1. The Confusion Around Forgiveness
One of the most persistent misunderstandings in moral and religious thinking is the belief that forgiveness requires continued association with those who harm us.
We are told:
- forgive
- be patient
- endure
And from this, a further assumption quietly arises:
that one must remain in the presence of harm in order to be virtuous.
This is not only mistaken—it is dangerous.
2. The Impulse to Retaliate
It is a natural human response that when we are wronged, we feel an impulse to hurt in return.
This is not, in itself, surprising. It reflects a desire to restore balance:
- something has been taken
- something must be repaid
Yet this impulse, if followed, perpetuates the very condition it seeks to correct.
The question is not whether the impulse exists, but:
whether it must be acted upon.
3. Forgiveness as Non-Retaliation
When Jesus speaks of forgiveness, he does so in a way that removes all calculation:
From Gospel of Matthew 18:21–22:
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
This is not a numerical requirement, but a description of a disposition.
Forgiveness, in this sense, is not:
- approval
- forgetting
- reconciliation
It is:
the refusal to carry forward the impulse to retaliate.
It is an inward act, not a social obligation.
4. The Meaning of “Enemy”
The Greek word often translated as “enemy” (echthros) does not primarily refer to a battlefield opponent.
It refers to:
one who stands in a state of hostility.
This can be seen in sayings such as Gospel of Matthew 5:44:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
An “enemy” is not necessarily:
- a permanent category
- or a person defined by violence
But someone with whom there is active opposition or enmity.
This makes the teaching immediate and recognisable:
- hostility in relationships
- conflict in daily life
- opposition that may or may not be resolved
5. “Forgive Them…”
The saying:
From Gospel of Luke 23:34:
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
is often interpreted as an act of limitless tolerance.
But it may be better understood as:
a refusal to internalise hatred, even in the presence of harm.
It does not imply:
- that the situation should continue
- or that harm should be permitted
It speaks to the inner stance, not the external arrangement.
5A. Partial Knowledge and Human Action
Much of what human beings do is done under conditions of partial knowledge. We act, decide, and judge without seeing fully.
As St Paul writes in First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:12:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face:
now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Human understanding is limited:
- evidence is incomplete
- perception is partial
- judgement is fallible
In that sense, “they know not what they do” is not only a comment on a moment, but a description of the human condition itself.
This does not remove responsibility. Actions still have consequences, and harm remains real. But it introduces a necessary humility:
much human wrongdoing arises not from pure malice, but from limited awareness and incomplete understanding.
6. When Withdrawal Becomes Necessary
Alongside the call to forgive, there are equally clear instructions.
From Gospel of Matthew 10:14:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
And from Gospel of Matthew 7:6:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
These are not minor remarks. They introduce an essential counterbalance:
discernment and withdrawal.
There are situations in which:
- words are not received
- goodwill is not reciprocated
- hostility is sustained
In such cases, the appropriate response is not persistence, but departure.
7. Abuse and the Misuse of Forgiveness
This distinction becomes critical in cases of abuse—whether physical or tacit.
To demand forgiveness in such situations is often to:
- minimise harm
- preserve the status quo
- and return the injured person to the cycle
But:
forgiveness does not require proximity
and virtue does not require submission.
Where harm persists, withdrawal is not failure—it is clarity.
8. A More Coherent Ethic
Taken together, these elements form a consistent position:
- do not retaliate
- do not cultivate hatred
- do not remain where harm continues
This is neither:
- passive
- nor aggressive
It is:
lucid, bounded, and sustainable.
9. Conclusion
The moral life is not well served by confusion between inner disposition and outward action.
One may:
- forgive
- and still walk away
One may:
- refuse hatred
- and still refuse proximity
In this sense, forgiveness is not a chain that binds one to harm, but a release from it.
And withdrawal, far from being a failure of charity, may be its most realistic expression.
