“Offend”–That Word Might Not Mean What You Think it Means

In a confrontation with Jordan Peterson (here), British journalist Cathy Newman asked this question.

“Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?”

The question has an obvious answer in a free society. Freedom of speech presumes that personal offense and discomfort in the debate will be part of the process. In fact, it is simply impossible to imagine any type of world at all in which someone won’t be offended in some way. It is just not possible unless a society is built up based upon classes—those who can be offended with impunity, and those who cannot.

Within the church, we sometimes have a similar misunderstanding. The dilemma focuses on the word “offend.” Most of the modern versions resolve this misunderstanding, but the use of “offend” in the KJV sometimes gives people the wrong idea. Let’s consider two passages.

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (Matthew 17:27)

The most common understanding of “to offend” today is “to cause someone to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful.” (here). Using this definition, Jesus would be telling the disciples that because the civil authorities might be upset about it, it’s a good idea to pay the tax. He then miraculously provided the means to do so.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)

The natural modern reading of this verse would seem to indicate that Jesus is saying that anyone who emotionally upsets a child or young person has committed a grave sin.

The problem with both these passages and others where the English word “offend” is used, the Greek word in the passage is a form of skandalizo which means to “place a stumbling block in front of” or “to cause one to stumble or fall.” The idea in both these passages is not about making someone feel bad or annoyed, but rather to sin against another person by causing them to sin, stumble, or fall.

It’s about sin, not hurt feelings.

We must take great care that we do not sin against one another and that we do not place stumbling blocks in the way of others. However, our discipleship obligations to one another require that we say hard, uncomfortable, and sometimes emotionally distressing things to one another. Certainly, the Pharisees were distressed by Jesus’ denunciation of them in Matthew 23. Paul’s condemnation of the offending brother in 1 Corinthians 5 caused the entire Corinthian church extreme distress by Paul’s own admission (2 Corinthians 8:8-13). Such distress, such sorrow, brought on by the rebuke of a brother is one of the ways that God moves us toward a deeper, fuller, or more obedient Christian life.

There are limitations.

Constructive wounds must be administered within the loving bonds of the familial relationship of the church body where we have given one another permission to challenge. And even in that situation, we confront one another based upon biblical truth and not personal agendas or opinions.

Thicker skin is not the answer.

The solution to the wounds of a friend is not to develop a thicker skin. Thick skin is useful when someone is carnally taking shots at us. The rebuke of a friend calls for humble sensitivity and sorrowful repentance.

A world and a church where hurt feelings are not allowed is not a realistic or desirable goal. Thank God for the wounds of a friend.