Introduction: A Word of the Lord for 2025
In our previous post, I drew attention to the circumstances informing this series: the prophetic word from Dr Steve Ogan for 2025 and its connections with the book, Forgiveness. Dr Steve Ogan is a prolific prophetic writer and a global teacher with unique insights into Biblical symbolisms and numerology. Every year, he writes a yearbook on the prophetic significance of that year, based on the number of the year. For 2025, his numerological theme is forgiveness, for which he thought that The Preacher’s book, Forgiveness, was a timely classic. Taking his cue as a prophetic directive, serializing that book through the year has been reasonably considered, except for occasional pauses for other prophetic or exhortative interventions. This is the first in the series, in obedience to the word of the Lord from the mouth of His servant. Through the lives that shall be impacted by the profound insights from that globally acclaimed classic from Heaven by the mercies of God, we are persuaded that the Lord shall vindicate His word by the mouth of His servant. Amen.
Having shared the global reviews on the book, we proceed into the book: Chapter 1: “What is Forgiveness?”
What is Forgiveness? (Chap. 1; pp. 17-27)
To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you. – Lewis B. Smedes
Understanding Forgiveness
Forgiveness is pardon granted a person or a people for their trespass against oneself. Whether that grant is received or refused, is a different question. Much more than being a pardon, which one ‘gives’ to the other, forgiveness is also me-ward in being a deliberate choice to relieve oneself of bitter feelings towards the other, even where that ‘other’ might not be aware of their trespass, or might seem to be in no need of the forgiveness. Usually, forgiveness benefits the forgiver more than the forgiven, because it frees the forgiver of the sneaky internal toxins that slowly build up in the embittered soul from the accumulation of strong feelings of pain, resentment and revenge. That is what the experts in medicine and psychology say.
Mandela on Forgiveness
Nelson Mandela of South Africa is still prominent as a contemporary image of forgiveness at the personal and community levels, even though there are those who question the deepness of that virtue in him, which did not extend to Winnie, his estranged wife who had stood with him through the wilderness of the freedom struggles against apartheid. I cite two of his profound statements on forgiveness, spoken from a healed heart of personal experience rather than from an educated head of abstract philosophies. According to Mandela, as reinforced by other sages, “Forgiveness liberates the soul, it removes fear. That’s why it’s such a powerful weapon.” Reflecting on his years of incarceration in the gulag of the notorious Robben Island, he said, “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison” (Trudy Bourgeois).
Etymology of Forgiveness
Nelson Mandela’s quote above illuminates the etymology or root of the word “forgive.” It is a calque (a transliteration, or loan translation) of the Germanic vergeben, derived from the Latin perdonare, meaning, to give up completely, totally, thoroughly, without reservation. To forgive, then, means to completely ‘give up’ the right to anger or vengeance against a wrongdoer; to completely ‘give away’ the power or desire to punish. Giving up the desire to punish does not mean that the forgiver no longer feels the pain from the injury caused. It only means that they have made a choice despite how they feel.
Forgiveness is not Denial
Forgiveness does not pretend that there never was a trespass; it only overlooks the trespass for the greater good. However, overlooking a trespass does not compel the magnanimous forgiver to continue to condone the wrongs of the trespasser. To forgive does not mean that one feels no more pain, or has no right to be angry, or should shut one’s eyes to further offences. To not note past trespasses, in the name of pardon, is naïve forgiveness; it is hazardous delusional unwillingness to be taught by the past. Unfortunately, such a person will still be taught the lesson, but in a way too hard to ignore anymore.
If someone borrows a thousand pounds from the bank but is later ‘forgiven’ because they are unable to pay, the forgiveness does not mean that the person never owed the bank some money that they couldn’t pay back. It only means that, in that bank’s records, that specific debt has been cancelled, and no longer represents an amount that the debtor should pay back. Is the bank obligated, merely based on the gesture of a cancelled debt, to resume similar transactions with that customer and repeat the potential cycle of unpaid debts? Not many bank managers will take the risk. Forgiveness does not therefore mean that one should expose oneself to repeated injury. The crisis leading up to the forgiveness should teach each party how differently they might continue to relate with the other to not repeat the pains, especially if there is no assurance that the other would not repeat the hurts. The point is clearly expressed by Bernard Meltzer, that “When you forgive, you in no way change the past – but you sure do change the future” (Famous Quotes).
No pardon is a license to repeat the offence. The one who has been forgiven should not take a forgiver for granted, as if forgiveness were a right. No professed ‘weakness of flesh’ should be an excuse for repeated trespasses in the hope of further forgiveness.
Forgiveness and Reconciliation
According to the Greater Good Magazine of Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley, “Though forgiveness can help repair a damaged relationship, it doesn’t obligate you to reconcile with the person who harmed you, or release them from legal accountability.” What does that mean?
I was raped by a gang member at a friend’s birthday party in January. I determined to take revenge. I planned to stab him to death at his usual evening bar. Two weeks ago, however, I changed my mind after an early morning mass at the cathedral. I have since thrown away the dagger I had been keeping for the opportune night.
The police had been on the assailant’s trail. They caught up with him a week ago. My discarded dagger did not free him from the police. Forgiveness was my private choice, not the nation’s law. His matter with me was distinct from his case with the government of the land. The January assault was a third serial offence. It is certain that he will go to jail, before he destroys his next unknown victim. I have forgiven his assault, but it is not also in my power to prevent from their natural course the laws of the land that he violated.
Does confession to my priest and the forgiveness of the gang member mean that I should force a smile every time I see him? Does it mean that I should go serve him tea at his drunken haunts to ‘show’ how much I mean the forgiveness? No, not when he is prone to repeat the harm, taking my gestures of naïve ‘forgiveness’ as an inducement to repeat the harm. I will have less of a case to make against his unruliness if he assaults me again, and the next attack could be worse. That is probably the sense in the rather extreme Japanese proverb, that forgiving the unrepentant is like drawing pictures on water.
I had a cashier who broke into my safe and ran off with $1,507. I reported the loss to the police. The first time, $165 went missing from the safe over a weekend. On that occasion, I let him keep his job and his place as cashier, against wiser counsels. It has been six months now since the last loss, and he has disappeared. I have forgiven him, so, firstly, I will not charge the theft against him, and secondly, I might not require him to pay back what he stole. While I have forgiven the act of stealing, I could insist on refund of what was stolen, because I know that he can pay it. In other words, I forgive the man but not the money.
Does insisting on repayment mean that I have not forgiven him? No. The act of the theft and the article of the theft are different matters. Does my choice to forgive the thief mean that the police should also not do their job of investigating him? No. His case with me is a separate matter from his case with the police for breaching the laws of the land. I do not have the powers to also blot that out of their records.
If he were to return to the office and apologise, and if I were so kind as to let him back on the job, should I put him back as cashier to ‘show’ how much I have forgiven him? No, certainly not back as a cashier, especially when it is likely that he could steal much more and run off farther beyond reach, being someone who seldom takes responsibility for wrongs done. So, forgiveness might lead to a reconciliation between the parties, but not always.
There can be reconnection without reconciliation where both parties choose to bury (not resolve) their differences for the purpose of a mutual interest or just ‘acting’ together. There can also be reconciliation without reconnection where both parties mutually resolve their differences but agree to go their peaceful ways so as not to ignite those sparks that often cause the fires that blemish their relationship. In other words, it is possible to forgive and reconcile without reconnecting. It is also possible to find reconnection without reconciliation, without forgiveness.
Reconnection (or the bringing together of the estranged persons) is not an absolute indication that forgiveness has taken place. After all, it is possible to shake ceremonial hands without forgiveness. Similarly, not restoring someone to a lost status in the relationship, or not reversing to a previous status quo in the relationship is not sufficient indication that forgiveness is lacking. For example, I do not have to restore the thief to his desk as a cashier to prove that I have forgiven him. Precaution is no crime. No matter how forgiven, the other’s weaknesses should be factored into future interactions. All things being equal, forgiveness should lead to reconciliation, then to reconnection, then to restoration; but it might not always turn out so. Reconnection is physical; forgiveness and reconciliation are more spiritual. The body without the spirit is dead.
I have told two hypothetical stories to stress the position, according to the Greater Good Magazine, that whereas forgiveness could repair damaged relationships, “it doesn’t obligate you to reconcile with the person who harmed you, or release them from legal accountability” (my emphasis). If someone murdered a priest’s wife a year ago but was forgiven by the grieving widower, that in itself does not free the murderer from answering to the law. Certainly not in my country. Pardon from the larger society level has to be sought separately.
Some time ago, a gateman with BJ Consultancy in Nairobi, Kenya, was blamed for the loss of a laptop in the manager’s office, even though the gateman was convinced that the company driver was the culprit. The gateman swore bitterly that he would get back at the driver, but he never said how. For two months, he was required to report weekly to the nearby police station while investigations continued. With each visit, he grew angrier and more determined to get his revenge. About three months later, the laptop was found in the possession of a high school teacher in Kisumu, who said that he had bought it from the company driver. That day, the driver got the beating of his life and promptly lost his job. With a wife who had just given birth to twins, he was forced into the streets to beg.
The birth of those babies did something to the offended gateman. He lost his desire for revenge and forgot the pain that the driver had initially caused him. He was so sorry for the sacked father of two infants that he called him twice to find out how he was doing with the babies. He had forgiven him. However, the fact that the gateman had personally forgiven the driver did not stop the police from pursuing their case against him.
Shouldn’t Mr Gateman have entreated his boss to let Mr Driver have his job back, since he (Mr Gateman) had forgiven him? Shouldn’t he have also demanded the police to no longer pursue the case? No. Forgiveness from the gateman did not release the driver from his legal accountability; neither did it compel the manager to reconcile with him or rehire him. Those levels of reconciliation or restoration have to be sought separately.
There were two broad parties in the case: on one hand, the trespasser, and on the other, the trespassed. The trespasser was the thief; the trespassed (altogether) were: i) the gateman, ii) the Manager/Company, and iii) the law/government, represented by the police. The gateman’s withdrawal from the case did not release the culprit from his liabilities to the trespassed. This shows that cases can sometimes be more complex than the simple ‘offender – offended’ exemplar, and one forgiveness does not in all cases automatically settle all transgressions.
To be continued…
For copies of the book, kindly call the contact numbers provided, send a mail, or visit the online shops listed below.
Amazon:
Other publications at Selar books:
https://selar.co/m/kontein-
https://selar.co/903394 – Balaam
https://selar.co/443i94 – Mystic Markets
https://selar.co/q4454b – Beyond Holiness
https://selar.co/1g4486 – Stray Bullets
👏👏👏
This has really blessed my life and ministry.
Thank you sir.
GOD bless you.
This is a timely post. I was deeply hurt by close relatives. I forgive. Thank you for sharing