1

The Road to Forgiveness

In the gospel Matthew 18:12, Jesus Christ preaches that we should forgive

people seventy times seven times. With this equation amounting to four hundred

ninety times, we can infer that by this statement that Jesus meant we should always,

in all circumstances, forgive those who have wronged us. Some may argue that some

sins are so evil and damaging to the integrity of humanity that they should never be

forgiven. Some sins of this magnitude include rape, murder, and genocide. My

personal belief matches that of Jesus Christ. I think that all sins can be forgiven, as

long as the person is truly sorry for the sin committed and vows to change his or her

character to never commit such a sin again. No one is perfect and everyone makes

mistakes, so why should we hold grudges against those who wrong us, if we too

have wronged others ourselves? I believe that anyone, no matter the severity of the

sin he or she has committed, can earn and deserve forgiveness.

True forgiveness includes regaining a person’s trust. Trust is extremely

important in giving forgivingness, because if one forgives someone, but still holds

back on allowing oneself to trust that person, has one truly forgiven the person? If

there is still “residue” present, as in, hurt and negative feelings, as a result of the

wrong committed, then forgiveness cannot be granted at that time. “The Residue

Factor,” per se, I believe exists after each and every relationship break-up. Unless it

is a completely clean break-up, a rarity, in my opinion, the two people in the

relationship usually have hurt each other in some way. Each person has his or her

fair share of wrongs committed toward the other person. While he or she may be
 2

sorry for these wrongs, it is usually best to give time and space before one asks for

forgiveness, due to this “residue factor.” If the issues are still fresh and the other

person is still hurt, forgiveness is highly unlikely to be granted. However, if enough

time has passed, that the history and events of the past are no longer hurtful, and

the person who has committed the wrongs has exhibited a change in character,

forgiveness can be, and should be given.

As a result of getting to the point where one can forgive, trust should be

regained as well. A true, sincere apology means that one is truly remorseful for a

wrong that he or she committed and includes a promise to not commit the same

wrongdoing again. Therefore, true forgiveness includes trusting that someone is

sincerely sorry for his or her actions and also trusting that he or she will not do

them again. If this kind of trust cannot be given, there is still some doubt in one’s

mind that the person who wronged him or her may wrong him or her again in the

same manner. The residue factor comes into play here again, because if one cannot

give back the trust that was once present, one still has “residue” remaining that

prevents him or her from giving back this trust.

I believe that regaining trust is a necessity in granting true forgiveness. For

example, forgiving, with the inclusion of regaining trust is the only way of getting

over a significant other or spouse’s infidelity. The best example that I know, of such

a case, is my aunt’s relationship with her husband. Several years ago, my aunt’s

husband had an affair that he had been able to keep secret. Only until he had a child,

as a result of that affair, did he have to confess to having the affair. I do not know for

sure if my aunt’s husband asked forgiveness at the time, but I would say it is likely
 3

that he did. In the case of someone finding out about evil, rather than being honest

and upfront confessing to an evil, it is human instinct to beg for forgiveness. I

believe that when one begs for forgiveness after an evil of his or hers has been

uncovered, this is not a true apology, but one trying to recover their good reputation

in the moment. Do I believe that my aunt’s husband, had he begged for forgiveness

after his cheating was uncovered, deserved forgiveness? Absolutely not. I am not

sure he would have confessed to cheating if my aunt did not find out in other ways.

If he were truly sorry and feeling guilty about it, he would have confessed it himself,

as difficult and hurtful as that may have been. In their relationship, the residue

factor was very much present at that time and for many years after that. My aunt

was suspicious of pretty much any time her husband was out of the house on his

own. For many years, she clearly still had doubts and hurt feelings that prevented

her from forgiving him and regaining her trust in him.

Today, however, I believe that my aunt has truly forgiven her husband and

regained trust in him. Ever since his affair, I hear stories from my family about how

hard he has worked to regain her trust, going out of his way to help her in daily life

and showing his love for her frequently. The best example I can see of my aunt’s

restored trust in her husband is that his daughter he had with his mistress now lives

with my aunt and her husband. At first, this disturbed my entire family. Many people

told my aunt that she should never even allow his daughter into their home, as she

is the living, breathing result of his infidelity. However, my aunt welcomed her

husband’s daughter, with open arms, once she was able to forgive and trust him

again. I can even see now that my aunt loves her husband’s daughter as if she were
 4

her own. For this, my aunt truly exhibits the “seventy times seven” teachings of

Christ.

The issue with the “seventy times seven” theory is that while Jesus, and all

individuals who act in a Christ-like way would forgive someone seventy times seven

times, not all individuals are Christ-like figures. My aunt is a Christ-like figure. I

would say that generally, I am a Christ-like figure too because I also believe that

everyone deserves forgiveness as long as there is a change in character included.

Not everyone holds this belief. Jesus’ seventy times seven theory implies that he

would forgive anyone, no matter the wrongs committed, but that does not imply

that every person wronged would act as he did. Sure, by preaching that theory, he

wanted us to follow in His example, however, clearly not all people will. This past

summer, I briefly dated my best friend’s ex-boyfriend. This fling was very short

lived, because he and I caught on early to the evil already committed, as well as the

greater evil that could be committed if it continued. Though we stopped what was

developing, and though I did feel sincerely remorseful for my actions and apologized

to her, I still have not been fully forgiven. She and I are no longer best friends. Many

times, I have questioned her for being unable to forgive me for acknowledging that I

have made a mistake and am truly sorry for it. I am not perfect and neither is she.

However, in studying forgiveness, I realize now, that firstly, she may not believe in

the “seventy times seven” theory as passionately as I do. She may not think that all

people can deserve forgiveness. She may not even think I have earned forgiveness

yet. Sure, it has both frustrated and upset me that somehow my change in character
 5

has not merited forgiveness, but I have to remember the residue factor. The residue

still probably remains and all I can do is wait until she wipes it away.

Exhibiting a change in character is the most crucial part in deserving

forgiveness. Additionally, I believe that a change in character can only occur when

one admits to oneself that his or her actions were wrong and evil, just as a person

would admit this to someone he or she has wronged. Forgiving oneself means that

one vows to change after realizing one’s errors and not committing this wrong

again. In that sense, in my previous example, even though my friend has not

forgiven me, I take comfort in the fact that I have now forgiven myself. To be

completely truthful, when all of this started, I did not feel that I was committing

wrong or evil. My best friend’s ex-boyfriend was also one of my closest friends as

well. Developing a romantic interest in each other made both of us happy. Our intent

was not to purposely hurt anyone, so we did not see the wrong in that. Had I

apologized at this stage, I would not warrant forgiveness, as I had neither admitted

my wrongs to myself, nor to my friend. Soon enough, I started feeling guilty for

various reasons, like that dating her ex-boyfriend had the potential to destroy the

friendship we had built, that she would be hurt by anyone ruining her future

chances with him again, let alone her best friend, and that she would probably never

do such a thing to me. At this point, I had admitted my wrongs to myself and

recognized the evil I had committed. I believe that my change in character necessary

for forgiveness occurred when I decided I could not date her ex-boyfriend anymore

without feeling guilty about it and cut off anything else from developing with him.

As I said before, I think I am worthy of forgiveness on my end, but on her end, much
 6

“residue” still remains. I have to respect that and allow her to rid the residue at her

own pace.

Having all these solid beliefs about forgiveness, developed through my life

experiences, when I was asked if I could ever forgive someone who raped me, I

responded yes. I cannot say for certain if this is truly the outcome, because I have

thankfully never been raped, but I do have reasons I can predict that this would be

the outcome.

Rape is a different kind of evil, because one hundred percent of the time, it is

done with a malicious intent. There are plenty of ways to justify committing various

sins, all related to non-intentional cause of the resulting hurt of another person.

With rape, there is no justification. If one tries to have sex with someone else, and

the other person verbally or non-verbally expresses his or her displeasure as it is

happening, yet one proceeds anyway, there is absolutely no way that this action can

be deemed reasonable.

Though rape has no justifications, it still can be forgiven under Jesus Christ’s

seventy times seven theory. Although the average decent, moral person would never

even think of raping someone, Jesus’ theory underlies the belief that no one on this

earth is perfect and all people have the potential to make mistakes just as many

times as anyone else. While the magnitude of these potential mistakes varies greatly,

all people are capable of committing very serious, as well as less serious wrongs.

Therefore, under the seventy times seven theory, Jesus would believe that I should

forgive my rapist, because I have the capability of doing the same wrong onto

someone else and seeking the same kind of forgiveness.

 7

I do not believe that Jesus Christ’s seventy times seven theory alone warrants

forgiveness in the case of rape. I also believe that my theory of a change in character

must also apply. With a rapist, it is extremely difficult to make a sufficient change in

character. There is first the need to forgive oneself. If a rapist can acknowledge that

raping someone was evil and wrong, truly feels an immense amount of remorse for

this action, and has absolute certainty that he or she would never rape someone

again, under my theory, the rapist has sufficiently forgiven him or herself. As for

what kind of actions the person could do to show this change in character, I am

uncertain and think I would have to experience the event first hand to really know. I

imagine the actions may start with a well thought out letter or in person apology.

Perhaps the rapist may offer to indirectly aid the victim in the victim’s recovery

stage, like offering to pay for the counseling services the victim attends. Many more

sincere, truly remorseful actions would need to be taken, probably even extreme

measures like the rapist seeking therapy for his or her clearly deranged mental

state, or the rapist turning him or herself in to the police. Perhaps after enough

actions that show the rapist is truly a changed person who would never commit

such an evil again, the rapist may deserve forgiveness.

Finally, in order to forgive my rapist, I would consider the residue factor. I

imagine that for some rape victims, the residue factor never fades. However,

counselors often teach rape victims that the only way they can get over the incident

is if they learn to forgive the person who raped them. A rape victim able to forgive

his or her rapist would show that although the rapist damaged their integrity and

well-being, the victim succeeds as the stronger person in the end for seeing past the
 8

evil brought upon him or her. To forgive means to gain back the power taken away

from the victim in the vulnerable state during the rape. This regaining of a power

taken away can rid the residue, as any remaining residue means that the victim still

lets the rapist’s evil bother him or her and affect the way the victim lives in daily life.

Forgiving a rapist would basically be like telling the rapist that he or she hurt me

both physically and emotionally, but that the rapist would never be able to do such a

thing to tarnish my spirits like that again.

Therefore, even in the most evil of sins, such as rape, Jesus Christ’s seventy

times seven theory does indeed apply. While not all people who have sinned will

take the same amount of time to warrant forgiveness, all people have the potential

to show remorse and a change in character as a result of that remorse. Working

toward such a feeling of sincere remorse and a sincere change in character will take

longer, the more serious the sin, but ultimately, when these two things are proven,

no matter the magnitude of the sin, a person does deserve forgiveness. Once again,

the final step in truly forgiving a person is trusting the person again. If a rapist has

indeed showed tremendous amounts of remorse and the victim is certain that the

rapist would never act in such a manner again, trust can ultimately granted as well.
 9

Obedience to Authority

When we were kids, our parents taught us that we must obey what they tell

us, no questions asked, no exceptions. I believe that since learning and developing

this way is common to all humans, we have an innate duty to obey authority. When

we know of a person who is in a superior position to us, we obey them for fear of

punishment or scrutiny if we do not. We obey the authority figure, even when we

know that he or she may be commanding us to do something that is potentially evil

or harmful to humanity. Since we obey authority so regularly in everyday situations,

it is easy to see how people could ultimately feel an obligation to obey authority

during a blatantly evil act, such as the Holocaust.

Growing up with the obligation of obeying our parents, as our first real

authority figures, has taught us that sometimes our own personal beliefs and
 10

opinions about a situation do not matter if those superior to us, like our parents, feel

otherwise. For most things in life, I can say that my parents have always guided me

in the right direction. For other things, I know that my way of thinking and dealing

with a situation differed from theirs, but I followed them any way. Sometimes, in

doing so, I would discover that my way would have actually been the better way to

handle it. There was a time when I was driving in the car with my mother, trying to

find a restaurant. I had an instinct that we had to take one road, while she had an

instinct to take another. Even after I had given her reasons why I believed my road

was correct, like that I had vaguely recalled taking that road before and ending up at

that restaurant, she adamantly insisted her route was correct. Because she is my

mother and I feared her possibly scrutinizing me if I were incorrect, I took her route.

In the end, my route was indeed correct and my mother apologized. Even with the

simplest things like these, it shows we have an instinctive desire to follow an

authority figure’s judgment even though we think we may have better judgment.

We have grown up to accept there are other authority figures we must follow

as well, besides our parents. For example, we obey the orders of police officers, no

matter the circumstances, for fear that not obeying them would get us ticketed,

fined, or even arrested. Police officers administer horribly embarrassing tests to

determine whether or not a person has been drinking and driving. One would think

that with today’s technology and the accuracy of breathalyzers that it is easy for a

police officer to determine whether or not a person is under the influence. However,

police officers additionally make people perform physical tests of their sobriety that

supposedly one would not be able to complete when drunk. One of these tests is
 11

standing on one foot and holding the position for a few seconds. Is this really

necessary to perform such a test when we now have a gadget that can detect one’s

blood alcohol content from one’s breath? These tests are highly embarrassing and

could even yield inaccurate results, as I know for a fact that some people do not have

good balance even when sober and may fail at standing on one foot. However,

everyone follows a police officer when ordered to perform a test like this. Saying no

would make the officer suspicious and assume that one will not perform the test

because he or she knows he or she is under the influence.

A classic psychology experiment that presents obedience to authority is the

Milgram shock experiment. In this experiment, each participant was placed in a

room with another supposed participant who volunteered for the experiment. The

first participant was an actual subject who volunteered for the experiment by

responding to an ad seeking potential participants. The second participant,

however, was an actor working for the experimenters. Both participants had to

draw two slips of paper, one that read teacher and the other that read learner.

Unknown to the subject, both slips of paper read “teacher.” Therefore, whenever the

subject drew a slip, he or she had to be the teacher and the actor claimed that his or

her slip of paper read “learner.” The learner then moved into a different room and

was attached to a device that could administer electric shocks to them. In the

teacher’s room, the authority figure, the experimenter, stood and watched over the

teacher’s actions. The teacher supposedly controlled this device from another room

by a generator. The teacher would read word pairs to the learner and the learner

would lately have to recall which words were paired together. For each incorrect
 12

answer, the teacher pushed a button on the generator that gave the learner an

electric shock. The teacher was instructed to increase the voltage of each shock with

each subsequent incorrect answer. The learner would react to the shocks by

screaming, banging on the wall, and even shrieking that he had a heart condition. If

the teacher showed any sort of remorse or guilt and questioned whether or not he

or she should continue with the experiment, the experimenter made intimidating

statements designed for the teacher to feel obligated to continue, such as “You have

no other choice” and “The experiment requires that you go on” (Milgram 51). In

actuality, the learner was not getting shocked at all, but was being cued to react with

shrieks and screams when the teacher pressed a button on the generator. The test

was whether or not the teacher would continue forth with this experiment that was

clearly damaging both to the health and integrity of another human, for the mere

fact that the teacher an obligation to obey an authority, the experimenter.

Shockingly enough, the results of the experiment showed that while several

teachers did muster the courage to express their guilt and morality issues to the

experimenter in persisting with the experiment, none insisted that the experiment

itself be terminated, as well as none physically left the room to check on the

learner’s condition without asking permission from the experimenter first.

This experiment reveals a horrific truth about human nature. People are

willing to continue forth with an action that conflicts with their own personal beliefs

and that they can acknowledge as evil if another person deemed superior to them

orders it. What consequences did the participants in the Milgram experiment really

have if they left the experiment? Ads for participating in the experiment stated each
 13

participant would receive four dollars per hour for their work (Milgram 15).

Perhaps if they left, the four dollars would not be returned to them. In the grand

scheme of things, does losing four dollars as a consequence exceed the greater

consequence of another human being physically harmed? Four dollars is quite a

small amount to lose if terminating the experiment meant preventing one’s health

from danger.

In the case of the Holocaust, the magnitude of the potential consequences

was much higher. Adolf Hitler is perhaps the epitome of an authority figure whom

people felt obliged to obey. He was a captivating public speaker and gained more

and more support as he was able to convince people to adapt his views through his

dynamic and robust speeches. So many were enthralled by Hitler so much that they

would join the Nazis. Once one joined the Nazis, there was an unbelievable

obligation to remain with the Nazis. Though the Nazis’ duty to exterminate the Jews

and all others deemed inferior to them was unquestionably evil, they persisted

forth, for fear that if they disobeyed Hitler and his allies, Hitler would not hesitate to

have them or their family killed as well. It brings about speculation whether or not

the Holocaust would have risen to the magnitude that it did if any member of the

Nazi party were courageous enough to speak out against Hitler and put an end to

the genocide. Personally, I do believe that one courageous individual willing to

speak out against Hitler would lead others to do the same, eventually overthrowing

the Nazi party and terminating their mass killings. I firmly believe in the statement,

“If you lead, they will follow,” but the most difficult part is being that initial one who
 14

dares to be different and stray from his or her peers to do good to humanity,

especially with the threat of an authority figure.

So we ask ourselves this question: Why do people obey authority figures

even when the wishes of authority figures are unquestionably evil and damaging to

human health or integrity? The answer is that people fear the consequences and do

not have the courage to take the risk to speak against the authority. However, in the

end, the biggest risk is always the one not taken. To overcome the intimidation of an

authority figure, one must realize that although the one, as an individual, may face

criticism, ridicule, or even physical harm from an authority, continuing to obey the

authority’s evil desires poses a greater consequence to a larger number of people.

Works Cited

Litzinger, William, and Schaefer, Thomas. "Leadership Through

Followership. " Business Horizons  25.5 (1982): 78-81. ABI/INFORM

Global, ProQuest. Web.  16 Dec. 2010.

 15

Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper Perennial, 1974. Print.

"The Violent Rise of Hitler's New Youth. " World Press Review 1 Aug. 1991:

Research

Library, ProQuest. Web. 16 Dec. 2010.