West Port Experiment

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Rise of this Following Treatise

Having had occasion to study the Book of Revelation, and while considering the Epistle to the Church in Pergamum in the second chapter, I found reason to speak somewhat about scandal because of several doctrines that clearly arise from that passage. On this occasion I first attempted to write something on the doctrine of scandal in general, intending to spend only a page or two on it, as I had done elsewhere on other subjects. When this portion was completed, I found that the passage also gave occasion to speak about public church offenses, as they are the object of church discipline and censures. Being convinced that this subject was not inappropriate to discuss, I yielded to spending some thoughts upon it also. This grew to a much greater length than I had first intended, or than was suitable for a digression.

When this had been completed, and all further thoughts on the subject laid aside, it again occurred to me to consider doctrinal scandals, or scandalous errors. Reflecting that the scandals mentioned in this passage are of that nature, and that such scandals are very common in our own time, I also undertook to gather together whatever thoughts the Lord might provide concerning them. From this arose the third part of this treatise.

When that section was nearly finished, there arose yet a fourth part of the same subject, one that had never before entered my mind, namely, scandalous divisions within the Church. At first my mind and inclination were greatly opposed to treating this subject, knowing not only that it is difficult in itself, but also that it lies far beyond my own abilities, for I am altogether unfit to venture upon such a matter. Nevertheless, considering how this direction had arisen, and how the Lord had helped me through the previous parts, I resolved to follow it, at least until it should become evident what His will might be for me in it. Accordingly, I continued until it reached the point at which it now stands, whatever its worth may be.

This is the true origin and occasion of this treatise and of its several parts. For that reason I have retained its original form, namely, by first laying down some general doctrines drawn from this passage of Scripture. If there should afterward appear any closer connection with the second and third chapters of Revelation than with other portions of Scripture, this simple account of the treatise’s origin should sufficiently satisfy anyone concerning that matter. Therefore we shall say no more of this, but shall first lay down the foundations drawn from the text itself, and then proceed with the treatise, which is divided into four parts for the reasons already mentioned.

The Grounds of this Treatise

Among the many things that troubled the Church in the primitive age, scandal, or offense, was one of the chief. The many instructions that Scripture gives concerning it, together with the many rebukes directed against it, demonstrate that it is a principal part of a Christian’s duty to walk rightly in this respect, and that neglect of it is a great evidence of spiritual carelessness.

On verse 6 we show that one of the grievous sins of the Nicolaitans was their disregard for offending others, their lack of concern about giving offense, and their indifference toward scandal. Here the Lord presents the same fault by comparing it with the conduct of Balaam (v. 14), whose guilt is aggravated by the fact that he taught Balak to place a stumbling block before Israel.

From this passage several doctrines may be gathered. First, there is such a fault as laying stumbling blocks before others, and men are naturally prone to fall into it by their conduct. Second, men ought to conduct themselves in such a way that they do not offend others or place stumbling blocks before them. It is therefore not enough merely to avoid stumbling themselves (even if that could be be separated from the other); they must also be careful not to cause others to stumble. Third, the Lord pays special attention to how men conduct themselves in relation to others in this matter, and He is greatly provoked when He sees anyone guilty of such offenses. Fourth, the devil has always labored to multiply offenses within the Church and to persuade some to place stumbling blocks before others. Fifth, nothing is more harmful to the Church or more destructive to souls than the abundance of offenses and the failure of men to walk carefully in avoiding them. For this reason our Lord pronounces a twofold “woe” in Matthew 18, presenting it as a judgment even more dreadful than sword or pestilence. Sixth, we may also conclude that corrupt doctrine is seldom found without accompanying offenses, and that those who spread false teaching are ordinarily careless in this respect. Seventh, offenses frequently accompany the rise and beginning of Christ’s work among a people. These tares of scandal are commonly sown at such times. Eighth, some offenses are public in nature, and church officers are obliged to take notice of them. It is offensive to Christ when such matters are overlooked or neglected. Ninth, church officers—even those who are otherwise approved in both their conduct and ministry—may nevertheless fall into this sin, as is evident from comparing the letters to Pergamum and Thyatira. Tenth, even when officers are guilty of this fault, it is not blameworthy for members whose own conduct is pure to continue in communion with such a church, provided that its ordinances remain otherwise pure.

PART I. THE SUM OF IT. (BOOK I)

These doctrines being contained in the passage, and scandal being a principal part of the charge brought against the Nicolaitans—or at least a great aggravation of their guilt—and because it is one of the most necessary matters for a Christian’s daily walk to guard carefully against giving offense, there is good reason to speak of this subject, especially in an age in which offenses abound. We shall consider it both as it concerns private persons and church judicatories, or, in other words, private scandals and public ones. Concerning the former, we shall treat these five matters: first, to show what an offense is; second, to show how it is given; third, to present some considerations that ought to discourage the giving of offense; fourth, to show what weight this matter ought to have upon a Christian in his daily walk; and fifth, to point out some directions that should be carefully observed when offenses arise and multiply.

CHAPTER I. Several Distinctions of Scandal

For the clearer explanation of the first two matters, we shall first lay down several distinctions. We should observe that by offense here we do not simply mean that which actually displeases or grieves another person in every case. There is a great difference between displeasing and offending, just as there is also between pleasing and edifying. A person may be displeased and yet be edified; another may be well satisfied and yet be offended.

First, therefore, we must distinguish between displeasing and offending. In this discussion, offense is not opposed to a person’s being pleased, but rather to his edification. Thus, offense or stumbling is, in short, anything that does, or may, hinder another person’s spiritual edification, whether that person is pleased or displeased by it. This is evident from comparing Romans 14:13 with verses 20 and 21. What Paul first calls a stumbling block or an offense, he afterward explains to be anything that may become the occasion of another person’s fall, causing him to stumble, grow weak, or falter in the course of holiness, just as an obstacle in a race may hinder a runner or place him in danger of falling. From this image the expression itself is drawn.

Second, scandal is either only given, only taken, or both given and taken. It is only given when someone places before another something that is naturally fitted to cause him to fall into sin, even though the other person does not actually fall because of it. If the thing is, by its own nature, conducive to sin, it is nevertheless an offense or stumbling block. Thus Christ said to Peter, “You are an offense to me” (Matt. 16), although nothing Peter said could actually cause Christ to stumble. Yet Peter’s counsel was, by its very nature, a stumbling block.

An offense is only taken when no real occasion has been given, but someone performs what is not merely lawful but even necessary, and others, through the corruption of their own hearts, take offense at it and stumble over it. Thus the Pharisees were offended by Christ (Matt. 15:12), though He never gave offense to anyone. This commonly characterizes wicked men, who stumble where no stumbling block exists and, as Proverbs 4:19 says, “do not know what makes them stumble.” This is commonly called passive offense, while the former is called active offense.

An offense is both given and taken when there is, on the one hand, something capable of drawing another person into sin, and, on the other hand, a willingness to receive that temptation, so that the bait is accepted. Such was the stumbling block that Balaam placed before Israel. Ordinarily this is the way offenses operate among men, whose corruptions are quickly stirred by every temptation. Thus Peter gave offense to Barnabas in Galatians 2, and Barnabas took that offense when he too was carried away into hypocrisy.

It is this active scandal that properly belongs to our present inquiry and is chiefly intended here. In short, it is any word or deed that, in itself, is fitted either to lead another person into sin or to weaken him in his spiritual course, whether in regard to holiness or comfort, and this whether the person is actually stumbled by it or not, and whether the one giving the offense intended such an effect or not. In all of this we should remember that a single act may be offensive in many different respects, just as one action may violate several commandments and therefore be sinful in more than one way.

Third, there are doctrinal offenses and practical offenses. Doctrinal offenses arise from matters of judgment, when men publish false teaching and thereby place a stumbling block before others. This is what our Lord describes as breaking a commandment and teaching others to do the same (Matt. 5:19). Sometimes this also extends to matters of practice, when sinful conduct is defended by false doctrine, as the Nicolaitans attempted to defend their own practices. Practical offenses, without any accompanying doctrinal error, occur when a person’s doctrine remains sound, yet he falls into some course of conduct which, though unaccompanied by any verbal defense, is nevertheless naturally calculated to lead others into sin. Thus David’s adultery was a scandal. So also the priests caused the people to stumble at the Law. In the same way, every public or widely known sinful action becomes offensive because it sets a harmful example or otherwise influences others toward sin.

Fourth, offenses may be distinguished according to the nature of the matter involved. Some consist of things that are plainly sinful in themselves, and are therefore offensive by their very nature. Thus all false doctrine and all publicly sinful practices are offenses. Other matters are not inherently sinful, yet possess an appearance of evil, according to 1 Thessalonians 5:22. Such are dangerous or ambiguous expressions in doctrine that have been, or are commonly, abused, as well as practices that fail to exhibit the honesty and good reputation which every Christian ought to cultivate, according to Philippians 4:8–9. In the former sense, David declared that he would not even take the names of idols upon his lips (Ps. 16), because others held them in excessive reverence. Of the latter kind was Peter’s withdrawal and dissimulation in Galatians 2, because his conduct appeared to support the continued distinction between Jew and Gentile. For the same reason Paul refused to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3), and likewise condemned eating within idol temples.

Still other offenses concern matters that are otherwise lawful and indifferent, though not necessary. Such were the eating of certain meats, or food that had been offered to idols in the primitive church. It was, in itself, indifferent to eat such food in the house of a heathen, and therefore at times lawful. Yet it was not indifferent to eat it within an idol’s temple, because there it bore the appearance of honoring the idol. Neither was it lawful to eat such food when a weak brother was present, because it grieved his conscience, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. These latter two classes of offenses—and especially this last one—are those most properly treated under the doctrine of scandal. They arise less from the action considered in itself than from its accompanying circumstances, such as the time, place, persons involved, manner, and similar considerations.

Fifth, offenses may also be distinguished according to the intention of the action or of the person performing it. A thing may be objectively offensive because of its circumstances, while the person who performs it does not recognize it as such. Peter’s offense toward Christ in Matthew 16 is an example of this. Likewise, someone may sincerely intend another person’s good and yet actually become an occasion of stumbling to him. Eli desired the welfare of his sons, yet by reproving them too gently he strengthened them in their sins rather than correcting them. In the same way, untimely reproofs, indiscreet censures, or even excessive commendations may make another person worse rather than better, although the intention was entirely the opposite.

From this arises another useful distinction. Offenses may proceed either from the matter of an action or from the manner in which it is performed, together with its accompanying circumstances. Just as an action that is materially good does not edify unless it is performed in a proper manner, so neither will a materially good action avoid becoming offensive unless it is carried out wisely, tenderly, and with due consideration. Indeed, the surrounding circumstances often determine whether an action proves offensive—its timing, the persons involved, the place, the manner, and the like. Thus, prayer or preaching is not offensive in itself; yet under certain circumstances, such as performing these duties before an idol or in a manner that appears to sanction superstition, the same actions may become occasions of stumbling.

Seventh, just as sins are commonly distinguished into sins of omission and sins of commission, so offenses may likewise be distinguished in the same manner. Some give offense by what they do—for example, by swearing or praying irreverently. Others give offense by what they fail to do, when they show no apparent reverence for prayer at all. This omission encourages profanity no less than the former does. For this reason Daniel deliberately kept his window open while praying, lest anyone should suppose that he had ceased to pray. Such offenses of omission are not avoided merely by performing one’s duty, unless it is also performed in such a fitting manner that others may reasonably perceive it to be done. This is what Revelation 6:9 calls “holding fast the testimony.” It is chiefly in this way that believers edify others, when the light of holiness shines visibly before them. When that light is hidden, others are left to walk in greater darkness and are thereby furnished with an occasion to stumble, because the light has not been held forth before them. Yet even this must always be done without affectation or ostentation, lest one offense merely be exchanged for another.

Eighth, some offenses wound the graces of God’s people and thereby make them sorrowful; others encourage their remaining corruptions, and for that reason are all the more dangerous because they are pleasant. Soft and indulgent reproofs, corrupt counsel, flattering speech, and similar things often provide many occasions for men to fall into sin.

Ninth, some offenses may properly be called personal offenses. These occur when a person’s private manner of eating, drinking, living, and conducting himself gives offense to others, even though he has no direct dealings with them and lives quietly by himself. Other offenses are more direct, whereas the former are indirect and consequential. These arise from men’s public actions or from their ordinary dealings with others, and therefore have a more immediate tendency to become occasions of stumbling.

Tenth, offenses may also be distinguished according to the way in which they harm others. Some do so by pleasing men in their corruptions and strengthening them in sinful courses. Others injure by provoking and stirring up corruption to express itself. In the former class belong excessive gentleness in admonition, rash or imprudent commendation of what is good, minimizing what is evil, corrupt counsel, and similar practices. Thus Jonadab became an occasion of stumbling to Amnon (2 Sam. 13), just as Eli did to his sons. In the latter class belong despising others, wronging them, refusing to remove an injury or clear ourselves when an offense has been taken, as well as ill-grounded reproofs, inconsiderate admonitions not tempered with love, evil reports, and similar things.

Eleventh, offenses may be considered with respect to the persons who are offended. In the first place, we often offend our friends—those whom we sincerely desire not to grieve—yet through lack of watchfulness we become stumbling blocks to them and injure their spiritual condition by our unfaithfulness, our worldly-minded conversation, our indulgence of their weaknesses, and many similar failures. Secondly, there are those who are our enemies, or at least those toward whom we have no particular bond of affection. They too may be scandalized whenever the carnality of our conduct leads them to think poorly of us or even of religion itself because of us, or whenever our behavior provokes them to oppose what we do in a sinful spirit or inflames their passions against us. In this way men are often guilty in every kind of controversy, whether civil, ecclesiastical, or academic, when, beyond simply advancing what they believe to be a just cause, they fail to conduct themselves toward their opponents with respect, tenderness, and a sincere desire for the good of their souls, so that even in disagreement it may be evident that they seek their edification.

Thirdly, offenses may be considered with respect to wicked or profane men, whether heathens, Jews, or Gentiles. Such people are offended whenever the gross sins or uncharitable conduct of those who profess religion harden them in their own ungodliness. This is why Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 10:32 that we must give offense neither to Jews nor to Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.

Fourthly, among sincere believers themselves, some are weaker while others are stronger. The weaker are often offended where the matter itself gives no real occasion, as Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 demonstrate. Their offense commonly expresses itself in rash judgments and censures of those who possess greater knowledge than themselves, either because those stronger believers act beyond the weaker person’s understanding or because the weaker believer imagines himself despised. This, in turn, reveals wherein the offense of the stronger may lie. Therefore Paul joins these two duties together in Romans 14:3: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth.”

Twelfth, offenses may be considered according to whether they directly tempt another person to sin, either in doctrine or in practice, or whether they more indirectly discourage him, weaken him, or divert him from pursuing holiness in doctrine or in life. Thus a blemish in the life of one who professes religion may cause religion itself to become, in some measure, abhorrent to others. This is especially true when ministers or eminent Christians become occasions of stumbling. A single dead fly, as Solomon says, causes the perfumer’s ointment to give off a foul odor. Thus the priests, according to Malachi 2, caused the people to stumble at the Law. The sons of Eli likewise brought reproach upon God’s worship. David also was charged with causing the heathen to blaspheme because of his fall. In the same manner, the contentions and divisions of ministers and disciples are represented by our Lord in John 17:21 as hindering the world from believing in, or acknowledging, Christ.

Thirteenth, sometimes scandal arises in the immediate duties of religious worship, such as praying, preaching, Christian conversation, or speaking and judging concerning spiritual matters. This may happen either because the substance of what is spoken is defective, or because it is performed in an irreverent, light, passionate, or otherwise unsuitable manner. At other times, offenses arise from the ordinary conduct of daily life—from eating, drinking, clothing ourselves, buying and selling, and our general manner of living—whenever something in our behavior reveals pride, vanity, instability, covetousness, love of pleasure, carnality, or some other fault by which our neighbor is harmed. Thus a husband may offend his wife, or a wife her husband, through irreligious conduct within the home, causing one another to conclude that carefulness in religion is unnecessary. Likewise, a servant who professes religion may become a stumbling block to his master if he is not faithful and diligent in the duties of his service.

Fourteenth, some offenses become offensive from the very moment the action is performed. Wherever there is an appearance of evil, the offense is given immediately. At other times an offense is at first only taken, not given, and yet afterward becomes an offense truly given, making the person guilty who had previously been innocent. This happens, first, when a man lawfully eats all kinds of food without making distinctions, but afterward learns from someone present that the food has been offered to an idol, and that, in that person’s judgment, it ought not to be eaten. Although before receiving that information no offense had been given but only taken, since he did not know that anyone present would be troubled by it, yet if he knowingly continued afterward in the same action, he would then become guilty of giving offense.

Secondly, if a person learns that someone has taken offense at him or at his conduct in a matter that is otherwise indifferent—even though no just cause for that offense had originally been given—and afterward fails, according to his place and duty, to endeavor to remove that stumbling block, then the offense becomes one that he truly gives, because he has neglected to remove it from his brother’s path.

Fifteenth, some offenses are offensive in themselves because the action has an appearance of evil or naturally tends toward becoming a stumbling block. Others become offensive only accidentally, through accompanying circumstances such as time, place, or similar considerations. Some offenses may also be called offenses of infirmity, when they arise from a particular lapse into which a person falls without continuing in it, defending it, or knowingly persisting after he realizes that it has become offensive. Once he recognizes the danger, he sincerely endeavors to remove the offense. Other offenses are more deeply rooted and settled. Such is the case when a person habitually continues in them, takes little care either to prevent or remove them, is scarcely troubled by them, lightly esteems them, or even justifies them. This distinction among offenses corresponds to the familiar distinction between sins of infirmity and sins committed with greater hardness of heart. Here, however, such hardness is not to be understood chiefly with respect to the inward intention of the person, but rather with respect to the character of the offense itself.

Finally, we may distinguish scandals into private and public scandals. Both of these may be understood in two different senses: either with respect to the number of witnesses, or with respect to the nature of the offense itself. In the first sense, a private scandal is one known only to a few because few have witnessed it, whereas a public scandal is known to many. Accordingly, the very same offense may be private at one time and place, yet public at another, simply because of the different circumstances in which it becomes known.

In the second sense, a private offense is one that may deeply trouble many people who know of it, yet is not of such a nature that it can be publicly, legally, or judicially proved to be scandalous for the conviction of either the offender or others. Nevertheless, it may leave a profound impression upon the hearts of those who observe it. Thus the general course and spirit of a person’s life, though outwardly respectable, lawful, and free from any particular charge, may yet be exceedingly offensive. It may convey to charitable observers an unmistakable impression of vanity, pride, earthly-mindedness, lack of tenderness, deficiency in love, or similar faults. Such observers are inwardly persuaded that much is wrong, even though they cannot point to any single act that would not admit of a plausible legal defense. Of this nature also are the untimely introduction of controversial questions or doubtful disputes, such as those mentioned in Romans 14. A man may perhaps defend the truth itself, yet by introducing such subjects at unsuitable times or in unsuitable expressions, he confuses and unsettles weaker believers. Offenses of this kind commonly arise from an apparent lack of sincerity in one’s motives, from excess in the manner of doing a thing, from conduct that is disproportionate to one’s station in life, or from similar circumstances. A person may be deeply convinced of such faults merely by observing another’s conduct, yet they do not amount to public offenses in the sense intended here, because they cannot be clearly demonstrated or judicially established. Thus Absalom’s insinuating and self-seeking manner plainly revealed his pride. Likewise, when Paul speaks in Philippians 1 and 2 of those who preached out of envy or sought their own interests rather than the things of Christ, he refers to offenses of this sort. By spiritual discernment he recognized their motives, yet these did not provide sufficient grounds for an ecclesiastical sentence against them.

By contrast, offenses may properly be called public when they are capable of being clearly proved before others by particular facts demonstrating that they are contrary to the rule of God’s Word. Such are drunkenness, profane swearing, and similar public sins. These may rightly be called ecclesiastical or judicial offenses because they fall under the proper jurisdiction of church discipline. The former class may instead be called offenses that wound the conscience or offend against charity, because they chiefly affect the consciences of believers and become matters of private judgment and brotherly concern. They may furnish sufficient grounds for private Christian admonition, though not for public censure. Indeed, they may more properly be called offenses against conscience and charity, because they violate the duties that conscience and Christian love require.

Many other distinctions of scandals might also be made. Some are immediate, when we ourselves directly see or hear the offensive conduct of another. Others are mediate, when the mere reporting of something—even something entirely true—becomes an occasion of stumbling to those who hear it. This may happen, first, when such reports alienate one person from another or stir up resentment against him. Secondly, they may produce sinful disturbances of mind, encourage corrupt courses of action, or otherwise provoke carnal affections in those to whom they are related.

Here offense differs from slander. Slander primarily injures the reputation of the absent person who is spoken about. Offense, however, chiefly causes those who hear the report to stumble, even though the same act may, under different aspects, be both slander and offense. Thus Ziba slandered Mephibosheth while at the same time causing David himself to stumble by believing the report (2 Sam. 16), although David’s displeasure toward Ziba was not of the same nature as the wrong done to Mephibosheth. Likewise Doeg, in reporting matters that were substantially true concerning David and the priests, nevertheless became both a slanderer and an occasion of stumbling to Saul, as the consequences recorded in 1 Samuel 21 and 22 plainly demonstrate.

Some actions offend directly. Thus a minister may fail to administer an admonition with proper wisdom or at the proper time, and so his very manner of dealing becomes an offense. Other actions offend only virtually or indirectly. A minister may deliver excellent counsel in due season, yet because he has previously failed to show condescension or tenderness toward those whom he now seeks to instruct, he has deprived himself of that influence by which his admonition might otherwise have edified them. Paul, by contrast, carefully prevented such offenses. By becoming “all things to all men,” he sought to remove unnecessary obstacles so that his ministry might gain the greatest possible acceptance and usefulness.

Again, some offenses produce positive harm, while others are comparatively offensive because they hinder greater spiritual good. An action may not produce any new injury, yet if it prevents that measure of growth and edification which otherwise might have been attained, it involves a comparative loss and is therefore properly accounted an offense.

CHAPTER II. Showing What Offense Is Not, and What It Is

These general distinctions provide a sufficient introduction to the meaning of offense and to the ways in which it is given. We shall now add a few further observations concerning the first question by considering, first, what offense is not, and secondly, what it is. It is not simply anything that actually hurts or displeases the person who claims to be offended. Consequently, whether something is an offense cannot be determined merely by another person’s pleasure or displeasure. Nor is offense always to be judged solely from the nature of the act itself, since an offense may arise in matters that are entirely lawful, such as eating, drinking, or receiving wages for preaching. Neither is it always determined by its outward effect. Sometimes people take offense where none has been given, while at other times a genuine offense may be given—even though no one actually stumbles—because the action was naturally fitted to become an occasion of stumbling. Nor is offense to be judged simply by the intention of the person performing the act. A man may have no desire whatever to injure another and yet truly wound him through rashness, neglect, excessive indulgence, misplaced affection, lack of faithfulness, inconsiderate zeal, imprudence, or by some single fault that, like a dead fly in precious ointment, causes much that is otherwise profitable to become offensive.

Properly speaking, then, scandal is something connected with an outward word or action—for merely inward thoughts do not give offense—which, when considered in relation to the particular time, place, persons, or other surrounding circumstances, is fitted either to lead another person into sin or to hinder his spiritual life or comfort. When such offense arises from an action that is itself sinful, it is generally easy enough to recognize, since actions that are materially evil are ordinarily obvious. The greater difficulty arises when the matter itself is lawful or indifferent, or when the offense lies not in the action itself but in the manner or accompanying circumstances of performing an otherwise lawful or even necessary duty. It is then that wisdom is especially needed to discern when such actions become offensive, and accordingly either to perform them or abstain from them, or to perform them in another manner, so that offense may be avoided. It is this, properly and strictly speaking, that Scripture chiefly means by offense, and it is in this area that the greatest wisdom must be exercised in regulating the use of Christian liberty.

For this reason Scripture devotes so much attention to the subject, teaching us that it is not enough merely to ensure that an action does not violate God’s commandment, nor even that our own consciences are fully persuaded of its lawfulness. We must also consider the consciences and spiritual welfare of others, lest by our conduct they be spiritually injured. Thus Paul commands us to act or to refrain from acting, “for conscience’ sake—not your own, but that of the other” (1 Cor. 10:24, 28). If love is indeed the fulfillment of the law, and if we are commanded not merely to seek our own good but also the good of our neighbor, then we are likewise bound to seek our neighbor’s edification as carefully as our own, and to avoid whatever might become an occasion of his spiritual injury. Scandal, therefore, stands directly opposed to Christian love and to that brotherly regard which we owe one another, as Paul teaches in Romans 14:10 and 15. In short, whatever is naturally fitted to make our brother spiritually worse, or to hinder his growth and progress in holiness, is rightly called an offense or scandal (Rom. 14:21). In this respect scandal differs from an ordinary injury. An injury harms a person’s body, reputation, property, or some other outward interest. Scandal, however, wounds his spiritual condition by diminishing either his holiness, his diligence, or his comfort. Often the same act is both an injury and a scandal, though the reverse is by no means always true.

CHAPTER III. Concerning the Several Ways by Which Offense May Be Given

It is scarcely possible to enumerate all the ways in which one person may become an occasion of stumbling to another, for they are almost as numerous as the many ways in which men injure both themselves and their neighbors. Nevertheless, by considering the various effects which an active offense either does produce or is naturally fitted to produce, and by observing the points at which offenses most commonly lay hold upon men, we may conveniently reduce them to several principal heads.

A person may first become an occasion of stumbling by leading another into some sinful action. Thus an action that is lawful and even good in itself becomes scandalous whenever, by our example, another person is encouraged in some sinful course, or emboldened to commit sin under the impression that our conduct justifies his own. Likewise, our conduct may encourage others to imitate us in ways that exceed our own intention, or to perform the same action under circumstances that render it sinful. Thus zeal expressed without wisdom may inflame others into sinful passion rather than holy earnestness. In the same manner, eating in an idol’s temple—though the eating itself was nothing in itself—became scandalous when done publicly. It encouraged idolaters to think that some honor was still due to their idols; it strengthened weak believers in lingering superstitions; it led others to suppose that mature Christians themselves retained respect for idols; and it induced still others to imitate the outward action while attaching to it an idolatrous meaning that the stronger believer himself never intended.

The same principle applies to doubtful expressions in matters of doctrine, or to an insufficient concern to avoid every appearance of evil. One person’s manner of dress, style of living, or outward habits may appear to others to exceed what is suitable for his station or circumstances. Though there may be nothing inherently sinful in the conduct itself, it may nevertheless become an occasion for others actually to exceed proper bounds, or may reasonably be misunderstood by those who observe it. Thus the very same action may be offensive in one person that would not be offensive in another, because of differences in reputation, office, or known weaknesses. A practice that is harmless in one individual may confirm suspicions of pride, covetousness, worldliness, or uncleanness in another.

For this reason every Christian ought carefully to consider not only his own conduct but also the general opinion that others reasonably hold concerning him. He should be especially careful to avoid even the appearance of those sins to which he is commonly thought most liable. Likewise, he ought to consider the condition of those who observe him, their present understanding, and the conclusions they are likely to draw from his conduct. Such considerations may require him willingly to abstain from certain places, forms of dress, recreations, or lawful enjoyments which, viewed entirely by themselves, might otherwise be perfectly innocent. Thus a man who walks abroad upon the Lord’s Day may himself be engaged in holy meditation, and therefore commit no sin; yet his example may encourage another person merely to wander idly, neglecting family worship and private duties. In that case, what is otherwise lawful becomes offensive because of its influence upon another.

A second way in which an otherwise lawful action becomes offensive is when it gives rise to misunderstanding or rash judgment in another person. This may happen in several ways. First, it may lead someone to regard as sinful what is in fact lawful. This is what Paul means in Romans 14:16 when he says, “Let not your good be evil spoken of.” Second, it may lead others to condemn us as careless or lacking tenderness of conscience in the performance of an otherwise lawful action. Thus Paul asks, “Why do you judge your brother?” (Rom. 14:10), and elsewhere, “Why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?” (1 Cor. 10:30). Third, our conduct may bring reproach upon our Christian profession or upon the Gospel itself, causing godliness to be regarded as mere enthusiasm, hypocrisy, or looseness of life. Thus some who remained zealous for the ceremonial law spoke evil of the Gospel because certain believers used their Christian liberty indiscreetly, imagining that the Gospel itself encouraged moral carelessness.

A third effect of scandal is that it grieves and discourages other believers. Consequently, any otherwise indifferent action that naturally produces such grief becomes an offense, as Paul teaches in Romans 14:15. It diminishes another person’s spiritual comfort, weakens his affection toward us, discourages him in the performance of duty, or at least deprives him of that cheerfulness with which duty ought to be performed. For this reason it becomes contrary to Christian love and, in that respect, a violation of the sixth commandment. This is, in fact, the sense in which we most commonly speak of giving offense—when our conduct causes sincere Christians sorrow, lowers their confidence in us, lessens our usefulness to them, or alienates their hearts from us.

A fourth test by which scandal may be recognized is whether our conduct endangers the peace of a brother’s conscience. This occurs whenever our lawful actions encourage or virtually persuade another person to follow our example while he still doubts whether such conduct is lawful. Thus in 1 Corinthians 8:10 a weak believer is emboldened to eat food offered to idols merely because he sees someone of greater knowledge doing so. By that example he is induced to act against his own conscience, which afterward condemns him. For this reason Paul says that the stronger brother wounds the weak man’s conscience. The same principle appears in Romans 14:22–23. Suppose someone sincerely doubts whether a certain practice is lawful. If our example alone persuades him to imitate us without resolving his doubts, we have placed him in a difficult position. Either he must condemn our conduct, or else imitate it while doubting its lawfulness. Since the mere example of another person can never furnish a sufficient rule for the conscience, such imitation inevitably leads to sin. A similar difficulty may arise when someone has formerly acted lawfully according to his own understanding, but afterward sees another mature Christian perform the same duty in a different manner. Without adequate instruction he may begin to condemn his own previous conduct merely because another has acted differently. Although differences in indifferent matters may sometimes be helpful, where proper explanation is lacking they often drive weak believers into needless perplexity and become occasions of stumbling, especially when the matters themselves are already subjects of controversy or doubt.

A fifth mark of scandal is that it obstructs another person’s spiritual edification. Romans 14:21 speaks of making a brother weak—not merely by grieving or discouraging him, but by unsettling him in the truths or duties of religion. Such offenses shake previously settled convictions, produce uncertainty concerning truths once firmly believed, or divert men’s minds from the weightier matters of Christian obedience. This is the Apostle’s chief concern throughout Romans 14, as well as in other places where he warns against “questions and disputes” that profit no one, such as Hebrews 13:9. Thus not only the teaching of false doctrine, but even presenting sound doctrine in novel forms, multiplying unnecessary expressions, introducing new terminology without necessity, or speaking of truth in a contentious, passionate, or untimely manner, may become occasions of stumbling. Whatever fails positively to edify is, in that respect, offensive. It was upon this principle that Paul became “all things to all men,” adapting himself in lawful matters that he might gain some. Thus he circumcised Timothy in order to remove unnecessary prejudices among the Jews and secure greater access for the Gospel. Likewise, an unwillingness to yield in indifferent matters often incapacitates us from doing good to others, creates prejudice against the Gospel itself, and so becomes an obstacle to their spiritual growth.

A sixth way in which an action becomes offensive is when it awakens corruption, stirs up sinful passions, strengthens jealousies, or confirms unfounded suspicions in the minds of others. Thus Paul judged that receiving financial support from the Corinthians would have been offensive in their particular circumstances, not because receiving support was unlawful, but because it would have confirmed the suspicions of those who falsely accused him of seeking personal gain. It would have encouraged his adversaries in their slanders and given them further opportunity to rejoice maliciously in what they imagined to be proof of their accusations. For the same reason, when a person is unjustly suspected of holding erroneous opinions, it may become offensive for him to engage publicly in speculative discussions upon such subjects, or to associate unnecessarily with those known for such errors, even though he himself completely rejects them. Conduct that might occasion no misunderstanding in another person may nevertheless become a stumbling block when viewed in light of existing suspicions and circumstances.

CHAPTER IV. Concerning That upon Which Offense Works, or the Several Ways by Which It Is Taken

Considering this second matter—namely, that upon which offense works and by which it is taken—will make the subject still clearer. For offense sometimes affects the weakness of a person’s understanding and knowledge, giving rise to doubts, misunderstandings, and false conclusions. At other times it affects the conscience, producing rash judgments, condemnations of others and of their actions, and inward accusations. Sometimes it stirs the affections by awakening either sinful joy or sinful grief. At other times it works upon remaining corruption, so that men, through prejudice, become irritated or grieved by some occasion. Thus actions become offensive when they confirm men’s suspicions, inflame their pride, provoke jealousy or rivalry, and the like. Again, an action may especially affect a person’s particular infirmity or weakness. Some are naturally more inclined to passion, suspicion, or similar failings than others, and therefore are more easily offended, even by things that are not offensive in themselves. Finally, gracious persons themselves may also be offended. Although grace, considered in itself, cannot sinfully take offense, yet a gracious believer may nevertheless be stumbled, or certain actions may have a greater tendency to offend a zealous and godly person than another. Thus Peter’s dissimulation in Galatians 2 may be said to have offended Paul, though more properly it became a scandal to Barnabas. It grieved Paul, yet in a sanctified manner, whereas another gracious person might either have been provoked to sinful irritation or, out of excessive regard for Peter, have been led away as Barnabas was. An ungodly person, on the other hand, would likely have paid no attention to Peter’s conduct at all, neither following it nor grieving over it.

From what has been said, it may now be somewhat clearer how an action that is lawful or indifferent in itself may nevertheless become offensive. It does so whenever it actually produces, or is naturally fitted to produce, any of these harmful effects upon others, whether they are weak or strong, gracious or ungodly, and whether the offense arises through the working of conscience or through remaining corruption. For just as giving offense implies pride and lack of charity in the one who gives it, showing that he neither loves nor values his brother as he ought, nor treats him as he himself would wish to be treated, so taking offense always implies at least some measure of corruption or infirmity in the one who takes it. Therefore, in this whole matter of offense, regard must be had not only to the grace and sincere affections of others, but also to their weaknesses and remaining corruptions. Failure to observe this principle often leads us to take far too much liberty in giving offense because we regard others as wicked, worldly, unfriendly toward us, or at best merely weak Christians, and therefore think it of little consequence whether they are satisfied with our conduct or not. Such an attitude plainly reveals the pride and lack of charity within our own hearts, as may readily be gathered from Romans 14:2, 10, and 15.

CHAPTER V. Concerning What Ought to Make Men Careful and Afraid of Giving Offense

We now come to consider those things which ought to make every Christian exceedingly careful in this matter.

First, there is scarcely any practical duty more frequently commanded in Scripture than this duty of giving no offense, nor is there almost any sin more repeatedly condemned than carelessness in this respect. This is evident throughout the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, where entire chapters are devoted to this subject. Indeed, in Acts 15 the apostles and elders judged the regulation of indifferent matters for the prevention of scandal to be of such importance that it deserved formal enactment in the first council of the Church.

Secondly, there is scarcely any sin against which more dreadful warnings are pronounced. Our Lord Himself declares, and even doubles, a solemn woe against it in Matthew 18:7, while the Apostle reinforces the same warning in Romans 14:20 and the verses that follow.

Thirdly, its hateful character appears from the very principles out of which it ordinarily springs. It plainly reveals a lack of reverence toward God and an insufficient impression of His majesty. It likewise betrays inward pride and self-conceit. Above all, it manifests a spirit of uncharitableness, carelessness toward others, and a disposition to despise them, as is evident throughout Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. Surely few things are more worthy of being carefully avoided than such dispositions as these. Indeed, experience shows that men are ordinarily as tender or as careless in avoiding offense as they are conscientious or unconscientious in the great duties they owe both to God and to their neighbor.

Fourthly, few sins produce more destructive consequences. It brings a woe upon the world, and our Lord Himself regards the multiplication of offenses as one of the Church’s greatest calamities. They destroy many souls, as Paul declares in Romans 14:20. They bring reproach upon the Christian profession, cool the love that ought to exist among brethren, generate and nourish strife and contention, hinder the progress of the Gospel, and, in a word, cause iniquity to abound. Very often they also prepare the way for the entrance of false doctrine into the Church, as appears from the passages already cited together with Matthew 24:10–12. Indeed, if the matter were carefully examined, it would likely be found that carelessness regarding scandal has injured the outward beauty and peace of Christ’s Church, and the inward growth of her members, no less than error or open profanity themselves, which are frequently nothing more than the fruits produced by such carelessness.

Fifthly, a careless attitude toward giving offense opens the door to still greater spiritual carelessness in the offender himself. His conscience gradually becomes less sensitive to its own rebukes, and therefore he acquires increasing boldness to commit actions that are materially sinful. At the same time he develops a settled habit of disregarding the welfare of others. Although concern for what others think is not, by itself, the highest motive for obedience, it nevertheless exercises an important restraining influence in its proper place. Does not experience plainly teach that when men begin by taking undue liberty in matters of offense, they often proceed before long to liberties in things that are plainly sinful?

Sixthly, carefulness in avoiding offense greatly adorns the Gospel. It commends the Christian faith to those among whom we live, strengthens mutual charity, and warms brotherly love. Carelessness, on the other hand, opens the mouths of adversaries, causing both the Christian profession and those who profess it to become objects of reproach.

Seventhly, carelessness with respect to offenses strikes at the very root of Christian fellowship. Where offenses abound there can be little freedom in brotherly admonition, little profit in spiritual conversation, and often little fervency in praying either with one another or for one another. Can true religion flourish where these things prevail? Is it any wonder, then, that our Lord has declared, “Woe to that man by whom offenses come”?

CHAPTER VI. Showing That the Greatest Difficulty Lies Chiefly in Practice, and Explaining How Far Offense Ought to Influence a Christian’s Conduct

The greatest difficulty concerning scandal lies not in acknowledging that it is evil—for everyone readily admits that—but in determining how far its avoidance ought to regulate our conduct in particular cases. We shall therefore answer several questions for the clearer understanding of this matter.

The first question is this: How far ought the possibility of giving offense to influence a Christian in ordering his conduct?

In answering this, we must consider, first, the nature of the action itself in which offense may either be given or taken; and secondly, the character of the persons who may be offended. Some actions are plainly sinful in themselves. Others are necessary duties. Still others are, in themselves, indifferent. Likewise, among those who may be offended, some are gracious and tender, while others are profane or malicious. Bearing these distinctions in mind, we lay down the following principles.

First, no consideration of offense ought ever to lead a man either to neglect a necessary duty or to commit anything that is materially sinful. Our Lord Himself continued His journey to Jerusalem although His own disciples were displeased, and He continued faithfully preaching the Gospel despite the offense taken by the Pharisees (Matt. 15). The principle is plain enough: no evil is ever to be done that good may come of it (Rom. 3).

Secondly, in all other matters great regard ought to be paid to the avoiding of offense, and Christians ought to regulate their conduct accordingly, as the reasons already given sufficiently demonstrate.

If the matter itself is of little importance—for example, such things as a person’s manner of walking, whether slowly or quickly, whether wearing a cloak or not, and similar outward circumstances—then one ought either to do or to refrain from doing such things according as they are likely to prevent the appearance of pride, levity, or other offenses, or to avoid encouraging such thoughts in others. Even the manner of giving salutations belongs to this class of things. Likewise, among the Corinthians, women praying with uncovered heads belonged to this category because, under those circumstances, it was commonly regarded as a sign of impropriety. Yet if any such matter becomes necessary because of particular circumstances, then nothing is insignificant. Moses would not leave so much as a single hoof behind in Egypt (Exod. 10), nor would Mordecai bow his knee to Haman because such an act would have appeared to honor a cursed enemy. The same principle applies to fashions of clothing, such as the wearing of ribbons and similar ornaments. Since such matters are of comparatively little importance in themselves, they ought certainly to be regulated by the consideration of avoiding offense.

Again, where the matter is truly indifferent—that is, where the action may either be performed or omitted without sin, such as eating or refraining from a particular kind of food at a given time (for although every action becomes morally good or evil according to its motive, manner, and circumstances when actually performed, yet some actions are indifferent when considered simply in themselves)—the Christian ought to perform or omit such actions according as they will either edify or offend others. Indeed, in such matters he may find himself bound to abstain permanently if necessary, according to Paul’s own declaration: “If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never again eat meat while the world stands” (1 Cor. 8:13). This is what it means to become “all things to all men” for their salvation (1 Cor. 9), ordering our conduct in indifferent matters not according to our own preferences or even our own clearer understanding, but according to what will best promote the edification of others. Thus many practices which we ourselves are fully persuaded are lawful, and which we might otherwise desire to enjoy, ought nevertheless to be relinquished out of regard for conscience—not our own conscience, but the conscience of another who has not yet attained the same degree of clarity, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 10:28–29.

Thirdly, in the case of the positive duties of God’s worship, and other duties commanded by affirmative precepts, the possibility of giving offense ought still to influence the timing and circumstances of their performance. Although offense can never permanently cancel an appointed duty, it may, for a season, require us to postpone the exercise of a lawful duty until a more suitable opportunity presents itself. Thus giving alms is unquestionably commanded by God; yet if there is reason to believe that the recipient would abuse the gift, or that others would either regard the gift as ostentatious or wrongly judge the giver on account of it, then it may be proper to postpone the act until it can be performed more privately, unless urgent necessity requires immediate action. Likewise, preaching is a duty for ministers, and hearing the Word is a duty for believers; yet if a particular minister’s preaching at a particular time would produce more stumbling than edification, it may rightly be delayed. The same principle applies to admonishing others or correcting children. Although these duties are obligatory, they ought not ordinarily to be undertaken while either we ourselves or those whom we address are under the influence of strong passion, lest more harm than benefit result. This illustrates the well-known rule concerning affirmative commandments: they bind us continually, but they do not require their performance at every possible moment. Thus servants, wives, and all Christians are always under obligation to pray; yet to begin praying at the very moment when one’s master, husband, or family lawfully requires immediate attention to some necessary duty would itself become an occasion of offense.

Fourthly, even in necessary duties, the possibility of giving offense ought to influence the manner and circumstances in which those duties are performed. Thus, if prayer is necessary, a man ought nevertheless to choose the time, place, and posture of prayer so as to avoid unnecessary offense. In some circumstances it is offensive to pray where one may deliberately be observed, because such conduct has the appearance of ostentation and is condemned by our Lord in Matthew 6. At other times, however, it may be offensive not to make one’s devotion known. Such was Daniel’s case (Dan. 6). Had he ceased to open his windows as before, it would have appeared that he had abandoned his former faithfulness. Thus what is offensive at one time may become edifying at another, while what is edifying under one set of circumstances may afterward become offensive because the circumstances have changed. This is evident from Paul’s circumcising Timothy while refusing to circumcise Titus. Likewise, there were occasions when, had Nehemiah knelt down publicly to pray before the king, such conduct would have been offensive; whereas in Daniel’s private chamber it would likewise have been offensive not to kneel. In matters of this kind, established custom often provides useful guidance concerning indifferent circumstances, and unnecessary departures from long-established practice frequently become occasions of stumbling.

Fifthly, in matters relating to our own temporal interests, we ought rather to yield what belongs to us than unnecessarily endanger another person’s spiritual welfare. Thus our Lord voluntarily surrendered His own rightful privilege by paying the temple tax, lest He should give offense (Matt. 17:27). In the same spirit Paul declined to receive financial support from the Corinthians, although he unquestionably possessed the right to do so and at the same time accepted support from other churches. The reason is plain: the spiritual edification of our brother is of greater value than our temporal rights. Much more, then, should this principle restrain us in the enjoyment of lawful pleasures, comforts, and personal preferences. Even where our inclinations lawfully lead us, we ought willingly to deny ourselves whenever pursuing those lawful enjoyments would become an occasion of stumbling to another. For this same reason Paul condemns the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6 for carrying their disputes before unbelieving courts, because of the scandal thereby occasioned. “Why,” he asks, “do you not rather suffer yourselves to be wronged?” Our Lord Himself has already furnished us with this example in willingly paying tribute rather than insisting upon His own rights, although those for whose sake He did so were certainly not men distinguished by tenderness of conscience.

A third principle must now be added. We maintain that, where the circumstances are otherwise equal, equal care ought to be exercised to avoid giving offense to every class of persons. We ought to avoid offending the weak as carefully as the strong, the profane as carefully as the godly.

First, the command itself is universal. “Give no offense,” says Paul, “neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). Under these three classes every kind of person is comprehended.

Secondly, just as we are forbidden to sin against any person, so likewise we are forbidden to place before any person an occasion of sin. No circumstance can make that a good thing.

Thirdly, the same principle governs our conduct toward every class of men. Toward the mature believer we must neither commit sin to please him nor neglect necessary duty merely to avoid displeasing him. Exactly the same rule applies toward the weak and toward the ungodly. Thus Paul was as careful not to furnish false teachers in Corinth with occasions of stumbling as he was not to offend sincere believers. In this respect, as he declares in Romans 1:14, we are debtors alike to Jews and Greeks, to the wise and to the unwise. Indeed, in things indifferent we are called to become “all things to all men”—even to those who are weak or outside the covenant, though always remaining ourselves under the law of Christ—that by every lawful means we may gain the greater number (1 Cor. 9:20–22).

CHAPTER VII. Explaining What Is Meant by the Offense of the Pharisees or the Malicious, and Answering Several Other Important Questions

It may be asked, What, then, is that offense commonly called the offense of the Pharisees, or of malicious persons, which, we are told, ought not to govern our conduct?

To this I answer, first, that great spiritual discernment is required before we conclude that anyone is malicious in taking offense. We must not hastily account men malicious merely because they differ from us, or from those whose judgment we highly esteem. Just as we would not make David’s imprecations against his malicious enemies the ordinary rule for our own prayers against those who oppose us, so neither ought we lightly to conclude that every offended person belongs to this class.

Secondly, we must carefully examine our own spirit in making such judgments, remembering our Lord’s rebuke to His disciples in Luke 9 when they appealed to Elijah’s example. Before a man can rightly be regarded as malicious in taking offense, so that his offense ought not to determine our conduct, several things must concur. The matter at which he stumbles must be a necessary duty, such as the Pharisees’ offense at Christ’s preaching of the Gospel. His offense must not arise merely from ignorance or weakness. Nor must it proceed from some private grievance or personal prejudice, but from hostility to the advancement of the Gospel itself. Such opposition closely resembles that obstinate malice which approaches the sin against the Holy Spirit, and therefore ought not lightly to be presumed in ordinary cases.

If someone should object that such persons make no effort to avoid offending us, and therefore we need not concern ourselves about offending them in matters that are otherwise lawful, the answer is plain. Such conduct would merely return evil for evil, whereas we are commanded to overcome evil with good. If it is sinful for them to disregard our spiritual welfare, how can it be lawful for us to disregard theirs? Indeed, by meeting their hardness with equal hardness we only confirm them in their sinful course and make ourselves, in some measure, responsible for the injury done to their souls. Tender and patient conduct, on the other hand, may, by God’s blessing, become as “coals of fire” upon their heads, softening their hearts and making them more receptive to the truth.

It may be further asked, What ought a Christian to do when a matter is lawful in itself, yet it remains doubtful whether performing it may become an occasion of offense?

In answering this question, several considerations ought carefully to be weighed.

First, we should look not only at the action itself, but also at all its accompanying circumstances, such as the time, place, persons involved, and the particular occasion.

Secondly, we should inquire how actions similarly circumstanced have ordinarily been judged in the experience of faithful Christians in former times.

Thirdly, we ought honestly to examine how we ourselves have been accustomed to judge the same kind of conduct when observed in others. Men commonly judge more impartially concerning another person’s actions than concerning their own, especially in matters relating to offense.

Fourthly, we should carefully consult our own conscience. Frequently, before an action is performed, conscience quietly raises inward suspicions that the proposed course may prove hurtful or offensive, although these warnings are often overruled by the strength of our inclinations.

Fifthly, we should seek the judgment of wise and impartial Christians. Indeed, even the opinion of those whom we suppose least favorable toward us should not lightly be disregarded, for such persons are often among the most impartial judges of what may reasonably appear offensive. These considerations deserve particular weight because the question is not whether the action is lawful in itself, but whether its exercise in these particular circumstances may unnecessarily injure another person’s spiritual condition.

Finally, if, after all such inquiry, it still remains doubtful whether the action will be offensive, then the same principle should govern us that applies whenever the lawfulness of an action itself is uncertain. In such a case it ought to be omitted. Just as a man who doubts whether an action is lawful cannot perform it in faith because he cannot be sure that it is not sinful, so also he who doubts whether an otherwise lawful action is expedient cannot perform it with confidence, since he cannot know that it will not become a stumbling block to another. Whatever cannot be undertaken with such assurance becomes sinful to the one who performs it.

At the same time, every reasonable effort ought to be made patiently to instruct others and to correct mistaken judgments, so that they may not continue taking offense at things that are lawful in themselves.

There is yet another question that deserves consideration. Suppose both parties claim that they are offended—how then should a Christian determine which course to follow?

In answering this, we must distinguish carefully.

If one party’s displeasure arises because a necessary duty is faithfully performed, while the other’s concern is that such a duty ought not to be neglected, there is no difficulty. Necessary duty must always be preferred, whatever offense may be taken at it. Thus Christ would not refrain from preaching because the Pharisees were offended, nor would the apostles cease preaching in the name of Christ because rulers and councils opposed them. In such cases the displeasure of men is not properly scandal but only their sinful opposition to duty.

Again, if one person’s dissatisfaction arises merely from his own lusts or corrupt affections, while another is troubled in conscience upon grounds that, although mistaken, are sincere, then the latter deserves the greater regard. Paul would circumcise Timothy lest he should unnecessarily estrange the Jews in those regions; yet had there been persons ready to abuse that action as confirmation of their error, he would not have done so, just as he refused to circumcise Titus. In that case the matter would no longer have been a simple displeasing of the Jews, but a genuine occasion of offense.

Even supposing that neither party has entirely just grounds, and that both are displeased, the tender conscience ought ordinarily to receive the greater consideration. First, because such a person is troubled upon grounds of conscience, and it is conscience that is wounded. The other is merely irritated because some corruption has been crossed. In the one case there is simple displeasure; in the other there is truly an offense. Secondly, the Lord Himself shows special tenderness toward those who are weak and grieved in conscience, as is evident from Matthew 18. We therefore ought to imitate His example. Thus the prophet Elisha declared to the king of Israel that, had it not been for his regard to Jehoshaphat, he would scarcely have acknowledged him (2 Kings 3:14). Likewise, suppose one profane man is displeased because another refuses to drink as freely as he desires, while at the same time a tender Christian sincerely believes that such drinking would be inconsistent with sobriety. In that case the latter ought plainly to be regarded, because his concern arises from conscience.

Finally, in every such case we ought carefully to consider what course is most likely, in the end, to promote edification. Matters often appear differently when compared together than when each is viewed separately. Edification and offense never lie entirely upon the same side. Therefore, if, after sober comparison, one course is found to be comparatively more conducive to spiritual good, that course ought to be followed, and whatever opposition may arise against it ought not properly to be regarded as scandal.