Jesus and Straightforward Discernment in Dialog
March 27, 2008 by Randy
Filed under Bible, Christianity, Church, Jesus, People, Politics, Public Policy, Religion
Matthew 22:11-22
… the Pharisees plotted a way to trap him (Jesus) into saying something damaging. They sent their disciples, with a few of Herod’s followers mixed in, to ask, “Teacher, we know you have integrity, teach the way of God accurately, are indifferent to popular opinion, and don’t pander to your students. So tell us honestly: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Jesus knew they were up to no good. He said, “Why are you playing these games with me? Why are you trying to trap me? Do you have a coin? Let me see it.” They handed him a silver piece. “This engraving - who does it look like? And whose name is on it?” They said, “Caesar.” “Then give Caesar what is his, and give God what is his.” The Pharisees were speechless. They went off shaking their heads.
They probably thought Jesus was arrogant and accused him of not really answering the question. I mean, they came to Him with flattering words that implied credibility, honor and respect. And instead of playing the game (very similar to politics, no?), He gets all into their business and reframes the debate as He sees fit. They asked what seemed to be an innocuous, but important, question. They also came as a crowd seeking the “Teacher” to teach them.
As anyone who struggles with pride knows … what can be more tempting than a group of people with flattering lips seeking “your very own” opinion? Jesus didn’t have that struggle and He discerned that they weren’t eager new disciples seeking to learn the ways of God about paying taxes. He knew they were trying to set Him up for their purposes to discredit Him and His work.
Their question was a double bind question. Meaning, the obvious “yes” or “no” answer could be used against Jesus because the people hated the oppressive Roman taxation. The tax collectors only made things worse by further corruption. If Jesus said a simple yes to pay the taxes it would hurt him politically, if you will allow the parallel, with the Israelites. If He said no, don’t pay the taxes, many of the Israelites would have been very happy but probably more confused and the Romans would have thrown Him in jail a lot faster than they eventually ended up doing.
Through discernment Jesus exposed the Pharisees for their manipulative ways, reframed the debate with a short and simple example and answer. Then He went on about His ministry as they walked off insulted and incredulous.
I am far from being as Christ-like as Jesus wants me to be. Because of that, from my limited perspective, I can relate to being suckered into futile dialogs from time to time only to find out later that the conversation wasn’t *really* about that. Here I was thinking it was a good conversation only to find out I just played into someone only seeking a way to mock the work of the Lord in my life. Sometimes a ? mark isn’t really a question but a direction toward an already assumed outcome by the person(s) asking the question. The questions aren’t questions, they are a means to an end.
I am not a theologian or a debate kind of guy but I am sure there is a better way to label or summarize the above debate tactic.
This is probably why the scriptures also warn us to be slow to speak, quick to listen and slow to anger. This gives time to think through what is really going on in the conversation and to handle it in an honest, straightforward manner that God leads and not out of reaction.
Shoot … if everyone slowed down, listened and were slow to anger … we wouldn’t have cable news or most of the blogs out there. Admit it, I am right … aren’t I?
It is also notable that these very same crowd Pharisees, after seeing that their manipulations and lies didn’t directly work on Jesus, ended up lying to the Romans to bring Jesus to trial which eventually led to His crucifixion. There was a point where Jesus simply didn’t talk to them and allowed them to lie about Him … in court…right there in front of Him. Wouldn’t He have wanted to clarify? Respond to each lie, exaggeration and fabrication to get the truth out there? … evangelize them?
The Truth was already out there, nothing would have changed their minds or behavior and any reactive defensiveness might have worked to undermine His three years of public ministry. My guess is also that He wasn’t going to empower them to sin against Him further by engaging futile debate … they were doing a great job of that all on their own. He was secure to stand in what the Father was telling him to do regardless of what was expected, seemed natural or even demanded of Him in court. He only spoke when obviously directed by the Father to speak.
I confess I am not good at following the Lord’s example … but I am learning and growing :). That’s some tough stuff, reigning in your actions and reactions. Especially for pride struggling unabashed extroverts … you know … that I have heard about :).
Related posts (automatically generated)
