Chapter 7
RECONCILIATION BEFORE FORMAL SACRIFICE Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Matt. 5:22-24).
The theocentric basis of this law appears to be peace with God. If a man's brother is not at peace with him, then he cannot be at peace with God. His brother has a complaint against him -- a cause. This has disrupted the bond between them. It has therefore disrupted the bond between the man offering the gift and God. In this sense, his brother represents God to him. If he cannot get things settled with his brother, he cannot please God with the gift. The gift is in this sense profane: a violation of a sacred boundary. The sacred boundary is the altar: the place of God's unique judicial presence. Judicial peace should prevail in this holy place. But there is no judicial peace between the covenant-keeper and his brother. The gift is therefore unholy. It is in this sense unclean. To offer it on the altar is to profane the altar. It must be left in front of the altar but not burned or otherwise used by the priest or ecclesiastical representative.
This gift is in addition to the tithe. It is something special, comparable to one of the first three Mosaic offerings (Lev. 3).(1) The tithe is owed to God by all covenant-keepers. It is not given to win favor with God. It is given because it belongs to God by way of the local church.(2)
An Incentive to Settle The text says to leave the gift before the altar. That is, the person is not to bring the gift, remember the brother's cause, and then decide not to offer it. He is to leave the gift before the altar, i.e., leave it behind. He is then to get matters straightened out with the brother. Then he is to return to offer the gift. The gift is no longer in his possession once he brings it to the altar. It is held by the ecclesiastical leader in charge of the altar. This gives an economic incentive to the man to get the matter settled. Until he does, he is neither to offer his gift nor take it back. It is doing him no good, either as a capital asset or as a gift to God.
It is not the responsibility of the priestly representative of God to enquire regarding the spiritual life of every covenant-keeper who comes to make an offering. The priest is not expected to know the details of every gift-offerer's life. Those making gifts are presumed innocent. But if the priest knows of a unsettled dispute between the gift-offerer and his brother, he is not to accept the gift. He is to encourage the giver to get the matter settled. But he is also to remind him to leave the gift with the church, as he had originally intended to do.
God is not in need of our gifts. This means that the ecclesiastical representative must discipline himself to do without profane gifts. He must not act as though he is dependent on profane gifts, for that would testify to the church's dependence on men rather than God. The more he is in need of the gift, the greater is his incentive to intervene to help settle the dispute. This means that the church is the institution with the greatest economic incentive to restore peace among its members and their relatives or fellow believers.
The gift-giver cannot lawfully reclaim his gift. The priest wants the gift. God will be pleased with the gift if it is not profane. The giver is now trapped. He must settle the matter with his brother. The question is: How?
Who Is at Fault? The dispute is a matter of law, once the gift is brought into God's presence. The dispute must be settled lawfully. The gift-giver knows there is a dispute. Can he get it settled? Must he capitulate to the brother, just because the brother has something against him? No. But they can bring it before the church courts if they can't settle it.
The brother may be wrong. He may be at fault himself. The gift-giver is not presumed guilty by God. He is merely considered to be out of fellowship with his brother and therefore not fit to offer the gift.
The settling of disputes is a judicial matter, but it need not be settled by a court. It may have to be, however. The matter must be laid to rest if the gift is to be acceptable.
If a church court announces the terms of the settlement, and the gift-giver conforms, he is now free to offer the gift. If his brother still resents him, the gift is nevertheless valid. Some men cannot be reconciled to their brothers. They will not forgive. The gift-giver is not to be made a permanent victim, unable to offer his gift, just because his brother is stubborn. The church is not to be penalized because of an unforgiving brother. The court's declaration heals the matter judicially. This is sufficient to transform the status of the gift from profane to acceptable.
Conclusion The top priority of this law is reconciliation of brothers. The healing of disputes within the community of the faithful is sufficiently important that the church may not knowingly accept a gift from a participant in such a dispute. Peace is more important to God than gifts. It should be more important to the church, too.
Footnotes:
1. Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), chaps. 1-3.
2. Gary North, Tithing and the Church (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994).
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com