Offense — Part I – Part 8

With these few incisive words Jefferson hit at the heart of what invariably leads to virtually all perceived offenses, namely, ascribing motives to another person’s actions (when only God knows the heart). This is not to dismiss the fact that some offenses may indeed be real, but it has been my life experience that, in by far the most instances where a brother or sister has been offended, it has been the result of perception (and ego) rather than an actual, deliberate sin being perpetrated.

Without a doubt, brothers or sisters who are offended by something done to them can cause untold harm in the ecclesia. Offenses real or perceived can be the root of a believer leaving the ecclesia, and unfortunately on occasion even leaving the community. It can lead to strife and even division within the ecclesia. Given the seriousness of this issue, it is no wonder that extremely detailed advice is given to us in both the Old and New Testaments about how to deal with “offense”.

For starters we need to know that there are actually several different ways that the words “offense, offend, offended” are used in Scripture. We will explore this first and then go on from there, hopefully to show in practical ways how the Bible teaches us to deal with offenses against us, real or imagined. Finally, it is important to note that the distinction between real or imagined is really irrelevant, because one person’s perception can easily be another’s reality and vice versa. In the end, to heal offense we need to deal with the issue regardless of whether we feel it is real or imagined.

When we are told that the butler and baker had “offended” (Gen 40:1) against Pharaoh, the word there comes from a root meaning to sin. ²We have no doubt about that meaning given the context, because the King of Egypt had suspicions that someone in his household was involved in a plot to assassinate him. Since the butler was, in effect, the chief wine steward³and the baker the head chef, it was these two individuals who were responsible for checking and tasting everything that was set before Pharaoh to eat or drink. To “offend” the king was thus to be involved in carrying out his murder, apparently a frequently used mechanism for achieving turnover in public office in ancient times. Fortunately, we have moved well beyond this today and generally practice only character assassination! Sometimes it appears to me that we have become too accustomed to the character vilification that we witness in public political life, so much so that we carry it over in dealing with brethren and sisters in the ecclesia whom we may disagree with on an issue. It has been said that if one cannot convince someone by the power of his argument then he will resort to destruction of the other person’s character. It ought not to be so amongst us:

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him… that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6).

Sometimes offense is simply a matter of careless, idle talk. With no harm intended, we may speak quite innocently without fully appreciating the effect our words might have on another person (cp Prov 29:20). Many years ago I was invited to give a series of lectures in another part of the Christadelphian world. The brother who had corresponded with me, to plan our visit, met us at the airport after a long flight. We had never previously met; hence I needed to find this brother by looking for the sign with my name on it at the exit from passport control. The brother looked somewhat surprised when I approached him and the first words out of his mouth were: “Your writing led me to expect someone a lot taller.” My response was: “From our correspondence I was expecting a very intelligent brother. I hope we are not both disappointed.” We then both joined in a good laugh and became good friends. The lesson is that a good sense of humor will often defuse potential offenses. A very wise sister once added to this by saying if we approached life with an “assuming no offense intended” attitude we would be able to move on and deal with issues without hurt.

The bulk of the Scriptural uses of the word “offense” do not really deal with the concept of personal “insult”, even though it is this connotation that usually comes to mind when we use the word today. The word “offence” ⁴has changed meaning since the King James Version was written in 1611 AD. We can easily verify this by referring to modern dictionary definitions where personal “insult” or “displea­sure” are given as the primary meanings.⁵,⁶However, “insult” is not the intended meaning in most instances in our Scriptures. When Paul spoke to the Corinthians about not offending their brothers and sisters he clearly meant not to put before them a “stumbling block” that would cause them to trip and fall from grace and lose their inheritance in the Kingdom of God. When Jesus alludes to offending he is using the word in a similar vein, namely, creating a “cause to stumble” and by implication lose eternal life. ⁷The intent of the King James translators in using the word “offend” for ‘stumbling’ instead of the more pejorative term ‘insult’ resides in the primary meaning of the word offend in the early 16th Century. The Oxford Universal Dictionary gives the following definition that was current at the time the KJV was translated: “In the Biblical use: to be a stumbling-block to a person; to cause to stumble or sin; to be caused to stumble or sin (1611).” This sense of the word does not have anything to do with feeling hurt if someone points out for example, how short I am, neither should I really take to heart other insults that might possibly refer to my baldness or rotundity. (At one time or another, I have had all of these voiced to me by tactless brethren and sisters.)

“Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them” (Psa 119:165).

The brother or sister who might perpetrate such insensitivity needs to be for­given (and gently admonished following Matthew 18:15), but such idle words aimed at our egos should not cause us to stumble from the path to the Kingdom of God. ⁸

There is a marvelous narrative in Joshua 22 that is virtually a primer on how po­tentially serious consequences resulting from perceived offenses can arise almost inadvertently. It shows us the path for healing the breach that can come about from such a tragic misunderstanding. In this chapter we join the Israelites just when they have triumphantly completed the conquest of the land of promise. It was now time for the tribes to assume their inherited portions of the land. Joshua dismisses the Reubenites, Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh, who had fought valiantly beside their brethren, and instructs them to take up their inheritance on the other (i.e., eastern) side of the Jordan River in the land of Gilead (Josh 22:1-3). Joshua gives them strict charge to follow the LORD diligently — no half measures (v 5). Idolatry apparently (as with Achan and even earlier with Rachel) still lingered in their hearts, and was perhaps still hidden in their tents (cp Josh 24:23). If we bear this thought in mind, of hidden lust for idolatry still linger­ing in the hearts of the children of Israel, then we will be able to appreciate the perceived offense that follows later in the story.

Unfortunately, human nature has not changed since Joshua gave his charge to the Israelites; we too are prone to fail in the same manner. We can give every outward appearance of worshiping God, but still continue hiding idols in our tents! We need to be ever so mindful of what we allow in our homes, the kind of television programs, DVDs, magazines and Internet content that find their way into our tents. The challenges that parents face today in protecting their children from the gore, violence, and sexual immorality that the various modern forms of media can so readily deliver is indeed daunting.

Before crossing over the Jordan River the Reubenites, Gadites, and Manassites constructed a “great altar” on the western bank; it could apparently be seen for some distance (the NIV calls it an “imposing altar”). These three tribes had ap­parently done this, “neither asking for advice nor offered any explanations.” ⁹The remaining tribes were offended, thinking they were setting up an alternate place of worship. This was an offense in the true sense of the word, because it created a stumbling block interfering with worshiping the LORD God. The remaining tribes received the news, no doubt passed by some scouts who had seen the altar and immediately assumed the worse (v 11), hence they prepared for war against their brethren (v 12). This is a perfect illustration of how failure to communicate on both sides can lead to offense. If the three tribes who were building the altar had informed the rest of Israel remaining on the western bank of their intent, nothing would have come of the matter. Alternatively, if those Israelites who spotted the construction of this imposing altar had bothered to check with the builders before going back to the main camp and instigating trouble, again there would have been no cause to provoke the nation.

Unfortunately, we frequently act the same way. We take an action, assuming that our brethren and sisters fully comprehend our intent, even though we may have given scant attention to informing them of the details. Conversely, when we are faced with an action of another person which we don’t fully understand, we often jump to the worst possible conclusion.

One of the principal lessons here in Joshua 22, for us today, places this burden of communication especially upon arranging brethren. It is extremely important that Arranging Boards of elders constantly keep all the members informed, not only of their actions, but also of the motivations behind them. Doubtless this is why Bro. Roberts insisted in the Ecclesial Guide that all Arranging Board meetings be open to all members of the ecclesia. In this modern age of communication there should be no difficulty in providing every member of a meeting with the minutes of all arranging board meetings in a timely fashion.

There can be no doubt that, if the assumptions that were made by the tribes re­maining on the western side of the Jordan were correct, then serious action had to be taken. The nation had learned hard lessons in the wilderness wanderings and was determined not to have these tragic failings repeated. “Is the iniquity of Peor not enough for us?” (v 17), they cried out, remembering what had hap­pened at Peor when the nation had joined itself to the pagan god Baal (Num 25:3) and twenty-four thousand perished of the God-sent plague (Num 25:9). The memory of Achan was also still in their minds (Josh 7). In this incident the sin of one man in burying idols in his tent, apparently with the complicity of his family, led to painful retribution upon the whole nation and the annihilation of his family. Given these circumstances it is easy to see why the tribes remaining west of the Jordan were sensitive to the perception that the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh were flirting with idolatry and that the whole nation would be severely troubled by the construction of a false altar. However, it is precisely under such circumstances that we need to be especially cautious about taking precipitous action without checking all our facts.

It is entirely possible that we can jump to conclusions about the behavior of a brother or sister based on past actions. While prior behavior cannot be discounted, neither should we fail to allow for forgiveness and the willingness to seek a new path on the part of one who has previously sinned. The teachings of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in his dealings with the woman caught in the act of adultery are particularly apt (John 8:1-11). Likewise the conversation that Jesus had with the Samaritan woman at the well is also instructive (John 4:16-18). In both these cases offense against the law of God was clear-cut under the Mosaic code, and both women would have been subject to severe punishment like that of the three eastern tribes suspected of idolatry. Yet Jesus offered forgiveness not retribution.

Fortunately, cooler, wiser heads prevailed, and it was decided first to send trusted Phinehas, the son of Eleazar the priest, along with ten reliable witnesses chosen from the princes of each of the tribes remaining west of Jordan (vv 13,14). This same Phinehas was the one who took bold immediate action to stay the plague that had resulted from Israel’s flirtation with Baal at Peor. Notice how this parallels the procedure that our Lord Jesus Christ gave us for dealing with offense (Matt 18:15-18). First the tribes should have directly communicated with each other (Matt 18:15), but they failed to do so (vv 11,12). We must not skip that step, but if we do or if such communication fails, it is not a reason to go to war! The next step is to involve trusted elders to ascertain the nature of the offense and seek to rectify the situation:

“Take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’ ” (Matt 18:16; cp Deut 19:15).

When Phinehas and the western tribal elders confronted the eastern tribes, a full accounting of their actions took place and the matter was completely clarified to the satisfaction of all (vv 22-27). The Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh assured Phinehas and the elders that it was all a big misunderstanding, and appeared equally offended because they thought their actions should have been obvious. We can tell the fervency of their plead by the curious iteration of the names of God — “LORD God of gods” (v 22, the only time this word sequence appears in Scripture). They assumed their intentions should have been apparent. If they had intended the altar for worship of pagan gods it would have been built on their eastern side of the Jordan, not in the territory of the other tribes. They felt it was obvious that the altar was built for commemoration and not for worship. Unfortunately, “obvious” and “assume” are words that so often get us in trouble. We can learn this important lesson from this story: we can probably never make a mistake by too much communication. The worse that can happen in that case is that we can be boring, which beats going to war over a perceived offense!

The entire affair had a happy ending with everyone completely satisfied: “So the thing pleased the children of Israel…” (v 33, NKJV). The altar of contention became an altar of “witness”: “For it is a witness between us that the LORD is God” (v 34, NKJV). Would that all occasions for offense between brethren and sisters end so peaceably, with mutual respect and love restored as befits the children of God.