A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

[Slug1]

Matthew 5:²³ So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴ leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

And

Matthew 18:¹⁵ “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

Question: Based on experience, which is more difficult to do:

Admit to yourself that your action/words have hurt/offended another or approaching another who has hurt/offended you and explain that (or how) you are hurt/offended?

[Aviyah]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Admit to yourself that your action/words have hurt/offended another or approaching another who has hurt/offended you and explain that (or how) you are hurt/offended?

Definitely approaching someone who has hurt me, because I feel like it was either on purpose or that they wouldn't care if I said how I felt, and both options are worse than just forgetting about it and moving on. Apologizing is easier for me because it bugs my conscience otherwise.

[randyk]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Matthew 5:²³ So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴ leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

And

Matthew 18:¹⁵ “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

Question: Based on experience, which is more difficult to do:

Admit to yourself that your action/words have hurt/offended another or approaching another who has hurt/offended you and explain that (or how) you are hurt/offended?

It's much, much easier to tell someone else their own fault than to admit your own. In my experience I do find it best to work my way up the chain, beginning with the more immediate problem, confining the problem to just the involved parties. Jesus, after all, gives good advice!

But in the church setting I find that I cannot tell the church that they collectively may have a problem, or that a particular pastor or leader has a problem, without upsetting the apple cart. I deal with the issue privately, and nothing happens. And then I move up the chain, and I'm ganged up on.

Nobody wants peace removed from a church. But if things can be dealt with before a leader is accused, or before an entire church is attacked, it's not only better to start this way, but it's unlikely to get far beyond this anyway.

I could just see John the Baptist tell Herod he's doing something offensive, and the entire royal court apologizing! Sometimes it's no different in the church, although it's worth trying to do things the way Jesus instructs us.

So there's a real cost to going and telling someone else his or her problem. We may end up attacked as a "trouble-maker." It takes a bold person to tell someone their sin and be willing to face the backlash.

On the other hand, it takes great character to admit your sins. Anybody, it seems, is willing to listen to me humble myself and admit I messed up. It leaves them feeling the better saint than I am! Most people are willing to forgive in the church. But it would be much more difficult to apologize knowing that the apology will not likely be accepted.

[Walls]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Matthew 5:²³ So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴ leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

And

Matthew 18:¹⁵ “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

Question: Based on experience, which is more difficult to do:

Admit to yourself that your action/words have hurt/offended another or approaching another who has hurt/offended you and explain that (or how) you are hurt/offended?

Definitely the first. Note the grammar. The offense is not stated as such. It is the PERCEPTION of another brother. Let us make an example. Brother Bob has a new car. After the meeting last Sunday he sees that someone has scratched his car. Your car was parked next to it during the meeting. Bob ASSUMES that it was you and "has somewhat against you". The verse addresses a PERCEIVED offense, and it might be that you were not responsible. What shall you do? If you approach Bob and deny damaging his car, you have told the truth but Bob will not be inclined to be reconciled. If you admit to damaging his car and you didn't, you have told a lie to a member of the Church like Ananias did.

Of course, if you did damage his car two options exist;

1. You have admitted it and offered to pay for repairs. But Bob still holds it against you. What can you do?
2. You have not admitted it. If you do not approach Bob the case will go to the Judgement Seat of Christ at the end of the age. You have committed a triple offense. (i) You have damaged his goods. (ii) You have not admitted it. (iii) You have caused a breech in the Church and trashed the unity of the Spirit. It will not go well for you at the Bema (Rom.14:10; 2nd Cor.5:10). "Whatsoever you did to the least of my brethren, you did it unto the Lord!" Who will stand the wrath of a King Who has been slighted by His subject?

[Slug1]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Definitely the first. Note the grammar. The offense is not stated as such. It is the PERCEPTION of another brother. Let us make an example. Brother Bob has a new car. After the meeting last Sunday he sees that someone has scratched his car. Your car was parked next to it during the meeting. Bob ASSUMES that it was you and "has somewhat against you". The verse addresses a PERCEIVED offense, and it might be that you were not responsible. What shall you do? If you approach Bob and deny damaging his car, you have told the truth but Bob will not be inclined to be reconciled. If you admit to damaging his car and you didn't, you have told a lie to a member of the Church like Ananias did.

Of course, if you did damage his car two options exist;

1. You have admitted it and offered to pay for repairs. But Bob still holds it against you. What can you do?
2. You have not admitted it. If you do not approach Bob the case will go to the Judgement Seat of Christ at the end of the age. You have committed a triple offense. (i) You have damaged his goods. (ii) You have not admitted it. (iii) You have caused a breech in the Church and trashed the unity of the Spirit. It will not go well for you at the Bema (Rom.14:10; 2nd Cor.5:10). "Whatsoever you did to the least of my brethren, you did it unto the Lord!" Who will stand the wrath of a King Who has been slighted by His subject?

Since your stating that a "perceived" offense is what Mt 5 is all about, you are the very first/only person (that I know) to state such. I have discussed (college, bible study, etc) about offending a person and being oblivious of the offense and this is WHY the verses go hand in hand. Per Mt 18, the one offended is responsible for informing the offender and THEN, had the offender been oblivious of the offense, now they are held to the Mt 5 scriptures because they are aware that they have offended.

In thinking of your example, I would say the offended is under Mt 18 and "once" they inform the person who they feel offended them, then that person is held to Mt 5. Prayerfully, reconciliation is achieved as the perceived "offender" illuminates to the offended, of the "perception."

Based on v26 of Mt 5, there is no perception at all because "if" there is only a perception (no true offense), then NO penny would be in need of paying. But Jesus' lesson shows by this penalty (conclusion to the lesson) there is a true offense done against another.

Again, you are the only person I've heard state that the verse is about a perceived offense.

[Slug1]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

But it would be much more difficult to apologize knowing that the apology will not likely be accepted.

Based on the lead-in to my question, is your observation here based on "experience?"

[Slug1]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Definitely approaching someone who has hurt me, because I feel like it was either on purpose or that they wouldn't care if I said how I felt, and both options are worse than just forgetting about it and moving on.

Based on this portion of your response, do you feel that Mt 18 is a "suggestion" and that the Holy Spirit will allow you or enable you to just, "forget about it and move on" and will cease prompting you each time you make your offerings at church?

[randyk]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Based on the lead-in to my question, is your observation here based on "experience?"

Based on my experience, the more time I've had with the Lord the more there is the tendency among others, including Christians, to *want* to find fault with me, to pick on imperfections in my character. It's as if they are jealous of my spirituality, and want to be better than me.

As a mature believer I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. It isn't as if the more mature believer is really better than anybody else. We just carry a very good message. We are not that message. But others confuse us with that message.

As mature believers we should not have to be apologizing much for big sins. But we should be apologizing *all the time* for little sins that annoy and throw people off. We aren't acting in character with Christ if we use one single bad word! If we show the smallest amount of annoyance, we aren't acting in character with Christ!

It's difficult to apologize for those big sins because they're so embarrassing. I'm not talking about adultery or murdering someone, although that's theoretically possible. But I'm talking about actually losing our temper and using outright nasty language, such as Moses did when he "hit the rock." Those kinds of apologies I find difficult. They may be accepted. They may not. But we need to apologize just to get our own lives ordered aright.

[Walls]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Since your stating that a "perceived" offense is what Mt 5 is all about, you are the very first/only person (that I know) to state such. I have discussed (college, bible study, etc) about offending a person and being oblivious of the offense and this is WHY the verses go hand in hand. Per Mt 18, the one offended is responsible for informing the offender and THEN, had the offender been oblivious of the offense, now they are held to the Mt 5 scriptures because they are aware that they have offended.

In thinking of your example, I would say the offended is under Mt 18 and "once" they inform the person who they feel offended them, then that person is held to Mt 5. Prayerfully, reconciliation is achieved as the perceived "offender" illuminates to the offended, of the "perception."

Based on v26 of Mt 5, there is no perception at all because "if" there is only a perception (no true offense), then NO penny would be in need of paying. But Jesus' lesson shows by this penalty (conclusion to the lesson) there is a true offense done against another.

Again, you are the only person I've heard state that the verse is about a perceived offense.

Fair enough. I hear you.

But consider this. If it was an established offense, then Matthew 18 would apply. The onus is on the offended one. In Matthew 5 the one bringing the offering has NOT been offended, and the one who has something against the offended one has not followed the procedure of Matthew 18 - that is, he is unable to bring PROOF of offense. This is crucial because our whole salvation stands on God's accusation, WITH PROOF, that we have offended Him. Matthew 5 deals with the new life in a Christian seeking "the unity of the Spirit" (Eph.4.1-3). Matthew 18 deals with the authority of the Church to apply the keys of the kingdom. Let us examine the text of Matthew 5:21-26:

21 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."

Verse 21 shows life (and death) under the Law of Moses. Kill and be killed is physical and outward. Actions are required.
Verse 22 shows the INNER LIFE of the Christian. Rage is an inner emotion. No actions are needed for the offense to be committed
Verse 23 says, "Therefore" - indicating a conclusion of what went before. "Ought against the is an inner emotion". If it was an action then he is required to (i) come to you, (ii) bring witnesses, and (iii) prove it to the Church. This would result in a physical action of excommunication.
Verse 24 shows that the matter is inward. "Reconciliation" is the inner attitude of change feelings of animosity to feelings of union and peace
Verse 25 changes the subject. In verse 23 there is no talk of war. It speaks of you making a sacrifice for the Lord and remembering that some brother has FEELINGS against you. "Adversary" indicates war - two adversaries. The brother of verse 23 could not be the "adversary" of verse 25 because he has recourse to a judge. It would have been his duty to bring the matter for judgement before the Church.

Here is how I understand it in example. You and I argue a point of scripture. I bring an unassailable argument and you are humiliated. It is my duty to state the truth, but the truth has offended you. You "have ought against me" for the truth's sake. For this there is no judgement, either by the Church or God. But it it now becomes my duty to, "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love, Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:2-3). Though I have the high ground in doctrine, I have it at the cost of unity. It becomes MY DUTY to be reconciled to my brother.

However, if you disagree, I understand. But I say this: Matthew Chapter's 5, 6 and 7 show the effect that Christ's life has on the Christian. It is an attitude of sacrifice and reconciliation. Matthew 18 is about judging "Leaven" in the Church. Matthew 5 is shown or displayed in Paul's attempt to have audience with Apollos in 1st Corinthians 16:12. Apollos was wrong in his doctrine. Paul corrected it. It was his duty as an Apostle. But he needed a face to face with Apollos to clear the matter. Apollos refused. It reads; "As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time." Paul speaks under inspiration. He records the WILL of Apollos. But what was the will of God? Apollos was a source of division in Corinth but he refused to meet with Paul to sort it out (1st Cor.1:12, 3:4-6, 22, 4:6). But Paul's attitude toward Apollos is seen in Titus 3:13 - one of genuine unity and care.

[Aviyah]

Re: A question concerning: Offense/Reconciliation

Based on this portion of your response, do you feel that Mt 18 is a "suggestion" and that the Holy Spirit will allow you or enable you to just, "forget about it and move on" and will cease prompting you each time you make your offerings at church?

The offering part seems to be about if you're the one who sinned against someone else.

For me Matthew 18 is harder, dealing with someone who has wronged you. Yes, it reads to me as a "suggestion" or "option" that the victim can take, not a law placed upon him/her. A similar attitude is used in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul gave people options regarding marriage that there was not a "right" or "wrong" approach to.

If someone has sinned against me, I prefer to let it go, forgive in my own heart, and ignore it. I think Matthew 18 is more useful when it's some sort of ongoing action or practice ... but even then I err on not bringing it up.