Interpersonal offenses often receive great attention, particularly through the instructions of Matthew 18:15-17, which many treat as the primary framework for dealing with sin between people. Human nature tends toward selfishness, causing minor slights—being overlooked in a greeting, missed in a distribution line, or subjected to an innocent joke—to be interpreted as deliberate offenses requiring formal reconciliation. While such instructions have their place, a tendency exists to overlook someone far more significant in every sinful act: God Himself. This principle surfaces repeatedly in early Genesis narratives. The men of Sodom were described as sinning not merely against one another but against the LORD. When Abimelech nearly took Sarah as his wife, God declared that He had withheld him from sinning against Himself. Joseph, resisting Potiphar's wife, acknowledged that betraying his master would ultimately constitute "sin against God," showing he understood the human dimension of wrongdoing but recognized the offense against God as the greater concern. This theme recurs dozens of times throughout the Old Testament, expressed in various ways but consistently pointing to the same truth: sin is fundamentally a transgression against God. The concept appears less frequently in the New Testament, not because the understanding changed, but because it had become so firmly established that repetition was unnecessary—much like the Sabbath command, which required no restatement since it was already universally practiced. The Parable of the Prodigal Son offers the clearest New Testament echo, as the son declares he had "sinned against heaven" in his father's sight, rather than simply against his father. David's Psalm of repentance, following his adultery with Bathsheba and his role in Uriah's murder, powerfully illustrates this principle. Despite the devastating human consequences of his actions—death, a shattered family, and a sword that would never depart from his house—David declares, "Against You, You only, have I sinned." This is not a denial of harm done to others, but a stark contrast highlighting the incomparable gravity of his offense against God. His sin represented a repudiation of everything God had given him: blessings, mercy, kingship, and promises, all seemingly discarded for a single transgression. This wounded a relationship in which God had invested deep love and trust. David's acknowledgment of "blood guiltiness" shows he understood the human harm caused, yet his overwhelming focus remained on the ruptured relationship with God. The comparison being drawn is not that human relationships are unimportant, but that a ruined relationship with God far exceeds in seriousness a ruined relationship with another person. Every sin, at its core, constitutes an affront to God, a metaphorical strike against His face. Therefore, while addressing offenses between people retains value, the primary and most urgent response to any sin should be acknowledging it before God and seeking to restore that relationship above all else.