The reasons I believe Scripture now bars me from nearly all church activities, service and giving until offenses two other believers hold against me are fully resolved--if that ever happens--and what I plan to do now.
There are two situations in my life in which another believer has cut me off. In both situations I admit that I was the offender–the one against whom the offense is held–that the offenses were substantial. not trivial–and my church leadership already knows the facts, so I don’t need to spell them out here.
I would probably just let both matters go and allow myself to be cut off without raising any issue, even though both of the other people involved are quite important to me, were it not for one very inconvenient scripture:
Therefore, if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
When I read these verses literally, as any old fool would, they tell me I shouldn’t give an offering while I am aware that a brother or sister holds an offense against me. Instead, I must go and “be reconciled” before I may offer my gift. The burden is on me–I must go. The test isn’t whether I tried to be reconciled, it is whether my attempt was fully successful. As long as the other person holds the offense against me, I am disqualified.
Of course, as anyone preaching this passage will tell you, the main–nearly the only–way in which Israelites who were neither Priests nor Levites could serve in worship was by presenting offerings. So not being able to present offerings was an almost blanket prohibition on all service and collective worship. It was simply not to be done while the worshipper was aware that someone held a grudge against them.
All that mattered was the existence of the grudge. It could be totally unjustified or extremely well justified. It could be guilt for murder or the offense of a minor social insult. It could even be a debt which an objective judge would say had been paid in full a long time ago. If a grudge was held, at all, it was totally disqualifying.
Most people I’ve heard or read teaching about these verses add some kind of qualification or limitation to make the command more “practical.” Something like, “first go and be reconciled to your brother, or do all you can properly do to seek reconciliation, then come and offer your gift.” But there are three problems with these suggested additions.
First, nothing in the verses or their context suggests any limitation. In fact, the context suggests there is no limitation on the literal application of verses 23 and 24 other than that the offended person is a “brother.” The immediately preceding verses deal with the potentially fatal effects of unresolved anger:
“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Thus, anger can lead not only to murder, per se, but also, and more commonly, to contempt– “the feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.) The feeling that the other person is no longer fully human and can now be ignored, disregarded, cut off–and trampled upon or murdered if this is convenient to the angry person’s purposes. Exactly the same attitude discussed in the previous posts!
Because unresolved anger leads to contempt, “therefore” a would-be worshipper who is aware that another person is angry with them (or that the anger has progressed to contempt!) must go to that person and actually resolve the issue before participating in worship.
The immediately following verses also emphasize that the matter must be actually resolved; simply trying isn’t enough:
Come to good terms with your accuser quickly, while you are with him on the way to court, so that your accuser will not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will not be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last quadrans.
Here. again, as in the parable of the two debtors discussed in another post, the person who owes the debt of the offense is sent to debtor’s prison if the matter is not fully resolved promptly enough. This is the second problem with the “trying is enough” interpretation. The debtor must stay there until the last tiny coin owed on the debt is paid. There is no excuse for attempting reconciliation and failing to achieve it. What exactly paying the full amount of a debt which can’t be measured in money means I don’t know–but I’m guessing it means that I’m in the same position as the second debtor in the parable of the two debtors. In both situations, both of us, me and the people I’ve offended, are simply locked up, unable to serve or to live (or to do so effectively) until the party I have offended releases me. When that happens, we both go free.
Until then, hello Purgatory–which is on Earth?
The third problem is that just “trying,” unsuccessfully, to be reconciled does nothing to overcome the inability to feel that believers on the other side of the offense are a part of the Body. This is the leprosy-like aspect of the grudge, and also the reason I won’t be able to take the Lord’s Supper until both situations are fully resolved, if they ever are.
The last problem is a procedural problem. Here I’m looking at the situation as an old fool who is also a retired litigation paralegal.
Matthew 5:24 tells me that, as an offender who is aware of an unreconciled offense, I must “go” to the offended believer and “be reconciled.” But it does not tell me how to go about doing so, once I “go.” And if the other person won’t receive me, that’s the end–not of the offense, but of my ability to serve God–unless and until their attitude changes.
Matthew 18 provides a general procedure for resolving offenses within a church (discussed here). The problem with this procedure is that it can only be initiated by the offended person. So, unless there is some strange procedural tweak like the ones that ultimately let the common law writ of trespass be used for nearly everything–and I don’t see any evidence that there is–I can’t initiate it. So if those I’ve offended bypass it and go straight to cutting me off–which they have–Matthew 18 is no help. There is also an instruction in Galatians 6 that lets anyone who “catches” me in a fault come to me to correct me. But if the person who “catches” me is not the person who I offended, the offended person isn’t involved in this procedure at all. Only my behavior is corrected, and any penalties for the benefit of the church are applied. The offense itself isn’t dealt with.
The only formal procedure which may be initiated by anyone other than the offended believer to address an offense appears to be mediation, as suggested by Paul’s request to his pastor friend in Philippians 4:2-3. But it isn’t clear that I may initiate this. It may have to be initiated by a church or its leaders. In the Philippians passage, it was the Apostle Paul who initiated it. Nothing in the passage prohibits me from asking for it, but nothing clearly authorizes me to ask, either. So I will ask but be prepared to hear only silence in response.
Next: Moron Mutual Imprisonment: Binding and Loosing and Church Discipline are Parts of the Same Context, Matthew 18:15-20.
Email me: Ian Johnson.
Pages With Further Supporting Scriptures:
There are Two Things God Can’t Do!!!
The Opposite of Love is Indifference
Didn’t Jesus tell us how to handle offenses between believers?
Leprosy–and members cutting each other off
What Does the Lord’s Table have to do with this?
Both Debtors in Matthew 18:21-35 Ended Up in Debtors’ Prison
How should we respond together to the Lord’s discipline? (dated 9/3/24)
What is a root of bitterness? (dated 8/30/24)
Related Posts
To Find Mercy, Show Mercy; To Find Freedom, Set Others Free
The Golden Rule: Showing Myself to Be God’s Child
The Golden Rule: I love my enemies because I want them to do the same to me- Paul also approved of mediation of disputes between Christians by other believers
- The Apostle Paul approved of arbitration of disputes between Christians by other believers
- Other People Were Affected, Too—The Lord’s “Other Servants”
Pingback: Both of the Debtors in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant Ended up in Debtors’ Prison – The Fool Who Would Be Holy