within the power structures
remain the same: only the more powerful can be expected to forgive. The less powerful are not
expected to forgive, and, in the case of Jesus on the cross, do not forgive the more powerful.

Outside the gospels, there are only three references in the New Testament to interpersonal
forgiveness; a fourth, II Corinthians 12:13, is a bit of sarcasm by Paul. All four of them are in
Pauline or deutero-Pauline literature, and, as would be expected, all four use charizomai for the
verb to forgive. The two deutero-Pauline occurrences are in the context of advice about
church life. Ephesians 4:32,

<and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has
forgiven you.

comes at the end of a section beginning a v 25 with for we are members of one another. This is
a setting of equality, as in Matthew 18:21-22, although the hierarchical emphasis, with the

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 8 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

human forgiveness stemming from the divine forgiveness is there too. Similarly, the other
deutero-Pauline reference, Colossians 3:13, also refers to the life of the church, as can be seen by
beginning at v 12,

As Gods chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness,
humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint
against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also
must forgive.

This is virtually the same as Ephesians 4:32: the equality due to church membership is there, but
the hierarchy of power that governs forgiveness is also there. Any hint that the less powerful
might be called upon to forgive the more powerful most emphatically is not there.

The remaining passage is the only place in the New Testament where Paul writes about
forgiveness by humans, II Corinthians 2:5-11. Here he is addressing a specific incident that
seems to have occurred during the period of contention between him and the Corinthian church
documented in his Corinthian correspondence. This passage comes in a section of that
correspondence that dates from the end of the period of contention, after Paul has brought the
church back to his way of thinking. During the dispute, one of the members of the church seems
to have affronted Paul in a manner sufficiently unpleasant to have caused the church to exact
punishment (vv 5-6). The nature of the punishment is not specified; traditionally, it is held to
have been some form of excommunication or shunning of the offender. Paul, magnanimous
in victory, writes in this section that the congregation should now forgive and console *the
offender+, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow (v 7). Paul continues along
this line, a few sentences later saying in v 10,

Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven
anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ.

Paul, now being firmly in the leadership position and wielding the power in the relationship,
can and does encourage forgiveness. He nowhere indicates that anyone should forgive the more
powerful, and, when in the weaker position in the course of the Corinthian dispute, never
indicated that he was going to forgive those more powerful than he who had been so offensive
to him. In this case, the only one from Pauls writings, the trend in the New Testament
continues. Forgiveness is desired between equals in a relationship; when the relationship is
unequal, only the more powerful are to forgive. If an offense is committed against the weaker
by the more powerful, the weaker are not expected to be forgiving.

This model, based on the structure of forgiveness in the New Testament, is one where
forgiveness occurs only when the parties involved possess equal power in the relationship
where forgiveness is applicable, or else when the person with the grievance has the greater
power within that relationship. Even Jesus in the one case where he was in the weaker position
did not forgive those who both were more powerful and had harmed him. Instead, while on the

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 9 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

Cross, he asked God-the most powerful-to forgive them. The fact that Jesus himself did not opt
for forgiveness in this situation points to a further possibility, that forgiveness is not even
possible when it is to go up the power structure. Surely the idea of a forgiving Christ would tell
us that if he could he would forgive. But he did not, and thus no one should be asked or
expected to forgive those who retain the power in a relationship where forgiveness might
be applicable.

This model of forgiveness provides a tool for addressing several problems in contemporary and
biblical theology. In particular, it provides a way of reconciling the apparent dichotomy
between the supposed New Testament emphasis on forgiveness (and mercy) and the supposed
Hebrew Bible emphasis on justice. In contemporary theology, this dichotomy is nowhere more
apparent than in liberation theologies. As Ringe has put it,

<theologians of liberation<seem not to be drawn to the theological motif of

forgiveness, and for very good reason<it is heard as a word that would whitewash past
abuses whose present consequences continue to be felt. (Ringe [1985], 95)

This, of course, is a point of view not unique to liberation theologies; any theology from the
underside which takes seriously the conditions of the abused, the hurt, those in pain, will look
with much suspicion on almost all treatments of forgiveness. The model of forgiveness explored
here would, for example, put the lie to the male clergy who counsel and preach to abused
women that they must forgive. In the social and political arena, forgiveness would be far
from becoming an easy or cheap route of escape for the privileged, (Ringe *1985+, 95) as
opposed to the way it is commonly preached in American churches.

This model would allow theologians of liberation to address the idea of forgiveness with some
specificity within the context of justice. To receive forgiveness, to be forgiven, the powerful
would have to do more than make restitution; they would have to give up their power. From
a Christological point of view, of course, the relinquishing of power at the Cross is the basic
requirement of salvation, but it goes beyond the Cross. To return to the Sermon on the Mount,
forgiveness by others as well as by God is a prerequisite for worship, and hence for any true
relationship with God:

So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or
sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be
reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms
quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser
may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown in
prison. (Matthew 5:23-25)

This reconciliation, which in this case requires forgiveness, must be sought out-first from
equals, but then from anyone with a grievance. This forgiveness can be hoped for, and even
expected, except from those further down the power scale. To receive forgiveness from them,

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 10 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

power must be relinquished. If this relinquishing of power is to be given a name, it is the

metanoia, the repentance, spoken of in the New Testament, or the turning, the shub, spoken of
by the prophets.

This relinquishing of power, this metanoia, this shub, is what the theologians of liberation are
talking about when they demand justice. It is the giving up of power that ties together
forgiveness and justice. In this sense, the demands of forgiveness-whether aphimi or charizomai-
are the demands for metanoia, and for justice, the mishpat demanded by the covenant through
the prophets, and brought about by a turning shub, back to God. The requirement for
forgiveness and the requirement for justice become aspects of the same drive toward
fundamental, radical change in the power relationships among people, a drive that cannot help
but be revolutionary in a real, material sense. The theologians of liberation have recognized this
as part of the demand for justice. They also have recognized that

to move too quickly to forgiveness<without addressing the way the patterns of

oppression have become institutionalized, risks simply perpetuating the status quo.
Before forgiveness can find its way back into the lexicon of liberation, it must be
linked to justice. (Ringe [1985], 94)

In the requirement that power be relinquished for forgiveness to occur, the link between
forgiveness and justice can be established.

Use of this model of forgiveness can be made more focused and given greater specificity and
individuality by looking at a specific issue, the recovery of those who have been sexually
abused as children. This is an area where the question of relative power is at its starkest, and
where the church commonly sides with the abuser and bludgeons the survivor with a doctrine
of premature forgiveness. The worst cases of the church siding with the abuser, of course, come
in cases of clergy sexual abuse. In these cases the common reaction is for the laity to make
excuses for the clergy, often acting as if the survivor were the perpetrator-or just treating the
survivor as a liar. The church as an institution tries to protect the clergy by reassigning them to
other parishes, as the Roman Catholic dioceses of Chicago and of Labrador have done in recent
years, or by devoting its pastoral resources to caring for them at the expense of the victims and
survivors. After treating the survivor as though she were at fault, the church then compounds
the damage by telling her that she should forgive her abuser. This last is an actual act of abuse
by the church itself.

If the church feels that the survivor should forgive her abuser, then, in cases of clergy sexual
abuse, it has but one choice. No matter what the ecclesiastical tradition, no matter what official
or traditional doctrine of ordination a church as an institution may hold, the reality of the
relationship between clergy and laity is one of relative power, with the clergy holding the
power of priest and/or pastor.viii So long as the clergy/laity relationship exists, the power
relationship also exists, and forgiveness of a clergy sexual abuser by the survivor cannot, and
should not, occur. If the church counsels forgiveness, then the church has but one choice: strip

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 11 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

the abuser of his ordination. It should be emphasized that this is not intended as a punishment
for the clergy. It is a requirement that allows the survivors to forgive, and hence allows the
clergy to receive forgiveness. An implication of the New Testament structure of forgiveness is
that sexually abusive clergy should be stripped of their status as ordained members of
the church.

The power relationship between abuser and abused can be seen in the common example of
father/daughter incest. The forgiveness of the father by the daughter typically cannot occur
until the relative power relationship has been reversed, when the daughter has reached
adulthood and the father has reached old age. This may or may not be a psychological
requirement. Only when the patterns of power are reversed can the act of forgiveness
be considered.

This requirement that the patterns of power be reversed is the kind of change, of turning
around, of metanoia or of shub, that is meant by repentance. It would then be what Jesus is
getting at in Mark 10:21 when he tells the rich manix to sell what you own, and give the money
to the poor, and<follow me, and later notes (v 25) that it is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. In this sense,
repentance is required for forgiveness to occur, at least between people. But repentance is not
required of everyone; it is required only of those with power,x any power.

Keene, Frederick W. Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament, from Carol J. Adams & Marie
M. Fortune, eds., Violence Against Women and Children: A Christian Theological Sourcebook,
121134. Continuum, New York: 1995.

Notes
1Rudolf Bultmann, who also wrote the article on aphimi/aphesis in TDNT, noted in 1941 that
Paul never uses the phrase aphesis ton hamaria, forgiveness of sins, though it reappears in the
deutero-Pauline literature; see e.g., Col 1:14; Eph 1:7, (Bultmann *1961+, 32, n. 1) Paul does use
something similar in Romans 4:7-8,
Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven (aphimi),
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.

but this is in a quotation from Psalm 32:1,2 (LXX). Knox and Reumann suggest that Paul is
reminded of this because the commercial term reckoned, logizomai, in Romans 4:5 reminds
Paul of these two verses (Knox and Reumann [1991], 213 NT) They pick up on this from v 8
(Psalm 32:2), but could also pick up on it from aphimi in v 7 (Psalm 32:1).

The poetry of the Hebrew Bible works by placing ideas in parallel; a line of poetry which carries
on a pair of parallel ideas or images is called a bicolon. The bicolon in v 7 puts forgiven in
parallel with covered, but there is a larger parallelism between vv 7 and 8 that carries the idea

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 12 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

forward (this literary device is discussed both by Miller [1986], 33ff, and by Alter [1985], 10ff) by
making it more pointed. Blessed are those is refined down to Blessed is the one and
inquiries are forgiven and sins are covered, both in the divine passive, are treated more
pointedly by against whom the Lord will not reckon sin. If reckon is a commercial term, it
makes the meaning of the commercial term forgiven (aphimi) more pointed.

2Countryman, p 180, presents arguments that, when carried to their conclusion, would
imply this.

3Schussler Fiorenza, pp 128ff; the Synoptic parallels are Mark 14:3-9 and Matthew 26:6-13.
Johns version is John 12:1-8.

4 A careful reading of the four anointing complexes gives the strong feeling that there are two
events in Jesus ministry reflected here. One is along the lines of Lukes story, where a woman,
probably a prostitute, seeks forgiveness, wetting Jesus feet with tears and wiping them with
her unbound hair. The other event is the anointing at Bethany story, along the lines of Mark and
Matthew. Luke (or his tradition) seems to have conflated the anointing into his story. John
seems to have taken these two versions and changed the woman to Mary of Bethany, keeping
the detail of unbinding her hair to wipe away the expensive nard makes little sense; see Brown,
pp 447-44. Fitzmyer takes a different approach, suggesting that the anointing of the feet is more
likely to be original because it makes so little sense, and hence was probably changed, possibly
in the oral traditions, to the more reasonable anointing of the head; see Fitzmyer, pp 683-692.

5Some, such as Snaith, would go farther and read the parable as showing the necessity of
repentance; he puts it that there can never be forgiveness without repentance while the
parable shows that one who does not forgive cannot repent; see Snaith, p 86. This raises the
question of the nature of repentance as well as its necessity.

6Matthews interpretation of this parable is basically unsatisfactory, although it does reinforce

the point of this study. Matthew identifies the lord (kyrios) of this story with God, always a
dubious practice when interpreting parables. He then is forced into a reading where God
reneges on forgiveness at the first mistake the servant makes in not extending forgiveness
himself. This is hardly the action of a faithful God.
An alternative reading can be constructed by looking at the phenomenal size of the first slaves
debt; ten thousand talents can be put into perspective by noting that the annual revenue of
Herod the Great, with all of his famous building programs, never exceeded 900 talents. A king
who could forgive such a debt cannot be just an earthly king, but can only be messianic. But
even the messianic king cannot be relied upon to remain faithful. Thus the parable would be a
warning against the expectation of a messianic king. (I would like to thank William R. Herzog II
of Colgate Rochester Divinity School for introducing me to this reading.)

7 The NRSV margin indicates that this verse may not belong in the Gospel of Luke.

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 13 of 14

Structures of Forgiveness in the New Testament www.faithtrustinstitute.org

8This is discussed in detail in Fortune, pp 99ff; see especially chapter 6, Doing Justice and
Mercy, pp 108-129.

9The parallels are Matthew 19:21 and Luke 18:22. Note that this is a rich man in Mark, a rich
young man in Matthew, and a rich ruler in Luke. He is nowhere a rich young ruler. The
variation in his description seems to point to the evangelists struggle to define the nature of
repentance. Mark and Matthew see him as rich; Luke adds the idea of direct power by making
him a ruler.

10I write this in Southern California as the Rodney King riots of 1992, the most destructive and
bloody urban violence in contemporary American history, are winding down. I find myself
drawn to the writings of Hosea, Amos, and Jeremiah to witness to an entire society in need of
forgiveness, forgiveness it cannot receive because it is unable and unwilling to reverse the
patterns of power. The relinquishing of power can be a corporate as well as an individual
requirement.

2010 FaithTrust Institute Page 14 of 14