MOVING ON? - C: 7th Sun in OrdTime

First Reading: 1 Sam 26:2-23 (20 February 2022)

One oft-repeated phrase in consoling anybody who had an altercation with another is to forgive, forget, and move on. This expression means that the aggrieved party must simply ignore the past hurts, disregard the damages done, face the offending party with an amicable attitude, and look forward to a new bright beginning.

While this imagery stands as a utopic vision, peace, unity, and harmony are not that easily achieved in real life as there are several aspects that need to be considered and settled first before any authentic reconciliation to happen.

The first reading gives us a glimpse on how this dynamic operates. In the narrative, King Saul had been chasing David for quite a time now (v. 2), seeing him as a potential threat to the legitimacy, longevity, and succession of his kingdom (cf. 18:8-9). While Saul’s retinue was encamped and resting (26:3, 5), David and Abishai managed to sneak into the king’s camp and had the opportunity to kill him right away (vv. 7-8). However, David resisted, arguing that the latter is still God’s anointed and such an act would in effect inflict guilt on the agent (v. 9). Instead, David just “took the spear that was at Saul’s head and the water jar” (v. 12) and left.

Later from afar, David would show these items to Abner to inform the king of being spared from death when we had been deep asleep (vv. 15-16). Upon hearing David’s confession, Saul immediately acknowledged his own mistake saying, “I have done wrong; come back, my son David, for I will never harm you again...” (v. 21). Apparently, David did not believe the king since instead of coming near him, he went his own separate way (v. 25) and told himself, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul; there is nothing better for me than to escape to the land of the Philistines” (27:1). He simply decided to remain a fugitive.

Now, the question is: Why didn’t David accept the apology of Saul and his message of unity? By agreeing to it, he could have returned safely to his family and be one of the loyal subjects of the king in the palace. Moreover, he could now live in peace and would not be anymore a stray dog that keeps on running frantically for dear life.

The answer is: Because David did not feel the sincerity of Saul’s words as they were lacking one salient thing, i.e., restorative justice.

If Saul were truly sorry for his sins, he would have offered David some form of moral compensation for being unjustly treated as a criminal (1 Samuel 19–26). Saul would have allowed himself to be subjected to punishment for throwing spear at him several times in the past (18:11; 19:10). He would have sent home Abner and his army to allow David free passage. He would have made a covenant with David that anybody between them could be king depending on whom the Lord would choose through the prophet Samuel’s anointing. Sadly, Saul did not do any of these. Instead, he shrewdly tried to manipulate David’s kind-heartedness and held firm to his kingship despite being rejected earlier by Samuel (15:10-29). In fact, via an augur at Endor, Samuel’s spirit conjured and scolded Saul: “The Lord has abandoned you... he has torn the kingdom from your hand and has given it to your neighbor David” (28:16-17).

The morale of the story is if one is truly sorry for his/her sins, asking humbly for forgiveness is not the only requirement.

More importantly, restorative justice should be sincerely offered and performed to repair the damages done, committing to heal all hurts and traumas inflicted.

In Philippine politics, if the Marcoses are truly seeking for healing, unity, and moving on communally, they should render first restorative justice to the victims of Martial Law and return the billions of dollars that was plundered from the government over 21 long years. Sadly, they never ever bat an eyelash... nor even admit the abuses and crimes of the Marcos administration.

- Rex Fortes, CM