The Right
to
Accuse
by
Pastor Robert A. Pannier
Published by
Bridge to Freedom Ministries
P.O. Box 385801
Bloomington, MN 55438
Copying for non-commercial purposes is permitted.
© copyright 2011
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.
Have you ever been offended by someone? Wow, that may be the stupidest question I have ever asked. Of course you have and so has everyone else.
As human beings we love to be offended. I know that is a strong word to use, but the reality is that we find lots of reasons to be offended at others. It is like a second nature to us to be offended at what someone else has done.
If someone has wronged you then it is understandable and even permissible for you to be offended at what they have done. People do some really deplorable things and at times these things may cause you to become upset.
But too often we find ourselves becoming upset at things that are not only not worth getting worked up about, but that we actually have no right to be upset. Often our anger toward another is based upon what has happened to someone else. For example our friend is offended by another, and so we pick up the same offense. This is not Biblically right to do, yet we all do it.
About two years ago I was writing a book on how to confront a brother who has offended you according to Jesus’ Words in Matthew 18. What I found after I finished this book was that people were not getting the idea of when you could be offended. Too many people felt they had the right to go and confront another for his or her actions without being the “victim” of the offense. God does not allow this.
As we journey through this book I want you to see that there is a permissible time to be offended and to accuse others of their offense; however, there is also a time when you have no right at all to accuse another or to confront them on their behavior.
I want us to walk away from this book understanding that there are times to be upset at and offended by the actions of others, but that the vast majority of times that we get upset there is no Biblical foundation for us to do so. I am hoping that once you have read this and have absorbed the information you will find fewer and fewer circumstances where you become offended and try to intervene into matters that are not your concern.
The Difference Between Offense and Bitterness
One of the most learned person’s I know in relation to understanding the Bible is a man by the name of Freddie. Freddie is unfortunately in prison now, but even from there I am blessed to receive his wisdom from time to time.
Recently I was sharing with Freddie my anger at how he had been treated by the court system. I thought he was treated unfairly and I wanted to share my sympathy for his situation with him.
Freddie then explained to me that while he did not like the treatment he was receiving, he had no real right to be offended. He pointed out to me that he had committed a crime according to the laws of this country. While he did not agree with his actions being criminal, they were in essence just that – criminal. A law said so.
He then pointed out to me that he had no right to be upset at the system whose laws he had transgressed. In essence, he had no right to be offended.
Freddie was not offended by what had happened to him in the court system. Instead he was bitter. There is a big distinction, and one that is important for us to understand how we can treat and even confront others.
Bitterness is defined as “Difficult or distasteful to accept, admit, or bear.” When we think of this definition, I am sure that many of us can think of phrases that come to mind in relation to the actions of others. “What you did left a bitter taste in my mouth,” or “I am embittered by what you have done.”
People do things all the time that make us feel bitter about their actions. When you see a man who has abducted and raped an 8-year old child this may leave you bitter about his actions. Or a woman who drives her car into a lake killing her children may leave a bitter pill in your stomach.
It is perfectly understandable to find that the actions of others make it difficult to bear or accept what they have done and why they have done it. I don’t like to see people killing or hurting others and I find that difficult to accept.
When I watched how my friend Freddie was being treated I found myself bitter at the court for what they had done. To me they were excessive and unethical in the way they dealt with him, and this gave me a feeling of bitterness toward them.But it did not give me a right to be offended by what they had done. Let me say that again because I want us to clearly understand this. It did not give me the right to be offended.
You see offense is when someone has violated or transgressed against you. You must be the victim of the offense to be offended. Now we will see that at times you can be an “extended victim,” but for the most part you do not have the right to be offended by the actions a person takes against another person. You can be bitter about these things, but not offended.
The difference in these terms is related to your rights in regards to the actions of another. You see when a person has offended you God grants you certain rights as the victim, and as such there is compensation that you can demand from the person who committed the offense.
Let’s look at some examples in the Law for a moment. Exodus 21:35-36:
35 “If anyone’s bull injures someone else’s bull and it dies, the two parties are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally. 36 However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and take the dead animal in exchange.
Here we see that if you have an animal that attacks the bull of another person, and that other person’s bull dies, then you are required to sell your own animal and split the profits from the sale. If your bull is known to attack other animals or people then you must pay for the cost of the other man losing his bull. This is the Law.
Notice that there is a very clear form of justice here. The lost animal is redeemed in some capacity, whether it be by splitting the proceeds or by repaying the full cost of the animal, the “victim” in this circumstance is given what is fair to redeem the loss of his or her animal.
Let’s look at another example. Exodus 21:18-19:
18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.
In this case one man strikes another and since the other man does not die the first man is required to pay the costs and loss of the man he injured. We see a very simple transaction of justice where one man compensates the other for the loss he has caused by striking or injuring the other man. There is a very clear cut form of justice.
Let’s look at one last example. Exodus 22:14-15:
14 “If anyone borrows an animal from their neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, they must make restitution. 15 But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.
Here one man is entrusted with the property of another, in this case an animal. The animal dies or is injured while the man who is supposed to be watching the animal is away. He is required to make restitution for the injury or loss of this animal, because God is saying that if we have chosen to guard the property of another we must really watch that animal. It is like babysitting in a way. One would not agree to watch another’s child and then leave. You must stay to watch and care for the child, ensuring that the child remains safe. This is true of God’s Law for watching another’s animal as well. If you are committing yourself to watching the animal then you must be present to care for it.
However, if you are there to watch the animal and it is injured then you are not held liable for the injury or death. What is the difference in this case? It is believed that accidents happen and if you are present to remove most problems then this is just a simple accident and you should not be punished for the loss.
I gave you a few examples, but the Law is full of hundreds of examples like this where a crime or situation arises and one person can claim offense against the other. A man allowed his animal to kill another man’s animal; a woman does not closely watch the property of another and it is lost; a man strikes another man and that other man is injured and unable to work. These are all problems that have two parties to it: the victim and the offender.
In each case you can see that the victim had a right to be angry and take offense at what had happened. If you were out walking your dog one day and another person’s dog ran out of the yard and attacked and killed your dog, you would be angry. You would want something to happen. If you gave your bird to another to watch it and they left the bird cage open and went out, returning later to find the bird gone, you would want compensation.
These are examples in our society where we can see that there is clearly room to be offended and to be able to demand restitution according to God’s Law. God understood that people would do things wrong and so He provided a remedy to solve the problems that occurs as a result of those wrongs.
You notice in His Law that there are four parts to every Law: the offense, the offender, the victim, and the restitution. This is very important because all kinds of things have occurred over the years to change the perfect system of God’s Law. Let me explain this.
In God’s Law the only person who could be blamed for a crime or transgression was the offender. No one else could be held accountable for the wrongs of another. In our current society if a man steals some other person’s property and then sells the property to a third person, the third person could be held criminally liable for having the property, even if they did not know it is was stolen. This is not Biblical, and it is not part of God’s Law.
In addition, only the person who was the victim in the offense had a right to be offended and to seek restitution. They also were the only person who had a right to seek any kind of action against the offender. This is most definitely not true in our own society.
First off, the government seeks action against a criminal. This has not always been true. For the first 125 years or so after the creation of the United States, crimes were always one person against another. Now, however, they are the State against the accused. The state was not offended by the actions of another and has no right to seek action, but they are choosing to be offended on behalf of the victim. This is not lawful in God’s Law.
Secondly, we have all kinds of people who believe that they have a right to add themselves to the offense committed by another. They see that their neighbor has been wronged by another neighbor. They choose sides with the first neighbor and harbor ill feelings against the offending neighbor. This is not lawful. It is completely against what God teaches, but people do it all the time.
As a result of picking up this offense they act cruelly or accuse the other neighbor for the wrongs. But this is not their place. They were not offended and according to God they should stay out of it!!!
Can they think the actions of the neighbor are wrong? Of course. They can even choose to be bitter and not like what the one neighbor has done, but they do not have the right to accuse or seek restitution, because they were not offended.
Now I know some will say that there seems to be a very small line between being offended and being bitter, but I say that this is not the case at all. There is a very big difference between being bitter about something and having the right to be offended.
Offenses occur when you are victimized directly yourself. This is where so many are acting unbiblical, because they are believing that the offenses that occur against others allow them to also have a right to be offended because of their relationship to the one who was offended. This is not allowed in God’s Law.
God does not want a whole group of people taking on the frustrations of another. We will talk more about this in the next section, but for now let us keep in mind that God always wants offenses to be resolved and relationships to be restored. When all kinds of people are joining in and taking sides the chance for true resolution is not going to happen.
I remember when I was growing up always hearing about the feud that had gone on between the Hatfields and McCoys. To be honest I didn’t even know if these were real people or not. Later I learned that this was a true story. Here are the events that led to this feud:
Asa Harmon McCoy was murdered on January 7, 1865. Jim Vance, the uncle of Devil Anse Hatfield, despised Harmon because he had joined the Union Army during the American Civil War. Harmon was discharged from the Army early because of a broken leg. He returned home to a warning from Vance that Harmon could expect a visit from Devil Anse's Wildcats. Frightened by gunshots as he drew water from his well, Harmon hid in a nearby cave, supplied with food and necessities each day by his slave, Pete; but the Wildcats followed Pete's tracks in the snow, discovered Harmon and shot him fatally.
At first, Devil Anse Hatfield was the prime suspect. Later, after finding the Wildcats' leader had been confined to his bed, the guilt turned squarely on Vance; but in an area where Harmon's military service was an act of disloyalty, even Harmon's own family believed he had brought his murder on himself. In the end, the case died with no suspect brought to trial.
The second recorded instance of violence in the feud occurred thirteen years later, in 1878, after a dispute about the ownership of a hog: Floyd Hatfield had it and Randolph McCoy said it was his. The pig was only in the fight because some of the Hatfields believed that since the pig was on their land, it was theirs. Some of the McCoys objected, saying the "notches" (markings) on the pig's ears were McCoy marks, not Hatfield marks. The matter was taken to the local Justice of the Peace, and the McCoys lost because of the testimony of Bill Staton, a relative of both families. Presiding over the case was Anderson "Preacher Anse" Hatfield. In June 1880, Staton was killed by two McCoy brothers, Sam and Paris, who were later acquitted on the grounds of self-defense.
This feud lasted thirteen years, but not before at least thirteen members of the two families had been killed. Hatred intensified all because members of each family picked up the offenses of other members.
Now I understand that this seems like an extreme example, but the reality is that these types of feuds occur (maybe not with actual gun shots) beetween families, neighborhoods, and churches all the time, and the end result is that people’s lives are destroyed for completely unbiblical reasons.
I attended a church for a number of years where the senior pastor became at odds with the director of the board of the church. The other board members immediately sided with the director because he was the head of their board, despite the fact that the senior pastor had been in place for nearly twenty-five years. This led many within the church to take the side of the Senior Pastor, while others sided with the board members. What happened from there was so beyond words I am still at a loss to explain the actions. People in the church started calling board members and their spouses calling them Satan worshippers and telling them they wished they died. Threats were made from both sides, and soon the Senior Pastor left taking many members with him to form a new church.
Why did all this happen? Because people began to feel that they had the right to join sides on this issue. They felt they had the right to be offended. However, they did not have this right.
They could all be bitter. This is acceptable. You can be angry at the actions of others and think they are acting in a distasteful way, however this did not give them the right to be offended and to make accusations, especially to call a brother or sister in the Lord a “Satan worshipper.” That is outrageous.
What also still leaves me shaking my head is that they had literally passed a judgment of death upon these men and women. Who gave them the right to do that? Had these people killed a near family member of theirs? No, so they had no right to threaten or wish death upon anyone.
They may not have literally meant what they were saying, but they had spoken a judgment against others and this judgment was done in a completely unlawful manner.
Later we will look more closely at the idea of being bitter and what “rights” and obligations you have as a person who is bitter over the actions of others, but for now, let us understand that bitterness does not allow you to take action against another. It does not allow you to shun them, to ignore them, to gossip about them, to accuse them of anything, or to seek restitution from them. You have no right to anything, and according to Jesus, you are to let go of that and to forgive them. You are required to love them.
The feud between the Hatfields and McCoys occurred because all kinds of other family members decided that they had the right to turn their bitterness into offense and to seek action against the other family for that offense. This was not Biblical and as a result many died and were injured. Plus families were torn apart and the community was terrified because of the stupidity of these two families.
This is what we are doing with each other. Taking the offenses of others and finding reasons to become offended in issues where we do not belong. It is time for us to start butting out of things for which we have no right to accuse or to seek restitution about, and to instead focus on loving and caring for each other.
All Sin is Paid as a Debt
I mentioned in the last section that God has a very clear reason for creating the system in this way. He is looking for relationships to be restored. He is not interested in people being at odds with each other, and when people start taking sides in a disagreement you can be sure that restoration cannot occur.
Think about what happens when people choose sides. They not only increase the numbers of people who are upset, but they also fuel the fire of animosity. If one person is willing to apologize and seek restoration, his or her compatriots are likely to persuade him or her to not give in so easily.
I see this situation happen in battles between wives and husbands all the time. The wife has done something that upsets her husband. He has perceived that he has been offended, whether there is a true offense or not. He then leaves to go the bar where he can tell his friends about the “horrible” way that his wife has treated him. She, in turn, calls her friends to voice her frustrations as well.
As the evening goes on the husband realizes that he is acting like a jerk and he decides he should go home and apologize to his wife for his stupid actions, however his buddies convince him that he would be “weak” if he would do so.
At the same time the wife realizes that she too has not acted in a loving way and that she was wrong for what she has done. But when she voices this to her friends they too convince her that if she “caves in” she will be walked all over by him forever. She has to remain strong for all womanhood.
The result is that neither side is willing to seek reconciliation, because both have created their own armies. The marriage suffers and both are left entrenched in their thinking.
But this situation may not end here. Let’s say that while the husband is at the bar regaling the others with his argument that one of the men he is talking to is married to one of the women that his wife is telling her side of the story to. When this man comes home he has persuaded his friend not to apologize, and his wife has convinced her friend to stand her ground as well. Now this couple is at odds with each other. They both think their friend is right, and because the other does not see it the same way a fight breaks out between them as well. The war has escalated to two battlefields.
Others have determined that they have the right to stick up for and take offense on behalf of their friend. The reality is that they don’t and they never should have.
You see God had a perfect plan to handle all disputes and restore relationships. We looked at three laws earlier in this book. In each of these laws there was a remedy to resolving the dispute between the two parties. For example in Exodus 21:18-19 we saw:
18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.
One person injures another. The person who injured the other is responsible for taking care of the injured party. No one disagreed with what God said to do here. It was so simple and made perfect sense to all.
By creating a system in this way God made sure that there was the greatest possibility for a resolution to occur and for the relationship to be restored. Two individuals had a dispute, they resolved it by following the Law of God, and there was no hard feelings about it.
What made the Law so amazing was that no one held offense once the restitution was paid. You took my animal, you paid me back with two animals, so justice was served, and I was satisfied with that justice. You felt good because you were able to “pay your debt,” and I was happy because I was compensated greatly for my loss.
This is where God was so brilliant. He made sure that all sin and transgression was reconciled through a debt being paid. There was no prison or jail sentence. You paid your debt and this solved the matter.
God wanted to ensure that no one had hard feelings related to an event. When others get involved this only hampers the perfect process that God has designed.
Picking Up Another’s Offense
God designed a perfect process to ensure that reconciliation between two parties could occur. One person offends another. The victim then receives compensation or restitution from the offending party and all is forgiven. Everyone wins.
However, human beings have placed a large monkey wrench in this process. Too often others want to intervene and have their say on the amount or extent of restitution. This is when trouble occurs.
With some very minor exceptions, no one has the right to be involved in a dispute between two people. God didn’t want this to happen and this is why He set up such a perfect process to resolve issues. We will look at this process in a later section, but for now let us keep in mind that God does not want a situation to escalate.
Now I know that many will tell me that there are good reasons for including others in an offense, but I will tell you that realistically there is only three. But before I address the three good reasons I will address the other ones I have heard first.
I Don’t Like What Happened to My Friend/Family Member
So often I hear people explain that they don’t like the actions of others and how this has hurt someone they love. My response to that is TOUGH!!! Get over yourself.
I do agree that you can be upset and maybe even bitter about the actions of others, but that does not give you the right to be offended by what another has done. You were not the one who was directly offended, and under God’s Law you have no claim to the offense. You are owed no debt.
I want us to always keep in mind that God’s solution to transgressions was restoration through paying a debt. When one person wronged another the person who was the offender needed to make amends according to the way that God had set down in the Law. God did not create a scenario where one person could be offended for the actions that occurred against someone they loved. We should love all people, and if we do love all then it means that we are going to spend a lot of time being offended.
Recently the daughter of a man I know took her car to have it repaired. The man who did the repair literally ripped off this young woman, and her car was not really fixed at all. The man became very upset and decided to go down to the repair shop and get justice for his daughter.
By the time he arrived he was very upset and ready to spit nails. He demanded the money that his daughter paid and when the owner would not return it, he became extremely vocal and threatening. The owner was very fearful and called the police.
When the police officer arrived he asked both men what was going on. The officer then told the father that he needed to leave and that he was not allowed to return or he would be arrested. When the father demanded the money his daughter was owed, the officer told him, “This did not happen to you, so you cannot demand this money. If your daughter feels she has been wronged she must take action, not you.”
Wow, this officer was saying the same thing to us that God says when we try to intervene in situations that we do not belong in. Yes, you can be bitter and angry over the actions of others, but you cannot intervene into the situation. You have no right to do so.
I really have seen thousands of examples of this go on. People frequently want to take sides in an argument, especially when it is a close friend or family member, but you do not have a right to do this. Really you are only making it worse.
I Need to Help Correct an Injustice
We all want to be superheroes don’t we? We see an injustice that is going on and we want to leap to the defense of one person against the other. Everyone does it.
The problem with this is that usually we make decisions and judgments hearing only one side of the story. Therefore our judgment is clouded.
I saw a story on the news where a woman had come home and told her boyfriend that she had been raped by a man at work. She was not going to tell her boyfriend, but she had found out that she was pregnant and was terrified as to what to do.
Needless to say, the boyfriend was very upset. Most men would be. In anger he rushed out of the house and went to her work place and beat the man nearly to death. The police came and arrested the boyfriend who tried to explain that he was seeking justice for his girlfriend. Who wouldn’t have sympathy for this man who was trying to restore the honor of his girlfriend?
However, his girlfriend had not been raped. She had gotten pregnant from a relationship she had with another man and didn’t want her boyfriend to know. Now her boyfriend is sitting in jail for twenty years and the man he beat is permanently disabled.
We are quick to make judgments in situations when there is no way or very little way that we can make a good, fair judgment. This is why God did not want others involved in these situations. They do not get resolved by others sticking their noses into someone else’s business, no matter how noble the cause is.
I do understand that we all want to be the hero. When we are given a chance to right a wrong and restore order we all want to leap into action. However, understand this was not allowed by God because our judgments are constantly tainted. We are usually wrong because of our own biases. We are not Superman or Wonder Woman and that is why we need to butt out.
What They Did Just Makes Me Sick
This is much like the last excuse, but is not about being a superhero. This one is about removing the “scum” from your community. This is a desire to get rid of those that are seen as less desirable and despicable.
In our present day society no group finds itself in the cross-hairs of this group more than those convicted of sex offenses. Neighbors and whole communities have concluded that they have every right to do whatever they want to remove or terrify these men (and sometimes women) into running from their homes.
I do understand that some of these men have committed terrible offenses, and that because of the media attention surrounding them that fear has totally encompassed many people. Plus there is permission in society that is given to hate these men. But God does not allow this. If you or your wife or your child were not abused by this man (or woman) then you have no right to seek justice in this case. You have no right to accuse anyone. They did not harm you and so you have no claim to offense.
Again it is ok to hate and be bitter against their actions, but you have no claim to be offended and this means that you need to mind your own business and stay out of this affair.
I know this seems like an extreme example, and that many will think that they do not do this, but this is one of the most common excuses I receive for why a person has taken offense against another.
I recently saw that a massage parlor had been raided for running a prostitution service from the business. What made it “worse” in so many people’s eyes was that it was right across the street from a school. How dare they? At least this is what many in the community thought. Some were so offended by this that they threw rocks and other objects through the window of the business.
What were they so offended about? Was the massage parlor offering sex to the students at the school? Of course not. There was absolutely no reason to be offended, but some felt they needed to teach them a lesson. This is simply not allowed.
Before you get involved in an offense for the “greater good” of your community you need to check to see if you have any right to be involved at all.
Everyone Thinks this is the Best Thing to Do
The mob mentality is one the most fascinating and yet terrifying aspects of men. If you ever watch a riot on the news or in some documentary just spend some time looking at people’s faces. It is the scariest thing you will ever see.
The problem with a riot is that so often people have no idea why they are involved in the action at all. I think back to the riots that occurred after the Rodney King Trials in Los Angeles. People were burning down businesses, shooting at people in the street, looting, committing rape and murder, and for many they had no real reason for why they were doing this. Yes they were mad at the verdict, and they should have been. This was wrong, but had these businesses offended them? Had the women that they raped injured them or even been involved with Rodney King in some way? There was no reason to do these things, other than everyone else was doing them.
The mob mentality is one of the scariest things that there is, because there is a sense of entitlement to commit acts because everyone else is doing them. I can hate that person because everyone else does. I can bully that kid because everyone else does. I can talk about that woman because others are doing it as well.
What makes the mob mentality so really terrifying is that it only occurs for one reason – to hurt. No one forms a mob to joyously proclaim the actions of another. They do it to hate and seek retribution against some man, woman, men, or women. It is the lynch mob or the group with torches and pitchforks that forms from a mob. It is also the group that shuns a family at church, or drives a person from the neighborhood.
Do all mobs have to be burning and looting? No they don’t, but let us understand that hate is the real focus of that mob. Consider this event as an example. A special ops unit killed Osama bin Laden. Upon hearing this thousands of people rushed into the streets in front of the White House to celebrate his death. They were celebrating the death of someone. I don’t care how you try to spin that, this is hate. What made it worse is that everyone felt perfectly entitled to think that it was great to see this man had died.
Now understand that I do not like what Osama bin Laden did and I didn’t really like him as a person very much, but he was to be loved by all of us Christians, and this was clearly not love. This was hate, and everyone seemed to think that this was acceptable.
When a crowd is forming against someone, do yourself a favor and get out of it. You simply cannot let yourself get caught up in something like that. It is wrong and could lead you to do some things you will seriously regret later.
These are some of the common excuses people give me for why they could be offended by something that was done to another, and as you can see here none of them are acceptable. There are three reasons however that you can take up an offense or get involved in a dispute between others.
One of the Two Parties is Unable to Remedy the Situation
There are instances where circumstances do not allow for a person to be able to remedy a dispute for themselves. One of the most common examples of this is if one person has murdered another. Clearly the person who has been murdered is unable to seek justice for him or herself. Therefore another is allowed to intervene. In this case, a person may seek justice on behalf of the person who was murdered. God allows this.
There are also circumstances where a child is unable to remedy a situation simply because they have no authority or standing, or they are not being listened to. As a parent you have the right to intervene to assist your child. Let me give an example.
Let’s say that your five-year old daughter has been told she is stupid by her teacher. She has told the teacher that she does not like being called this, but all the teacher says is to just be quiet. Clearly the child cannot do much else here. She cannot go to the school board or to a lawyer. She may not even be able to go to the principal with a complaint. At that point you have the right to intervene and be offended on behalf of your child, because the child will not be taken seriously or her complaint may not be given the weight it deserves.
When your child, who is not an adult, is in trouble and is unable to remedy or resolve a situation because they are not taken seriously then you may intervene to help. You should try to see if your child can resolve the issue on his or her own first, but if they are not able to do so then you can get involved.
Let me say though that this does not give you the authority to get involved in your child’s problems forever. When they are adults God expects them to resolve issues on their own or to use the proper remedies (courts, police, and mediators) to resolve issues. You no longer have the right to be offended at this point.
What I want you to understand is that you can take up the offense of another if they are unable to defend themselves or to stand up for themselves because they are lacking the ability to do so.
There is a television show on ABC called “What Would You Do?” This show creates scenarios and sees how people react to situations, testing what they would do. In one scenario they had a blind man go into a bakery to buy some goods. He would give the clerk at the counter a fifty dollar bill and was to receive thirty-seven dollars in change, but the clerk was deliberately to give him only nine or ten dollars in change. Then the show saw how people reacted to this.
None of the customers in the store were aware they were being tested. The producers simply wanted to see if people would do something when they saw someone getting robbed in this way. Sadly, not all said something about this. However, many did, and some even demanded to see the manager.
Now in this case, these people had the right to be offended. The blind man could not tell that he was being robbed, and truthfully he did not witness the theft because he could not see that he was short-changed. This gave these people the Biblical authority to intervene and do something to correct this situation.
What makes these situations unique is that you are only intervening for the benefit of another, not for yourself in any way. Helping your child at school or assisting a stranger who is being cheated or injured is done solely for their benefit. You are offended only on their behalf, and are not holding any offense of your own in the situation. Once the situation is resolved then you must leave the offense. It never belonged to you and to keep it would be unlawful.
The Circumstance Has Affected You Directly as Well
There are some circumstances where the injury to another does directly affect you and this gives you the right to be offended, because you are an “extended” victim.
If your spouse was raped this would be an injury to you as well, and therefore this would be an offense against you. If someone killed your child you have the right to be offended, because something God entrusted you with was taken from you. If someone injured your child and this cost you a great deal of money in medical care, then you have the right to be offended.
These kinds of circumstances allow you to be offended because they do directly affect you. But I want you to notice something very important about each of these examples. They all included someone that was a close relative to you.
The Bible allowed for certain people to be offended and to assist in remedying situations. These people were the “near-kinsman” The near-kinsman was the closest relative to you, and as such that person had the legal authority to pay restitution on your debts and to seek retribution in situations where you could not do this on your own, or where God determined that the offense was egregious.
In Numbers 5:5-8 we read:
5 The LORD said to Moses, 6 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any man or woman who wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the LORD is guilty 7 and must confess the sin they have committed. They must make full restitution for the wrong they have done, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the person they have wronged. 8 But if that person has no close relative [near-kinsman] to whom restitution can be made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the LORD and must be given to the priest, along with the ram with which atonement is made for the wrongdoer.
Here we read that if a wrong was done to someone but they were no longer available to receive the restitution, then it was to be given to the nearest relative to the one who was wronged. Restitution did not end because the person had died or was unavailable for some other reason. You were required to pay this to the person who was closest to them.
If you became poor and were unable to pay your debt or if you committed an offense for which restitution was required and you could not pay this, your near-kinsman could do this for you as well. Leviticus 25:25:
25 “‘If one of your fellow Israelites becomes poor and sells some of their property, their nearest relative is to come and redeem what they have sold.
In this case your kinsman was referred to as the Kinsman-Redeemer.
Have you ever wondered why Jesus had to come as a man to pay for our sins? Why He could not simply pay for them as God? As God He could not redeem us because He was not a kinsman to us. But as a man He could claim kinship to us all and this is why He could satisfy the debt we owed by dying in our place. This is why He is often referred to as the “Son of Man,” so He could be our Near-Kinsman.
Remember that all sin was reconciled as a debt, so when we sin and are unable to pay that debt to our victim, our near-kinsman can come and pay that debt for us, and this should be considered as acceptable by the person who has been offended.
I mentioned in this section and in the last that if someone killed your family member then you do have the right to seek justice on their behalf. This was offense against you and as such you have the right to claim offense.
In Deuteronomy 19 the Lord is telling the Israelite people to create Cities of Refuge. These were places that a person could flee to if they had accidently killed another person. In these cities they could not be pursued by an “avenger,” which was a close family member to the victim who was seeking justice on behalf of the lost family member.
However, if a person had killed on purpose and fled to this city then they were to be sent back. We read in Deuteronomy 19:11-12:
11 But if out of hate someone lies in wait, assaults and kills a neighbor, and then flees to one of these cities, 12 the killer shall be sent for by the town elders, be brought back from the city, and be handed over to the avenger of blood to die.
Now please do not believe this is me advocating your right to kill someone who has killed your family member. I am simply saying that you are allowed to seek justice against the person who has killed your kinsman. In today’s society you would do this by filing a charge, taking court action against them, and assisting in the prosecution.
We can see that there are some instances where you are allowed to be offended, but they must be limited to things where you are truly affected by the actions of another. The reason I mentioned rape as an example is because this can have just as much impact on the spouse as it does on the person raped. If a woman is raped she is dramatically affected and this can harm the marriage, the physical relationship, and the man’s emotions and sense of security. This is an offense against him as well. The same would be true of a man who is raped. The man may feel ashamed and humiliated, causing him to shut his wife out and to be distant toward her. The marriage would suffer, and as such she is directly affected by the offense.
I only gave a few examples in this section, because I want you to see that your right to be offended against someone who has not directly harmed or injured you should be as narrow in scope as possible. I want you to be very limited in your thinking in terms of when you can be offended for what someone has done to another. This ensures the best possible outcome in terms of restitution occurring.
Blessed Are the Peacemakers
There is one additional reason where you can intervene in a situation where you have not been offended. This is where you are there to create peace between two parties.
Before you are willing to do this you must remember one key point about being a peacemaker: you are the one bringing peace because peace is not present in this relationship. This sounds like an obvious point, but the fact of the matter is that too often people come with the idea that one side is already right, and if they just correct the person who is wrong all will be well. That would be great if the person was willing to admit they were wrong, but the reality is that if they have not resolved the issue already, this person is pretty adamant that they are not going to admit fault.
This means that you must be the one who comes with peace to try to resolve the situation. You are coming as a mediator to try to bring reconciliation to this situation.
Being a peacemaker is not easy, but it is something that all of are capable of doing. We are all empowered by Christ to bring His peace wherever we go. Whenever Jesus sent out His Disciples He always told them to pray peace before entering any situation. For example in Luke 10:5 He told them:
5 “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’
I want you to understand that you may have the most loving and altruistic motives in helping resolve a conflict between two people, but if you do not bring peace you will resolve nothing. Satan will attack your attempts and you will lose. Animosity already exists between these two parties and therefore they must have peace to be able to resolve this issue.
I want you to also keep in mind that peace must be in you as well. You must have your own spirit at a place of peace or you will not be able to help others, because you will be uneasy yourself. This may mean praying peace on yourself before you begin any attempt to reconcile the two parties.
I want you to also understand that if you attempt to help resolve an issue, you may fail. They may not really want to have peace with each other and are perfectly content with being at odds with one another. Jesus continued in Luke 10:6 by saying:
6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you.
You can bring peace to a conflict, but if no one wants that peace then your attempt will fail. Be aware that this may happen.
I want you to also consider that if you are going to intervene in a conflict you must have some “right” to be involved. What I mean by this is that you cannot simply intervene because you think you should. There must have some relationship with the two sides so that they will accept your words and listen to you.
This is one area where the courts are finally starting to get it right. It used to be (and still may be in many places) that when a marriage was ending in divorce the two sides went to court and a judge was assigned to the case. Neither side asked for this judge and had any faith in his or her ability to make a good decision, yet they were forced to let this person make a decision for them. Often this meant that at least one side left bitter and angry at the judge. Now many states are letting the man and woman choose a mediator that makes the final decisions for the disillusionment of the marriage. This person was agreed upon by both sides and as such they are much more likely to be listened to than by a judge who is simply assigned to them.
This is the best case scenario for being a peacemaker in any conflict. If you are someone who is well respected or liked by both sides they are much more likely to listen to you and to accept your words. Think about a dispute between two brothers for a moment. The father comes to resolve the issue and they accept his decision. They do this because he not only has authority, but he should also be seen as impartial by both.
But this is where so many fail in being peacemakers. They do not come to resolve the conflict, but instead to choose sides. They make biased decisions and show a partiality for one person over the other. They lose their ability to create peace because they are coming with an ulterior motive, and this will always fail.
If a parent likes one child more than the other, or at least appears this way, the one who feels less loved will not truly accept the decision. He or she will be upset and feel that a decision was made that really benefits the other sibling more. This must be avoided by the parent.
It must also be avoided by all peacemakers. If you are to be a blessing you must come with a heart that is seeking true justice. There can be no other motive.
You must keep in mind that even as a peacemaker you have no real right to be involved in this conflict. You are not the victim or the offender and thus you are not entitled to be involved. You are appearing as a person who is seeking to resolve an issue between two people, not to be an advocate for one party. No advocates allowed!!!
Your right to be involved comes from your relationship with both parties and with their consent to include you. Now I understand that parents intervene in conflicts with their children all the time. In these cases they have a “right” to do this because they are attempting to maintain peace and order in their home. But if they are truly to resolve the conflict between the two they must demonstrate love and fairness or they will be ignored. (It is even best most often if you allow the children to resolve their own differences. This is the best solution.)
This is true of all peacemakers. You must show love and fairness or you too will be ignored. Your failure to do this will not create peace, but will in actuality only create a bigger divide between the two parties. So before you decide to be a “blessing” to anyone, check to see if any bias lives in you; if it does, then butt out!!!
Matthew 18
Jesus gave us the perfect road map to try to resolve conflicts between us. He tells us in Matthew 18:15-17:
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Now I am not going to spend a great deal of time on this because I have written a booklet on this whole process entitled Restoration, One to Another on this subject. If you want to understand this more fully you can read this and truly understand how to resolve issues.
This book actually arose from my completion of the Restoration book. I realized that many of the questions I received stemmed from people feeling they had a right to be offended at another person when no such offense was actually brought upon them. I was then inspired to ensure that others understood when they had a right to be offended.
There are two points in this teaching by Jesus that I want to discuss. The first is that this was Jesus’ explanation on how to settle matters of dispute between two Christian persons. It is not the only way to do this however. Too often I see people get very legalistic about these things and decide if a matter is not conducted in this way then you have no right to have your grievance resolved.
I see this happen a lot with persons who are more mature in their faith. A person who is newer to the faith will often be more intimidated by a person with more knowledge, because they feel less informed and more ignorant. This is especially true if the person who has offended them is the pastor, a deacon or a long-standing member of the church.
To be honest their feelings of intimidation are well founded. The more mature Christian is often so full of him or herself that they throw out Scripture to justify their actions in nearly every case, and so the less mature person does not confront them because they don’t know the Bible as well. They conclude that they have no right to correct someone who is so pious and righteous.
In this case, the only way that they may be able to approach another person is to have someone go with them. That person is not coming to confront in any way, but is there simply to let them know that it is acceptable to confront this other person about their offense. They are not an advocate, but are actually there more as a person who is bringing peace. They are ensuring that a resolution to the offense can occur, because the victim feels comfortable enough to confront the other person.
However, I see it many times. The more mature person gets all offended and throws their legalism into the whole matter. You cannot confront someone with another person present at first. This is unbiblical and so they ignore the process. The less mature person is rebuked and the likelihood is that the matter will never be resolved. This often leads to the less mature person leaving the church and having a very sour attitude toward Christianity. This cannot be tolerated.
While I understand Jesus’ Words and His Word is always perfect, He was not saying that this is the only way to resolve an issue. What He was teaching is that if there is an issue between two “brothers” you must resolve it. You must rout out conflict and ensure that peace is present; otherwise Satan will have a foothold.
The second part I want to address is the part about bringing “two or three witnesses.” We discussed in this book the fact that you cannot be bringing people to your side. Conflict resolution is not about building the biggest army of supporters. It is about resolving conflicts.
When Jesus said to bring two or three witnesses He was not saying to bring two or three people who would see you deny the offense. These men or women were not coming to testify later to the fact that you denied the offense. Instead these people are supposed to have witnessed the original offense that started this whole conflict. They are brought by the victim to testify to the fact that they actually witnessed the offense.
This is not usually what happens. Most people bring their “witnesses” to attempt to bully the offender into admitting their guilt. These witnesses have no knowledge of what really happened. They heard the story of their friend and came to support them, but are not witnesses. Then when the person is confronted by a large body of people these witnesses tell the group how the offender refused to acknowledge their guilt. This is not how Jesus wanted this to work, and this is not how it works. This kind of evidence is hearsay, which is not even allowed in our courts. Witnesses must have actually witnessed the offense or they have no right to be involved in this process.
There is one last point I want to make in regards to this. Jesus gave this process for one reason – reconciliation. This was so that a victim could get closure and so that an offender could make amends. It was not intended to get people mad at each other, or to rally a large group of people against another person. This is not what Jesus had in mind.
What He wanted was for there not to be conflict amongst the Body of Believers. Jesus knew that if conflict existed this gave the Devil a foothold. When the Devil gets involved he has a way of making a small fire turn into a raging inferno. He makes a small conflict into all out war. Jesus did not want this to happen.
He then gave this process to the Disciples to ensure that these conflicts did not become wars. To do so He gave very clear instructions on who could be involved in resolving a conflict, and how they were to resolve it.
It may not be necessary to follow the exact process that Jesus dictated here. But it is mandatory to keep the principles of what He said. What I mean by this is that no person has a right to intervene in this matter unless they are directly involved or unless they are present to bring peace. He is telling us that three groups of people exist in a conflict: the victim, the offender, and witnesses to the offense. If you are not any one of these people, then butt out!!!
If you want to understand this principle more, I encourage you to read my book on this subject.
All Sin is Against God
When you come down to it, all sin is against God. You may have offended another by your actions, but understand that God is the One that you have truly offended, because it is His Law that you have transgressed. If you stole from another, you broke God’s Law, and have offended Him. If you gossiped about another you have transgressed God’s Law and have offended against Him. All your transgressions against another were really done against God as well.
Consider the life of David. He had an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, and she had become pregnant. He had devised a plan where her husband would have relations with her and it would look like this was his baby, but her husband, Uriah, threw a monkey wrench in those plans. Desperate to keep his secret, David plotted to have Uriah killed and when he died, David took Bathsheba for himself.
Later the prophet Nathan is sent by God to confront David on his behavior. After the whole affair and plot are revealed David says in 2 Samuel 12:13:
13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”
It seems to me that David most sinned against Uriah. He took his wife and had him killed. He also sinned against his own wife, and against his children, and against Bathsheba for that matter, but this was not where he focused his admission. Instead he recognized that God was the One he had really sinned against.
All sin that we commit is really against God. While we may be harming others as well, God is the primary victim in all of our sin.
You may wonder why I am adding this section to this book. My reasoning is that I want you to understand your place in accusing others of wrongs.
If a person does something that directly wrongs you, they steal from you, gossip about you, hit you, harm your children, you have the right to be offended. You have the right to look at the situation and know that you have been wronged. This allows you to accuse and to seek restitution for the transgressions of another. However, if you are not the person who has been directly wronged then I want you to truly understand your place in the order of rights to seek restitution.
The offender has first of all committed an offense against God. He is the primary lien holder of the debt that is owed by the person who has committed the offense. For any of you who have more than one mortgage on your home this language will make much more sense, so let me explain this so that it is clear to all.
You borrow money to buy a home. The bank that lent you the money is the primary lien holder of the property, which means that if you fail to pay the debt then they can take it from you. It also means that money you receive must be paid to this bank first before you can pay any other bank that holds a lien on the property.
Now if later you take out an additional loan, a second mortgage, this new company is the secondary lien holder. This means that if the house is foreclosed on then they are not allowed to collect any money until the first lien holder is satisfied that their debt is paid. They cannot demand money until the first bank is completely paid.
This is the way that all debt is paid. There is one out there that has a greater right to demand payment ahead of others.
Now consider yourself in the situation of thinking someone has offended you. God is the primary lien holder of all debt. Now that debt can be paid by the person claiming the blood of Jesus as payment and God forgives the debt. The Primary Lien Holder is satisfied through Jesus’ payment.
Then comes the person who was actually the victim of the offense. They have the right to demand restitution for what has happened, whatever that may look like. Once they are satisfied, then by God’s Law the offender is redeemed. The secondary lien holder has now been satisfied.
Since the offender is now redeemed there is nothing else that he or she needs to do to resolve any issues. Even if you think that you are owed something, God has determined that all debts have been paid and that the person is no longer liable to anyone. You cannot claim to be owed something believing that you are the third lien holder. The issue is complete and no further action is needed.
What this should tell you is that if you are seeking some kind of apology or compensation for the action of another that did not directly affect you, then it is time to move on. God is not going to grant you what you are looking for.
By the point your claim is heard by God He is going to say, “Ok, they paid their debt to me, and they paid their debt to the person they directly offended. Why do you think you are entitled to anything?” The answer is you are not, and God knows it. You should know it too.
Looking back at our home mortgage example I want you to also realize that a bank cannot claim a mortgage against a home unless they actually lent money on that home. They cannot go to a court and seek to become a lien holder unless they can demonstrate that they are owed some sort of debt (at least legally they cannot).
What happens in many of these situations where someone takes offense against another is that they have determined that they are owed a lien where no debt was created. They want payment for something that they did not earn.
In the past years during this housing crisis, many banks were doing this as well. They were creating mortgage notes that they said entitled them to ownership of homes. The fact is that they were lying and they got caught in this lie.
I am sure that many of us think this is wrong. This is corrupt and unethical for a bank to try to claim they are owed money when they are not. The same is true for us. If we are claiming to be owed a debt when we are not owed this we too are corrupt and unethical.
John 8
John 8 contains the story of the woman who is brought to Jesus after being caught in adultery. In John 8:2-11 we read:
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
In my opinion, this is one of the most misunderstood stories in the whole Bible. Everyone believes that this is a story about God forgiving all of our sins, and how we should not judge the actions of others, because we are all sinners as well. But this is not what this story is about. Instead it is a story about being lawful in the way that you pass judgments.
The Law demanded that anyone that committed adultery be put to death. Leviticus 20:10 states:
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
In this story a group of men drag a woman caught in adultery to Jesus and demand that He impose the punishment that the Law demands – death! Jesus could have totally satisfied what the Law stated should happen to a person caught in adultery. He could have said to stone her. But this would not have been lawful.
Instead He tells them that if they are without sin they should stone her. Are they sinless? Of course not. No one is. All of us sin and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 6:23). Imposing judgment against another has nothing to with being sinless, for if this was the case no one could judge the actions of another person.
The reality is that judgment does not come from man anyway. God created laws where He determined what was right and wrong and it is through that Law that we live and bring about the justice of God.
So why were they unable to stone her? What was their sin?
Look back at the Law and then compare the story. Both the man (the adulterer) and the woman (the adulteress) were to be stoned. When Jesus told them that if they were without sin they could throw the first stone He was in essence asking, “Where is the man?”
Only the woman was brought for judgment. This was not lawful. It violated the Law, which made them unable to accuse her because they were not lawfully imposing the judgments of God.
What we see here is an unequal weight and measure.
An unequal weight and measure is when you apply one standard to one person and a different standard to another. In the most literal sense it is when you would use different weights so that you could cheat certain people by not paying them as much for their goods as you paid others. But in a universal sense it relates to when you use one standard to weigh the words and actions of a person while using a different standard against a different person.
Do you know how the Lord feels about this? Proverb 20:23:
23 The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him.
He hates differing standards. God expects us to treat each person the same, no matter what our relationship is to them. We should not have one standard for Believers and another standard for unbelievers. We should not accept certain behaviors from our friends and family, but not accept them in others. This is detested by God.
But the problem is that this is something that all of us do. A close friend commits some form of transgression. Let’s say they are gossiping about someone at church. We don’t say a word to them about this, but when we see another person who we don’t know or don’t like as well doing the same thing we are quick to criticize them for their unlawful conduct. This is unjust to God and is not allowed.
The men had brought this woman to be condemned by Jesus, but along the way they concluded that the man was not guilty of the same offense as the woman. We do not know who this man was, but somewhere they decided he did not deserve to die, yet she did. God condemns this. This is wrong.
Now are there some exceptions to always applying equal weights and measures. In a matter of speaking yes and no. Clearly I do not hold a three year old child to the same standard as I do a twelve year old. If I tell a three year old not to take something and they do I may not punish them as severely as a twelve year old, because they do not know as well as the twelve year old. So yes, there is a different standard, however, I would apply the same measure against all three year olds. In other words I could not forgive my three year old nephew for taking something he shouldn’t have taken, but I don’t do this for a different three year old. That would be wrong. The same standard must apply across the board.
I bring this up because often our right to accuse is completely eliminated by using different measures in which to accuse. Let me give you an example.
Recently I was walking in a park when a man stopped me to ask for my help in finding his ring. While I was helping him search he hit me in the back of the head and robbed me. Needless to say I was upset and I really wanted justice against this man. However, God had other plans for me.
You see God remembered that about ten years ago a man who was my friend hit me to take something he wanted from me. When I had the chance to seek justice for this I chose to forgive. Why did my friend deserve mercy but this other man did not? The answer is he did not. I was applying an unequal weight and measure.
I chose to forgive because this man was my friend. At that point I had set a standard, and God reminded me of that standard.
What I want you to see is that once you set a standard of conduct, how you will weigh and measure justice, God expects you to stick to that standard, no matter who the person is. You can accuse only if you have been just and fair in your accusation.
The men were not just. They were sinners because they were accusing the woman but not the man. This is detestable to God and Jesus pointed this out to them. Notice too that they all knew that the manner in which they were judging was wrong. They had all committed an unjust act, and so they left.
What makes a great man or woman of the Bible is their willingness to see it God’s way. They may not always do as God demands or asks, but they know that God and His way of doing things is always right. A fair and equal measure is one of the foundational principles of the Bible. An eye for an eye, do unto others as you have them do unto you, love thy neighbor as thyself are guiding principles of what God teaches, but they are all founded in the principle of the equal weight and measure.
There will be times where people will offend against you. I have no doubt about it, but before you get on your pedestal to start accusing them of wrongs, ask yourself if you even have the right to accuse. Ask yourself if you have set the same standard to all persons. It is only if you have done this that you can then accuse others of their wrongs. If you have failed to do so then you have lost your right. Do not do something detestable in God’s eyes. Be fair and just. The Bible demands this.
I want you to understand that if you fail to do this you will be disciplined by God. In Micah 6:11 God asks:
11 Shall I acquit someone with dishonest scales, with a bag of false weights?
Do you think God is going to acquit you for your wrongs when you are applying unequal measures?
The Forefathers Understood the Bibles Definition of Offense
Some of the wisest men the world has ever seen are the men that created and wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. They found the best ideas from people like John Locke and books and writings like the Bible and the Magna Carta and put together these two documents.
Thomas Jefferson, while not a deeply Christian man, understood God and the Bible quite well. The Bill of Rights was one of the crowning achievements of his life. It truly demonstrated his knowledge and wisdom related to the Bible.
A person accused of a crime had rights that were given by God. Where did those rights come from? They came from the Bible.
You have the right to a fair trial, where the judge is not corrupted or bribed to rule in a certain way. This was true in the Bible as well. God condemned corrupt judges and demanded that they rule with true fairness and justice.
In the Bill of Rights a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The Bible too demands that a person must be shown to be guilty. In fact, for a person to even be accused of a crime two witnesses must come forward to establish any matter.
Deuteronomy 19:15 states:
15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
In other words, nothing is true unless two people can confirm that they saw the offense for themselves. Notice how this principle fits with Jesus’ Words in Matthew 18. Remember there when a person refused to acknowledge their offense that you brought two or three witnesses to confirm the matter. They were coming to verify that what was being said was true. They were coming to confirm the principle of Deuteronomy 19:15.
The forefathers also understood that you have rights, but that those rights could not infringe upon any other person’s rights. For example, you have the right to free speech. You can say anything you want, even if it causes bitterness in another person. For example, I have the right to say that a person of another race is stupid or sub-human, I can say that women are weak, or that homosexuals are horrible sinners. The Constitution protects my right to say those things, without fear of reciprocity. These things may make them very angry, and they have the right to be bitter about them. My words are unfair and inaccurate, and they are rooted in hate, but they are not offensive. They did not infringe upon any woman, minority, or homosexual’s rights.
However, if I were to use my speech and say we should kill blacks, or rape women, or beat homosexuals, and I incite others to take these actions, then I would be wrong, and would have created an offense. I violated their rights by endangering them, and thus I should be charged with a crime.
The forefathers wanted people to speak their minds because it is only through this kind of open discussion that not only are we able to correct inaccurate stereotypes, but we are also made aware that these kinds of ideas exist. Truly racism cannot be defeated if it is silenced. We need to know how people think so that we can educate others to the truth. This is what the forefathers had in mind. They knew that each person has the right to speak his or her mind, to pursue their own form of happiness, and to possess things that make them happy, as long as they did not harm others or violate others’ rights.
In the Bible there are 614 commandments given by God, summed up in the Ten Commandments. In fact, Jesus said all these commandments could be summed up in two. Matthew 22:37-40:
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The forefathers also understood that all the rights and responsibilities of each person and the rights of the government could be summed up in ten amendments. They included these to say to the government and to all of its Citizens that you have rights and protections, and no one’s rights are more important than anyone else’s. All persons are equal, and an equal weight and measure should be applied to all.
The Declaration of Independence confirms this very ideal. “We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” This is not something that needs to be argued. It is evident to every person. All are equal.
It is unfortunate that this was not practiced as it should have been. They did not truly live this ideal, as evident by how blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Chinese men and women have been treated in American history, however, they did confirm what God had said from the very start. Leviticus 19:36:
36 Use honest scales and honest weights…
Be just in fair in how you treat others. This should be self-evident to you that you should do this.
A Governmental View of Offense
You know what is the problem with most governments? They get it wrong. They take a perfectly understandable idea and they corrupt it or “correct” it until they have it all messed up. It is like I saw on a bumper sticker one time:
If it ain’t broke the government will keep fixing it until it is.
That sure is true. Over the years the governments of the world have decided to regulate and criminalize behavior that is not offensive as if it is. They want us all to get along and for there to be nothing said that seems “offensive,” so they have created laws to produce a new form of offense. This most frequently comes in the form of what is referred to as “hate speech.”
Now let me say up front that I do not like or condone racist, bigoted, ignorant speech. It is moronic to me, but it is also not offensive. I don’t care if you like what someone is saying or not. If they are calling blacks the “N” word this may be stupid or ignorant, but it is not offensive. You have not been wronged by someone saying this. You have not been offended. You may be bitter, but no one harmed you.
I see all the time that if anyone uses the word “queer” or “fag” they are immediately labeled as a homophobe. I don’t know if this is true or not, but the reality of the circumstance is that they have every right to use these words. There is not offensive. It may be embittering, but it is not offensive.
But here is where the government is getting it wrong. This “hate” speech is labeled as offensive. Remember we said that an offense occurs when someone has transgressed or violated your rights. You do not have the right to not be called names. You don’t have the right to only hear kind and courteous things about yourself. That is not part of your right to happiness.
But here is what you have the right to do. You have the right to ignore that person. You have the right to call them names back. You have the right to be hateful and bitter and ignorant just as they are. You have the right to listen or not listen. You have these God-given rights. But you do not have the right to be offended.
The government, in its attempt to make us all get along, has created a society of very thin-skinned people who cannot handle the least bit of criticism. Our kids can’t play tag in school because someone will get offended because they were “it.” We must give trophies to all sports participants, because we don’t anyone offended that they did not get a trophy. And we must remove all hateful, embittering speech because someone’s feelings may get hurt. We are getting too easily offended.
Now I will be the first to say that I don’t like people to speak in this way to me. I don’t like to be called names or to be put down or made fun of, but that does not mean I have the right to be offended by it. Stereotypes and ignorant labels are part of life, unfortunately, and they are something that we must all overcome if we are truly to reach a level of being like Christ.
I mean consider the names Christ was called. The Pharisees accused Him of being from the Devil. Who would like to be accused of this? I think you would agree this is pretty offensive. But He never got all upset and went to the Romans demanding they be punished for calling Him names. He never got all offended and demanded that God punish them. He didn’t start beating people up or call down lighting on anyone. Instead He debated back and showed them they were wrong. Don’t be offended. Just state the truth and let God do the rest.
When You are Bitter…
As we have gone through this book we have made two conclusions about your right to be offended and to make an accusation against another related to that offense. First you must be the direct victim of an offense. Someone must have wronged you directly, violating your rights or committing a transgression against you directly.
Secondly, you must be applying an equal weight and measure when dealing with this problem. You cannot be holding a big grudge against one person, while ignoring the actions of another. This would be wrong and removes your right to accuse.
With these two stipulations in mind we must now state the obvious. Most things we say we are “offended” about we really have no right to be offended about at all. In other words, most times we are only allowed to be bitter.
We get bitter about a lot of things, and that is perfectly acceptable. God said it was fine to be mad as long as you did not sin when you did so (Ephesians 4:26). Being angry is a natural emotion.
But I want you to understand two things in relation to this. First, you are not allowed to use your anger to accomplish anything in terms of restitution. As an example, you cannot tell someone you are mad at what they did and that they should have to apologize to you. You are mad, and so what? You can be bitter all you want, but that entitles you to nothing.
Secondly, bitterness and anger need to be released at some point in a loving way. What I mean by that is you need to let go of them and be forgiving for whatever you were harboring bitterness about.
Remember that bitterness is a distaste for the actions or words of another. This is your reaction to finding something that someone has done to be upsetting to you. You can be angry about these things, but at some point you must let it go, not only to ensure that you can keep the body of Christ from having a rift, but also for your own mental and physical health.
Christ wants us to get along. We need each other to accomplish that mission of God. No person is unimportant in God’s eyes. This is why Jesus came to save the whole world. Not a part of it. Not certain people, but the whole world. To accomplish the mission of saving everyone, we need every laborer available, and if we have shut out certain persons because we don’t like them then this will not help us to accomplish the mission of our Father. Thus, we need to let go of our frustrations and be forgiving of others.
Forgiveness is not an option – it is a requirement. We are required to forgive those as we ask God to forgive us. Lord knows we are all in need of a lot of forgiveness from God, and when we pray the Lord’s pray, (“forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us”) we are setting a weight and measure with God.
Oh here we are with weights and measures again. Don’t we see that God thinks they are important? He is having us say a prayer directly associated to them.
When we pray this prayer we are setting a measure for God. We are saying to forgive us in the same way we forgive others. This is our contract with God. I know you are bitter about the things that other people have done, but so is God bitter with you for things you have done, yet you are asking God to forgive you. It is time that you forgive in the same way.
We all need mercy. We all need others to let go of the bitterness they hold against us, and if you look at it clearly, it is better for us to forgive and let go of that bitterness.
Bitterness and anger make you unhealthy. They harm your heart, cause high blood pressure, strokes, digestive disorders, tics, hair loss, and much more. They really do nothing good for you. It is like a pastor once told me; bitterness is like drinking a poison and expecting the other person to die. You are only hurting yourself physically and emotionally by being embittered.
In addition, no one likes to be around someone who is bitter. It is not fun and very uncomfortable. Do yourself a favor, and do a favor for the people around you by letting go and forgiving. You will find that your physical health improves, and so will your mental health.
I hope this has helped you to understand when you have a right to be offended. As you can see it is not in many circumstances. Even when you are offended I encourage you to forgive. I encourage you to be like Christ who has every right to be offended at us, yet chooses to forgive. It is our calling and I pray you will embrace that calling.
|
