RECONCILIATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Our approach during these three days.
The approach will be centred on some biblical texts on reconciliation frequently used
by the French School and more particularly by JE. These texts are essentially taken from the
New Testament. But in order to understand them, and see how the French School has
understood them, it is necessary to go back to the whole biblical tradition and in particular to
study their roots in the Old Testament. This is the object of this first talk.
Preliminary: what do we mean by “reconciliation”
In today’s language, we speak of reconciliation between to two angry people (or two
families, or two villages: we have numerous examples! It can even happen that we no longer
know why we are angry! Or, on the contrary, we carefully pass on from generation to
generation the reason for the disagreement.
In breaking up the term into re – conciliation, we could then infer a new conciliation
… Example of an attempt at conciliation between two spouses who want to get divorced …In
this case, it becomes a synonym for agreement between two partners (persons…..to nations)
whose interests are opposing, each making concessions, compromises so as to arrive at this
agreement; a work of the UN or of diplomats for example.
But when we speak as Church (term used widely since Vatican II, if only of the
sacrament of Penance or of Reconciliation) it is not a return to a previous conciliation. It is
not a new agreement, but a true fraternization, often supposing mutual pardon of offences.
“Reconciliation is a friendship found once again” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
1. The Community of the Covenant
One must start from the “Community of life” between God and his people in the
Covenant, if one wants to read about all the reconciliation in the Bible. With the indissoluble
link: relation with God, and relation with the other. With regard to this, think about the
“greatest commandment” with its two wings that make one.
1.1 the Covenant with Israel
These are realities that are well known to you. But we are going to see how the
“founding” even of the people enlightens the whole reflection on the covenant and on
reconciliation. This is all the more important, as it is a question of a re-reading, that is, with
all the spiritual deepening and the experience of daily life. This is, in fact, what makes the
whole richness, but also sometimes the whole complexity of the biblical text.
At the same time, this re-reading serves for the reading of the beginnings, qui will be
evoked with the same categories.
Let us take the text of the Covenant on Sinai (or the texts) in Exodus 19.20 and 24.
We will pick out some elements relative to the covenant which will be necessarily present
when we will relive the covenant or “be reconciled”. This is the founding text of the covenant
1
Session 1 – Jean Camus
Session 2004 on Reconciliation
community. In fact, the whole history of Israel from its beginning will be re-read, written in
function of this event and of its signification. At the same time, what is experienced
contributes to the writing of the event.
Ex. 19:4ff: solemn historic reminder (eagles wings) ant “personal part” (the part of the
Shepherd), with as consequence kingdom of priests (interpretation that runs contrary to the
note of the TOB: cf. the successive separations) and the holy nation (drawing close to the holy
God)
v. 8: unanimity (cf. link Pentecost)
v. 9: the link is forged between Moses (and the people) “I will come up to you in the thickness
of the cloud, so that the people hear when I speak with you and so that they put their faith in
you too.
Ex. 20. The Decalogue. Prologue that is inextricably link to v.2, long development of v.3,
then commandments concerning the members of the people. Note the indissoluble link
between duties towards God and towards one’s neighbour.
Ex. 24. Conclusion of the covenant: 24:3 “all the people replied with one voice”.
Ex. 32. As soon as the covenant is concluded, the text continues with instructions concerning
the cult. But the narrative episode takes up again with the golden calf: this is the “original
sin” of the people.
The broken covenant.
1.2. Re-reading of the beginnings
The history of the beginnings was read with these categories. (The French might
remember the debate in France on the Catechism, with Pierres Vivantes (Living Stones) some
years ago). Think of the covenant with humanity (covenant with Noah), but also creation (2 nd
account) and the fall. Sense of the tree (trees?), of the knowledge of good and evil,
understood as gift of the law, summit of God’s goodness. There was then the breaking of the
covenant, as there was (or will be) with the episode of the golden calf.
It is here too that the consequences of the rupture with God are placed: the rupture
with one’s own kind. See thus the rejection of the sin of Adam and Eve, the “consequences of
sin” (Adam’s domination) and the beginning of the history of humanity: Cain and Abel.
1.3. Re-reading of the history of the infidelities
It is not surprising then that following this, the prophetic readings of the history of the
people of God are readings about their infidelity, and in particular their infidelity to the Law.
See for example the most famous, Hosea 1-2; Hosea 11 and following on Ezechiel 16: 20 …
2.
Reconciliation with God
2.1. The renewal of the covenant
Because of the essential importance of the covenant, a whole “system” of renewal, sign of
vitality, is developed. The covenant is not something concluded once and for all, but requires
2
Session 1 – Jean Camus
Session 2004 on Reconciliation
a renewed commitment because it is vital. To this effect see Joshua 24 and the renewal at the
time of all solemn actions (2 Kings 11,17; 23, 1ff; Nehemiah 8). But renewal does not
necessarily signify reconciliation.
2.2. Reconciliation
Sin is a breaking of the covenant between God and men, but also between men
themselves. The union between God and me is regained thanks to God’s mercy, which is a
form of his holiness.
This idea carries with it in second place the idea of appeasing God’s anger; but in first
place it contains the idea of expiation on the part of sinful man, concretised by a specific rite
(cf. the Book of Leviticus)
Expiation as a condition for reconciliation has a whole history in the Old Testament:
Primitively, expiate = appease God’s anger through punishing the guilty party or by a
ritual act that is agreeable to God. Little by little, the anthropomorphic nature of the
acceptance is overtaken: there is insistence on the need for purification, obliteration of a
stain, first through the merits of purifying blood (cf. the sense of blood) of a sacrificed
victim (Leviticus 8:14ff; 16:14ff).
Then, the prophetic action will spiritualise the process of reconciliation: God is
perceived less as a sovereign whose anger must be appease than as a God who
reconciles. So, we understand from now on that reconciliation does not bring about a
change in God, but only in sinful man, who returns to God and welcomed by him.
In this return to God, sacrifice plays an important role, signifying the change in man
expiating his fault (cf. the Servant, Is.53:10ff) through suffering, gift of self.
So one comes to insist, in reconciliation on interior penance, change of life and the
practice of almsgiving.
2.3. Man incapable of being reconciled by himself.
It is no longer a question of God to be appeased but of a man to be changed. At the same time
we become aware of the gravity of the rupture. To be cut off from God (and others = to be
cut off from God, necessarily leads to disorder in relationships) prevents the change in man,
who no longer has his references and his life. See above the history of infidelities; see also
the prophetic expectations.
Thus the story of Ezechiel’s cooking pot (the song of the cook; Ez.24)
The hope of the new covenant, under the form of a new heart and a new spirit
(Jer.31:31 and Ez. 36:22ff)
Note the expressions of 2Macc. 1:5; 7:33; 8:29: it is God who will be reconciled with
you!
There is then a new expectation, that God will take the initiative.
2.4. A universal reconciliation
It is the people who are in question, and it is the return of the covenant. Reconciliation
with God is inseparable from reconciliation with one’s neighbour. In the measure in which, in
fact the rupture with God necessarily leads to disorder in human relationships.
It is sometimes difficult to separate the two in the biblical texts … but justly they must not be
separated. It is enough to look at two prophets who exercised their ministries in Samaria,
Amos and Hosea (the most ancient of the prophets, improperly called “writers”). They are
3
Session 1 – Jean Camus
Session 2004 on Reconciliation
rapidly characterized by saying that Amos was the one who prophesied against social
injustice, and Hosea against idolatry. They were addressing the same people, ostensibly at the
same time.
The two are always mixed. A little later in the Kingdom of the South, the prophet Micah:
cf. Micah 6:1-8
We should remember this sometimes: for example when we see that there are not many
biblical texts quoted by John Eudes on reconciliation with one’s neighbour in relation to the
essential texts on reconciliation with God. Or again, to say the Our Father correctly!
“Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Be careful, there are
here two possible false readings.
1. We have taken the initiative and succeeded in being reconciled with our neighbour (by
ourselves???)
2. We have a right to God’s forgiveness because we have successfully been reconciled
with others!!!
3. A few texts on reconciliation between brothers (sisters)?
Actually they are very rare, despite the fact that there are a lot on forgiveness and mercy.
This is without doubt significant!
Gen 32-33. We can quickly look at the reconciliation between Jacob and Esau … There was
a heavy contention between the two! The account of the reconciliation bears characteristic
elements!
But is it a true reconciliation?
- Jacob’s initiative …but through fear of Esau who was against him (Gn. 32:8)
- Preparation of gifts to make peace with his brother, 32:14 … but at the same time
a division tactic of his “riches”
- Meeting and solemn recognition of the other
- At the end mistrust; Jacob does not want Esau to walk with him …
1Sam.19:1ff. Certain ancient translations of the Bible entitle this passage “Jonathan
reconciles David with Saul”. But the most recent write: “Jonathan intercedes for David”, or
something similar. There is no real reconciliation, what follows shows this (it is difficult for
us today to understand the phrase: “an evil spirit, from the Lord came to take hold of Saul”!
v.9).
We could perhaps just remark here the presence of a third person who has links with
both parties acting for reconciliation (Jonathan, son of Saul, friend of David).
Mediator …
Sirach 22:22 In a group of sentences concerning friendship. The interest is to show
that in grave cases reconciliation is practically impossible. Which leaves us to believe that
there is a real rupture, contrary to a fit of anger, and so a real transformation is necessary.
This will lead us to the reconciliation brought by Christ, in the New Testament, in
particular in St. Paul, and to the texts taken by the French School.
4
Session 1 – Jean Camus
Session 2004 on Reconciliation
Session 1: Individual and Group Reflection on pardon and reconciliation.
1. Each group member will bring a concrete situation be it of pardon or reconciliation,
taken from everyday life (people, groups, society) that they have witnessed.
2. After having heard the different situations, the group will choose from the examples
presented :
-
an example of pardon
an example of reconciliation
which appears significant to it.
3. From these examples, give the elements making up
- pardon
- reconciliation
Then pick out the points in common and the differences.
4. Then take Psalm 51 (50) and see if certain of the common elements are to be found
therein.
5
Session 1 – Jean Camus
Session 2004 on Reconciliation