FORGIVENESS – Series 10

The Two Aspects of Confession

In 1 John 1:9 – “If we confess our sins…” – we find two aspects to confession.  Firstly, confession of the sins, which implies admission of guilt; and secondly, requesting forgiveness based on the sins admitted.  If somebody simply said to you, “Please, forgive me,” you might ask them, “Forgive you for what?”  They have asked forgiveness but have confessed to no wrongdoing.  Forgiveness is usually connected to a trespass.  However, if they said, “I damaged your car on Monday (acknowledgment – of sin). Please, forgive me (apology; request for forgiveness).  I am willing to pay for the repairs if you should give me time to get the money” (therapeutic restitution).   Anyone would relate better with such an apology than one that requests blank forgiveness without also providing the specific ‘address’ of the trespass to which the pardon should be posted.

It is possible, sometimes, for the two aspects (admission and confession) to be subsumed in one speech.  For example, the penitent thief on the cross said to Jesus, “Remember me when You come into Your Kingdom,” to which Jesus replied, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.”  That thief did not have the luxury of time to list all his sins from youth: the robberies on the highways, the stolen shekels from synagogues, the night raids at Bethlehem, etc.  In one penitent confession, Jesus saw both his admission of guilt as well as his plea for mercy, and Jesus responded appropriately.  In fact, admission of guilt had earlier also been expressed in that thief’s remarks to the other thief, when he said, “We indeed are in this mess because of what we did (admission of guilt), but this holy Man does not deserve this cross, like us.”  So, then, there was, firstly, admission of guilt/confession of sins, and secondly, request for pardon (Luke 23:39-43).  An application for forgiveness that does not also indicate or acknowledge the offence for which the application is being tendered, is an ‘incomplete sentence.’

The experience of those two thieves further stresses the point that confession is much more than words; it means a penitent state of heart and a subsequent changed lifestyle (or willingness for the change).  Two thieves on the cross; two men with the same opportunity to be pardoned by God; two men who each spoke words.  One spoke to justify himself; he wasted his words.  The other, by words, acknowledged his sins and proceeded to ask pardon.  Both thieves each spoke words, but only one got express pardon.   The heart.

Confession without Commitment

When one admits that they had done wrong, and follow it up with a confession of their fault, they should take steps to not repeat the faults.  If they should still fail after making sincere commitments to not fail, the other may understand their struggle; but where they are unwilling to commit to a change on the pretext that ‘the flesh is weak,’ it could be that they were only being manipulative.   “I am sorry,” is great, especially when backed with actions that show ‘sorry-ness’ for the past wrong.  For some, however, it is merely a convenient lip-service ‘for the records,’ so that it may not be said against them that they did not apologise after all.

The value of an apology or a confession is not merely in the words, it is in the deepness of the soul from which the words come.  According to Romans 10:9, confession with the mouth without preceding belief in the heart does not make for salvation.  When the Prodigal Son returned home, he not only confessed to his father when he said, “I have sinned…”; he also made a commitment in his heart to stay, even if it meant being hired as a servant (Luke 15:19, 21).   In every case, “I am sorry” is not enough where practical commitment to change should be a follow up, even if the change be slow.

The Bible says in Luke 17:3, “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and IF he repent, forgive him.”  In other words, forgiveness answers to repentance, not merely to confession.  Asking forgiveness should imply a commitment to change, to repent, to not repeat the offence.  Even where his strength might be small, if he realizes enough to admit his fault each time he falls, and takes the pains to ‘return’ and sincerely ask pardon, such a weak brother will receive help and forgiveness the seven times he comes back, and he is less and less likely to remain the same thorny brother.

And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn AGAIN to thee, saying, I REPENT; thou shalt FORGIVE him (Luke 17:4).

Unlike this brother, others will trespass seven times and stand at their door, daring anyone to affront them with their sin.  It is their right as weaker flesh to offend, and yours as high priest to forgive.  They would neither “turn again” nor say, “I’m sorry.”

Acknowledgment

Confession says, “I committed this trespass against you.  I am sorry about it.  Please, forgive me.”  It does not excuse itself.  True confession does not just say, “I apologise for everything.”  ‘Everything’ is nothing.  Nobody is offended by ‘everything’ or by ‘whatever I did that you don’t like.’  Offence arises from a specific act or the omission of it.  Sometimes, the generalized apology for ‘everything’ or for ‘whatever I did’ is pride eloquently disguised as penitence.  True confession for sin, or the sincere request for forgiveness, would clearly admit guilt; it will say

• who was wrong,
• who was wronged,
• what was the wrong.

Joseph’s brothers said to him, “Forgive… THE TRESPASS of THY BRETHREN, and THEIR sin; for THEY did unto thee evil.”   They called their trespass by its proper names, and they owned up to it.  They were clear on

• the wrong that had been done: “trespass” and “sin,”
• who did the wrong: “thy brethren,”
• against whom the wrong was done: “unto thee,”
• the objective of the speech: “Forgive…” That objective was not wrapped in some circuitous and foggy proud metaphors.

It was no time to coat their grievous sin in the euphemistic colours of a ‘mistake’ or ‘weakness of flesh.’  They did not attempt to give a nicer name to their trespass.  They called it by its proper name: an “evil.”  They did not show up merely to trade blames.  They admitted their vile roles, their “evil.”  Their meekness and sincerity made the matter much easier to resolve.  The story might have been different if it had been some of us, eminent ‘bigger brothers,’ with a right to trample on others.

The apostle John was clear on what true confession should entail: “If we confess OUR sins…”  Until one admits to their “sins” (plural), they cannot make meaningful apology; they cannot repent.  To admit selectively to one ‘sin’ when there are plural “sins” to confess, is an error.  Anyone would continue to do whatever they never agree is wrong, especially where they also care no hoot how others feel about their ways.  A trespasser would hardly cease from what they don’t agree is wrong.  According to Aaron Lazare in “Making Peace through Apology,” a prominent healing factor in reconciliation is in the agreement “that the harm committed was wrong.”

Assurance

True confession of guilt is a powerful healer also in being an implicit assurance to the injured; an assurance that the trespasser would not repeat the harm, or at least, would work on themselves to not repeat the harm.  This assurance, implied in the confession of sin and admission of guilt, is like a visa that one grants the offended, to ‘cross over’ again from their ‘safe’ side of the ‘border’; it is like a solid bridge which the offender offers the offended, to step out from the ‘security’ of the reclusion into which they have fled, and to begin their cautious steps back, across from the ‘other side’ to ‘this side’ again.  True penitence dissolves the divide between selves that offences have created.

Somebody may righteously grant forgiveness yet not ‘cross over’ again to the ‘other side’ if they cannot find this bridge of assurance that they will not be injured again.  The bridge is built not just by the words that say “I am sorry”; it is constructed by the total ‘message’ that one sends to the other through words and actions directly or otherwise transmitted through third parties.  The bridge is not built at the one moment and by the one act of ‘apology’ but over time, especially where the hurt has been deep and long.

As in any narrative, characterisation (here, the NEW image of the penitent seeker of forgiveness) in the mind of the offended, will be developed over time through what the person says (language), what the person does (actions), and what others (neutral third parties) observe and report about the person.  So, even where the offender might have apologised but their language still betrays otherwise, or where third-party reports suggest otherwise, we may be dealing with a pretender rather than a changed character.  Of course, there might be paid praise singers who want to force the ‘change’ down the other, or malicious gossips who wish to destroy the person.  Discretion and discernment will be important, which is why the ‘new’ image is not to be forced upon the hearer, to compel hasty restoration.

Back to the story of Joseph: even though they might have done it out of fear for what Joseph could do to them (in case his declared pardon had not been sincere), at least those brothers returned to reassure him of the deepness of their penitence for the great harm they had caused him (Genesis 50:15-21).  They did not assume that one meeting with Joseph had been sufficient to rebuild the bridge that they had destroyed many years before, through their “evil” way.