Pers
nL
* Regardless of the bliss wherein he sat Second to thee, offered himself to die For man’s offence.’
And in geal (Hales’ ed. p. 15) the meaning is to lay a stumbling-block in the way, ‘A certain Presbyter laid it scrupulously to his conscience, how he durst venture himselfe among those de- filing volumes. The worthy man loath to give offence fell into a new debate with himselfe what was to be thought.’
For the theology see next article.
J. HASTINGS.
OFFENCE.—This term is the translation in AV of several Heb. and Gr. words. These may be classified in two categories: 1. Sin (xq Ec 104; duapria, 2Co 117, RV ‘sin’); also the kindred idea of a moral fall (παράπτωμα, e.g. Ro 4% 5, RV ‘trespass’). 9. Stumbling (νῦν 1S 25%, Is 84), ἘΣ στ as an act, the word being used in a metaphorical sense. Also a stumbling-block. In this last sense the term is used as tr® of Gr. words with two different primary meanings : (1) πρόσ- κομμα (Ro 14”), and προσκοπή (2 Co 63, RV ‘ occa- sion of stumbling ἢ, literally ‘a stumbling-block,’ i.e. some impediment lying on the path, over which one stumbles, and so morally anything that hinders and tends to trip one up in the path of life, or with regard to some particular course of action. (2) σκάνδαλον, a purely biblical word, with its corresponding causative verb σκανδαλίξω, of frequent occurrence both in LXX and in NT. The classic form is σκανδάληθρον. In LXX it stands chiefly for Heb. τὐρὶο " bait’ (fig. ‘snare’) and Swap ‘stumbling-block.’ The Gr. word means primarily the trigger of a trap; then the trap itself. In a secondary sense it stands for anything that ensnares or hinders morally. The idea of stum- bling appears in the phrase ‘rock of offence’ (πέτραν σκανδάλου, Ro 9%, a free quotation from Is 8%, where LXX has πέτρας πτώματι), i.e. a rock over which people stumble. The word is of persons ; as in our Lord’s rebuke of St. Peter, “Thou art an offence (σκάνδαλον) unto me’ (Mt 16% AV). RV has ‘stumbling-block’ here, a need- ful correction, the idea being, not that St. Peter was ‘offensive’ to Jesus, nor that Jesus was ‘offended’ with him, but that the disciple was a snare to his Master, an adversary (Σατανᾶς), one who provoked to stumbling. The word is also used of oat as when we read of casting a stumbling- block before anybody (e.g. Ro 14%). Again, in the expression ‘ Whoso shall offend one of these little ones,’ ete. (Mt 18° AV), the reference is not to insulting and hurting the feelings, but to tempting and hindering in the way of Christ. Similarly, the directions about an offending mem- ber of the body—the eye to be plucked out or the hand to be cut off—refer to causes of stumbling, of moral hindrance. Accordingly, RV substitutes ‘cause to stumble’ for the misleading word ‘offend’ in AV. The sin of leading one of Christ’s little ones to stumble is set forth as
neverthelesse wo to that man by whom the scandall cometh. And if thy hand or thy foote scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee.’ We find also the adj. ‘scandalous’ in the heading to Lk 9 ‘He forewarneth againe of his scandalous Mk 61 ‘offence’ is g/ven as an . did take
Passion.’ In the notes to alternative to ‘scandal,’—‘ His countrie folkes .. offence or scandal of him.’
OFFER, OFFERING, OBLATION
peculiarly heinous. St. Paul’s argument on the question of casuistry concerning eating food that has been offered to idols turns on this idea. The apostle’s contention is not that the strong are to surrender their liberty in deference to the super- stitions of the weak, for fear of offending the latter in the sense of giving them offence, i.e. ee and alienating them. The duty we owe to Chris- tian liberty may sometimes involve this painful consequence. St. Paul’s este is that ibaxty must not be so used as to hinder the spiritual life of others, by confounding their consciences and tempting them to imitate conduct the innocence of which they are not sufficiently enlightened to perceive, and which must therefore appear wron
to them. Where the Jews are said to be ‘ offend
at’ Jesus (Mt 1357), and where ‘the offence of the cross’ is referred to (Gal 5"), the stumbling and hindrance are in the way of accepting the claims of Christ. Thus the prophetic description of the stumbling-block is ascribed to Him because His obseure ue and humble appearance, and the method of His ministry, were regarded as reasons for not accepting Him. When He spoke in the synagogue at Nazareth, His trade as a carpenter and His family relations were the stumbling-block (Mk 6%). Here, however, the idea seems to be passing over to that of displeasure—we are in- stinctively angry at whatever causes us to sturable. This thought appears to be present in Mt 15”, where the disciples say to Jesus, ‘ Knowest tha1 that the Pharisees were offended when they heard?’ ete. The more serious idea of being hindered morally—as in the case of ‘ offending one of Christ’s little ones—is evidently out of piace here. All that is meant is that the Phari- sees were turned against Jesus and His claims, with the implied notion that this was coupled with soms irritation. It is the same with St. Paul’s ' reference to ‘the offence of the cross’ (Gal 5"). The fact that Jesus had suffered the indignity of crucifixion hindered the Jews, with their secular ideas of the Messiahship, from accepting Chris- tianity, and at the same time roused their indigna- tion against the preachers of the ΟΣ