When “I’m Offended” Means Two Different Things

No doubt, at some time or other, a person has taken offense at what you have said or done. They might even have voiced it with words like, “I’m offended by what you (fill in the blank).”

You might ask: “Was that person justified in taking offense?”

“Well, maybe yes and maybe no.”

The accompanying image serves as a visual metaphor for the two categories. We will come to that in due course.

This leads to a couple of questions:

• What does it mean when a person takes offense or feels offended?
• And what should we do about it?

Let’s begin by describing what it means to “be offended” or to “take offense.”

Taking offense

In simple biblical terms, an offence is a moral trespass, not merely “I didn’t like that.” Genuine offences breach God’s commands or relational obligations, or both, resulting in concrete harm. See, for example, Romans 13:8-10.

The most common Greek word translated as “offence” is skandalon, which lies at the root of our word “scandal.” It “originally was the name of the part of a trap to which the bait is attached.”[1] In the New Testament, the word is used as a metaphor. This implies that an offence has an intentional element to it; in other words, the offender knew or should have known that what they did or said would breach God’s commands or relational obligations resulting in concrete harm to another.

Skandal*, whether an offence or the action of offending, is usually translated as “cause” to stumble, fall, or sin.

Whereas an offence is an action of one person or group against another, to be offended, or to take offense, is the way in which a person or group perceives what another has said or done. If you will, an offence is the “action” and taking offense is the “re-action,” and the two do not always go together. Some may not react to an offence; some may be offended when there has been no real offence.

I have emphasized the word “perceives” because what has been felt, sensed, or perceived to be an offence may not be one at all. It may be that a person misunderstood or misinterpreted what was said or done. Or a person may be wrong about something that requires correction.

Before we come to “perceived offences” that are not real offences, let’s deal with an actual or genuine offence.

The case of the “weak”

 In the previous post, we touched on 1 Corinthians 8:12-13, which the New English Translation renders as:

If you sin against your brothers or sisters in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. For this reason, if food causes [skandal*] my brother or sister to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause [skandal*] one of them to sin.

This important text is found in the section of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1, which opens with, “Now about food sacrificed to idols …” Although you might think that this has nothing to do with you, you might want to reconsider that in a moment.

Corinth was a city saturated with idolatry. The tentacles of idolatry reached into every aspect of life: religious, political, social, occupational, and domestic. The city was filled with idols and their temples, priests, cultic prostitutes, trade guilds, and markets.[2]  

Wherever the Gospel of Christ was being proclaimed, men and women “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1:9)—and Corinth was no exception. Yet, despite this “turning to God from idols,” deeply ingrained histories, practices, and bonds can take time to loosen and lose their grip.

At Corinth, “Paul … forbade eating food that was openly acknowledged to be offered to any idol. He permitted buying food in the marketplace that may or may not have been sacrificed in a pagan temple …” (10:14-22). Christians might purchase some of that meat in the marketplace.

If some Christians who were young or immature in their faith saw or became aware that mature Christians exercised their liberty to eat that meat, they would be “wounded in their weak conscience.” In that case, mature Christians knew or should have known that they were causing harm to the immature or weaker Christian. As a result, they should forego their liberty out of love for their weaker brothers and sisters.  

In our modern context, we have opportunities to apply this same principle. For example, if a Christian has the liberty of drinking a glass of wine, that Christian should forego their liberty out of love for a brother or sister who is a recovering alcoholic or addict and could be drawn back into their addiction.

In the image at the top of this post, the young plant on the left represents a “weak” or immature Christian. Our love that foregoes our liberty is like the loose tie that supports the plant. In due course, the hope is that the soft tie is no longer needed as the “weak” becomes “strong,” and the immature, mature.

The case of the “spurious”

“Spurious” is opposed to authentic. I am using it to identify those who “take offense” for false or wrong reasons.

In our modern context, any disagreement with a person’s ideology or beliefs is enough for them to “take offense”—whether it be politics, climate, gender, religion, or whatever.

This is quite different from foregoing our liberty out of love for a “weak” brother or sister. In the case of the “weak,” we are protecting and supporting the immature Christian. In the case of the spurious offence, they are weaponizing their reaction of “taking offense.”

In the first case, the action of love toward the immature is a shield; in this case, it is used as a sword. In our image at the top of this post, this weaponized situation is represented by the plant on the right— an otherwise healthy plant is allowed to be choked by the death grip of a zip tie.

Let’s look at a biblical situation that provides some instruction for this kind of “offence.”

The case of hypocrisy

In Matthew 15:1-20 (also Mark 7:1-13), Jesus was challenged by Pharisees and teachers of the law with:

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

I have dealt with this passage in greater depth in “How You Can Test Your Traditions.” I will make one point here.

The Lord Jesus responded by drawing on two relevant biblical texts:

Honor your father and mother. (Exodus 20:12)

Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 5:16)

The Lord confronted the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and their “tradition,” which had twisted and nullified God’s clear words and intention. Their viewpoint was wrong, and Jesus told them how and why it was wrong.

Informed that the Pharisees were offended, Jesus responded with (Matthew 15:12-14):

“Leave them; they are blind guides.”

When it is necessary to respond, as our Lord did, we should answer clearly and biblically. We are not to be unloving or offensive, although sometimes strong language may be needed, even when we “speak the truth in love.”

Summing up

 This is the third of three posts identifying relational break points; those points at which a relationship is damaged or destroyed, necessitating the process of forgiveness.

With the next post, we will begin exploring the journey of forgiveness.

I want to hear your questions and what you can add. Please contact me using this link.

FORWARD TO the next post in this series

BACK TO “Was David Deluded, Denying, or Discerning”

TO START at the beginning of this series

Notes:

[1] W. E. Vine, et al., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson,1985), 441.

[2] See, for example, the article “Ancient Corinth—A Symbol of Sin.” 

Image credit: Sapling metaphor — soft tie vs. restrictive zip‑tie. AI‑generated with art direction by John B. MacDonald (© 2026).