For Christians, conflict with a world system that opposes Christ is inevitable. Jesus himself taught, “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness,” and that “the world has hated [His disciples] because they are not of the world.” It should come as no surprise when unbelievers, invested in their sins, see Christians as a threat and seek to suppress them. Because of this, Jesus likened His followers to “sheep in the midst of wolves.” Given this reality, it is crucial for believers to heed Jesus’ instruction to be “shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.” In such adversarial circumstances, wisdom is essential. Paul further emphasized this by urging Christians to let their speech be “with grace, as though seasoned with salt so that you will know how you should respond.”
Sadly, many professing believers interpret this as a call for Christians to accept a subordinate role assigned by secular elites, where only their charitable qualities are highlighted, while their more controversial beliefs are suppressed. Christians who accept these terms promote a one-dimensional version of Jesus—one who invites children to come to Him and preaches “Blessed are the peacemakers,” but avoids overturning tables and engaging in direct confrontation with His enemies. On the other hand, a smaller minority of self-identified Christians, often ripe for media attention, reject this posturing. They engage in what can only be described as aggressive denunciations, yet these are often devoid of any persuasive substance.
Understanding how Jesus treated those who vigorously opposed Him, particularly the Pharisees, is crucial for modern Christians seeking guidance on how to respond to threats from their social enemies. However, Jesus’ approach to His opponents should not be seen as a one-size-fits-all strategy for every situation. He made clear distinctions between the leaders of the religious establishment who opposed Him and those who blindly followed it. Jesus resisted the proud while extending grace to the humble, even patiently teaching Nicodemus, a member of the Pharisees. In this, Jesus perfectly exemplified the pattern outlined in 1 Thessalonians 5:14: “Admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, [and] be patient with everyone.”
As a result, Jesus knew His audience and treated them like people. He did not win arguments for vain self-promotion but did so because of an awareness of those listening who would benefit and whose condition He could lift to a higher understanding of truth. He listened to His opponents’ arguments and crafted statements that suited them. He could identify root issues and admonish in measured ways that fit the circumstances. In short, if the purpose of rhetoric is to “perfect men by showing them better versions of themselves, links in that chain extending up toward the ideal,” as Richard Weaver taught, then Jesus was the perfect rhetorician.
It is long overdue for modern Christians to move beyond a cherry-picked version of Jesus who exists solely to serve humanity passively, and instead to fully embrace the complete picture of Jesus—the one who confronts the ideas and enemies that oppress our neighbors. This is a vital part of loving those around us, and Jesus did not suspend His work of loving others when He engaged with the Pharisees. Christians active in modern social and political struggles should look to Jesus as their example if they hope to be successful. In this spirit, here are seven ways that Jesus handled His major opponents, the Pharisees.
1. Do Not Take Questions at Face Value
First, Jesus did not take their questions at face value. Matthew 22 recounts the Pharisees’ plot to trap Jesus “in what He said” and thus discredit Him. It is worth mentioning that the Herodians, a sect loyal to King Herod and opposed to the Pharisees’ political interests, found common cause with this attempt to discredit Jesus. This means these were not simply religious disputes but also featured a political dimension. To accomplish their purpose, the Pharisees, along with the Herodians, asked Jesus if it was “lawful to give a poll tax to Caesar.”
This put Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. If He were to say it was lawful to pay the tax, then He would offend those opposed to Roman rule and undermine the claim that He was the Messiah with the authority to overthrow Rome. If He were to say it was not lawful, then He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities. What Jesus said in response amazed His audience.
Instead of accepting the terms of the challenge, Jesus impugned the motives of those asking the question, challenged the premise of it, and took an offensive posture against their hypocrisy. He said, “‘Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the poll tax.’ And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then He said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.’”
Many of today’s Christians cite this passage as evidence that Christians should leave politics to unbelievers, but the reality is that Jesus was engaged in politics. He publicly pointed out that two politically motivated groups failed to live up to their own standards by not serving the God they claimed to worship. While operating within and benefitting from Caesar’s economic system, they neglected to align themselves with God’s moral order. Jesus anticipated their trap and turned the tables, putting them on trial instead of himself, because He refused to accept their question at face value.
Modern Christians would do well to likewise anticipate traps from their own political enemies, such as when media members ask questions like, “Why do you hate women?” or “How can you believe in a religion that supports some form of evil?” Christians would do well to suppress the urge to prove themselves worthy of the media’s standard and instead ask questions that challenge the liberal philosophy.
2. Choose the Right Setting
Another aspect of Jesus’ shrewd dealings with the Pharisees was His discernment in choosing the right conditions for engagement. There is a mistaken perception among some segments of the dissident Right that conflict should never be avoided. While in an ultimate sense, this can be valid—the truth is worth defending and only cowards shy away from it—there should also be wisdom in choosing the right setting for certain conflicts. There are numerous examples of this from Jesus’ ministry.
In John 7:1, we learn that Jesus “was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.” His brothers, who did not anticipate the threat, encouraged Him to go to Judea and attend the Feast of Booths. Rather than going with them, Jesus suggested they go ahead, creating the impression that He would not attend the feast. However, once the feast began, Jesus showed up unnoticed in the temple and began teaching. By doing so, He avoided the risk of being confronted by a small group entering the city and instead revealed himself within the safety of the crowd. This strategic move meant that if the Jews who sought to kill Him were to act, they would have to do so in full view of everyone—something they were unwilling to do. Jesus did not avoid conflict, but He did choose the ground on which He was willing to fight.
Jesus did something similar in Luke 4. After informing members of the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth that He would not perform miracles there because of their lack of faith, it says they “were filled with rage” and attempted to “throw Him down [a] cliff.” Yet as they tried to carry out their plan and chase Him out of the synagogue, the text says that “passing through their midst, He went His way.” Jesus’ evasive behavior did not reflect cowardice. What He said to offend them had already demonstrated His own bravery, yet this fortitude was mixed with another cardinal virtue—prudence.
It is worth noting that not only did Jesus avoid unwanted conflicts, but He also chose conflicts He wanted. He could have avoided conflicts with the scribes, Pharisees, and Herodians by not healing on the Sabbath. Yet He did so numerous times, even justifying His behavior to them. In Luke 14, He responded to opposition by exposing the fact that the spiritual shepherds of Israel cared more about their own livestock than they did the people under their care. He challenged: “Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?” Scripture records that “they could make no reply to this.”
Modern Christians should carefully consider the controversial situations they enter, especially when they have a choice. Not every challenge is worth accepting, as some can place participants at a significant disadvantage. For example, think about how media outlets can edit interview footage to make someone appear to have said something they did not. Allowing bad-faith actors to control one’s public image is unwise. There are times when a disagreement is necessary, but not in a context where social etiquette gives an unfair advantage to Christianity’s enemies. Often, it is expected within one’s home or public forum a certain level of decorum limits the ability to take a more aggressive stance. I have learned to be cautious about whom I invite on my podcast for this reason. There are many people I would happily debate, but only in a neutral setting. Additionally, it’s important to consider the terms of a debate. A challenger may appear to act in good faith but have ulterior motives, such as attempting to smear a Christian’s reputation rather than engage in meaningful discussion. Choosing the right setting is crucial.
3. Use Coded Language at Times
It is no secret that the media frequently accuses conservative politicians of using “dog whistles” to communicate with what they perceive to be the more nefarious elements of their base. For example, Donald Trump was often accused of signaling support for racists, misogynists, and homophobes, which, more often than not, seemed to imply that he was appealing to conservative Christians, a group the media was intent on unfairly vilifying. I have often thought that the media tends to read motives into people’s words that are not there, simply because they and their liberal allies are accustomed to using “dog whistles” to appeal to their own base. They portray their enemies as irredeemably evil while casting their own nefarious allies as either misunderstood or noble. While there is, of course, a dishonest way to use coded language, there is also an honest way—one that perhaps Christians can learn from.
Jesus often used parables to ensure that the prideful would not understand His message, while the humble would. However, in Matthew 21, Jesus told the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, which the Pharisees seemed to grasp. In the story, a landowner rents his vineyard to vine growers to produce a profit. When the harvest came, the landowner sent several servants and eventually his son to collect the produce. Each time, the wicked vine growers killed the messengers. Jesus then asked His audience what the appropriate punishment for the murderers should be, and they responded that the landowner should “bring those wretches to a wretched end” and replace them with righteous vine growers.
Jesus then linked this story to the messianic Psalm 118, which says, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.” For those who were paying attention, the message became clearer. The vine growers represented Israel’s religious leaders who rejected both the prophets and the Messiah. The text notes, “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.”
Jesus initially exposed the Pharisees in a subtle, indirect manner, using parables and veiled critiques. However, in Matthew 23, just two chapters later, He is very direct and overt in His condemnation of them. This shift reflects the changing nature of Jesus’ ministry. As the Pharisees’ opportunity to accept Him closed, Jesus began to reveal His true identity more openly. This gradual revelation allowed Jesus to build a case against the Pharisees without unnecessarily provoking them.
Christians living in the modern West must exercise shrewdness in the same way. While they should never shy away from the truth, they are not required to reveal every offensive belief in every situation. Some more radical approaches to online dialogue within certain circles of the chronically online New Christian Right argue that stating the unvarnished truth is always the best response. This may make sense for those with anonymous accounts or individuals who can avoid the consequences of being canceled by the Left, such as those who are self-employed or have little public influence. However, for Christians who are making a significant impact in areas dominated by liberal influence, it is important to carefully consider how overt they should be in expressing all the truths that challenge the world system. In some cases, it may be wiser to express the truth in a more veiled manner. This does not mean failing to challenge incorrect assumptions, but it may mean doing so in a more prudent manner.
4. Shift Conversations
One of Jesus’ most admired rhetorical traits was His ability to address the heart of a matter. When a rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to “inherit eternal life,” instead of presenting the entire gospel message—as many evangelists might do today—Jesus responded with a question: “Why do you call Me good?” He then probed further, asking whether the young man had kept God’s commandments. The brilliance of this approach lay in how it allowed Jesus to identify the man’s idol—his wealth—and reveal what was truly preventing him from inheriting eternal life. The young man’s issue wasn’t that he didn’t understand God’s requirements, but that he refused to place his faith in God, choosing instead to rely on his riches.
This ability to shift a conversation from what someone may want to discuss to what truly matters is also evident in Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees. In Mark 2, Jesus performs one of His early miracles by healing a paralytic. Instead of simply healing him, Jesus first forgives his sins and connects the two actions. This provoked the Pharisees, who accused Him of blasphemy, arguing that only God can forgive sins. Jesus, perceiving their challenge, chose not to directly defend His divinity or His role as the Messiah. Instead, He shifted their focus to the miracle that had just occurred before their eyes. He asked, “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, pick up your pallet and walk’?” This forced the Pharisees to confront the evidence that Jesus was using divine power. It is much easier to claim that someone’s sins are forgiven because there is no physical proof to verify it. However, healing someone physically is a tangible act that can be verified—and in Jesus’ case, it was.
If Christians today, in a world where Christianity is constantly challenged, could shift conversations toward the evidence that supports the truth of Christianity—or highlight the emptiness of non-Christian religions and philosophies—it could make a significant impact in apologetics. While Christians should always be willing to answer good-faith questions from unbelievers, it is often wise to remind people of what they already know. The rich young ruler knew he was failing to keep God’s law, despite initially claiming otherwise. The scribes knew Jesus had healed a man, even though they doubted His ability to forgive sins. Similarly, we should remind unbelievers of what they know: that they live in a world designed by a Creator who has also given them a moral law that they fail to keep.
I recently argued that Christian apologists should be cautious about granting 21st-century egalitarians the moral authority to judge biblical standards. Attempting to prove that women were treated well in the Bible or that biblical slavery aligns with modern concepts of labor arrangements is a losing battle. This becomes even more apparent when trying to reconcile biblical teachings with modern views on sexuality. Instead of engaging in these difficult comparisons, it is more effective to highlight the moral disasters of the modern world, which are often the result of these egalitarian assumptions. From modern forms of slavery, such as civil slavery, debt bondage, generational welfare, pornography addiction, the prison system, and outsourced sweatshop labor, to issues like “transing kids,” family breakdown, the opioid crisis, open borders, the murder of children in the womb, euthanasia, and impersonal warfare, there is more than enough moral evil to be concerned with. Christianity, far from being the cause of these problems, offers the solution. It provides a template for the kind of ordered liberty that could help society address these pressing issues.
5. Claim Moral High Ground
In shifting the conversation, Jesus often claimed the moral high ground. Again, early in Jesus’ ministry in Mark 2, the scribes and Pharisees challenged Jesus for eating with sinners and tax collectors who were social outcasts. (Perhaps a modern equivalent of a social outcast, contrary to how most modern pastors interpret the world, would be sharing a meal with perceived racists and misogynists, not guys with tattoos and prostitutes). Jesus responded to their challenge by questioning their care for sinners. He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” This exposed how the Pharisees failed to take care of the spiritually sick under their charge. When all they saw was the association Jesus had, they failed to recognize the reason for that association, which was to accomplish the moral duty of helping those who needed help.
Christians today can use this tactic to expose their political enemies. Often those who operate in the political sphere with Christian values are accused of failing to care for the poor or another aggrieved group. This is often linked to whether or not they support a certain government policy. For example, caring about the poor must include allowing unvetted migrants to cross the border illegally and consume resources not belonging to them. Yet the same people who often make this policy claim refuse to allow these poor individuals into their communities. When Governor Ron DeSantis symbolically sent a bus of illegal migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in 2022, and they were summarily sent to other places, it exposed the fact that the same class of people clamoring for others to receive these people were unwilling to do it themselves. This, in essence, was a way for more conservative-minded Americans to claim the moral high ground as they were trying to solve the policy problem.
Similar parallels can be seen in other moral issues such as abortion. While those who support abortion claim they are concerned about unwanted children, Christians are engaged in helping adopt these children and supporting policies that make raising children easier. This is morally preferable to killing a child before they have the opportunity to live. The bottom line is that those who hate Christianity and claim the moral high ground do not possess such a position, and Christians should not go into discussions assuming they do. Instead, Christians should assume that the principles in the Bible on things like natural obligations and punishing murder are true, and as a result, they possess the moral high ground.
6. Challenge Unqualified Authority
Related to the last point about claiming the moral high ground is also the instinct Christians should have to challenge unjustified or unqualified authority. My father often says that just because someone has letters after their name does not mean they necessarily know what they are talking about. This instinct has served me remarkably well. I remember a professor from my grad school days taking offense when I affirmed this teaching. However, one conversation with him proved my instincts to be correct. Often, academic experts are only experts in a narrow field. It is rare to find the renaissance man who possesses wisdom stemming from a wide breadth of knowledge. Sometimes experts in a particular field do not even know what they should know.
Jesus pointed this out in Matthew 12 after the Pharisees tried to use the behavior of His own disciples against Him. They said that it was unlawful for them to pick grain on the Sabbath. In response Jesus directly challenged their understanding of scripture and the law of God. The disciples were not in violation of Mosaic Law. Rather, they had good precedent in following the example of David, who ate consecrated bread, and the priests themselves, who performed duties on the Sabbath that would qualify as breaking the law if it were to be interpreted according to the Pharisees’ logic. The Sabbath did not exist for its own sake as a moral end in itself. Rather, it was intended to facilitate spiritual good for man.
For our purposes, the key portion of this story for our purposes is what Jesus said in verse 7, “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” Essentially, Jesus demonstrated that the Pharisees did not understand the very law they claimed to be experts in. Jesus makes a similar case in John 4 when He tells them, “If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.”
When a supposed expert opposes Christians or Christianity or Christian principles, but does not know what they are talking about, it is permissible to expose them for this—whether or not they are socially revered. Christians should challenge the claims of scientists, professors, and other alleged experts by discrediting their knowledge in the field if they show themselves to be ignorant. This is not an ad hominem attack. Jesus actually does answer their objection. But He concludes from the nature of their objection that they should not be trusted as experts.
7. Expose Logical Absurdity
In Mark 3, Jesus demolishes one of the scribes’ arguments against Him by showing its fallacy directly. Jesus had recently begun His itinerant ministry, called the twelve disciples, and started healing people and casting out demons. In response, the scribes claimed that He was possessed by Beelzebul, which was a title for Satan meaning “Lord of the Flies,” whose power did not come from God but from an evil source.
In response, Jesus asked them a question. “ How can Satan cast out Satan?” He then proceeded to expose the absurdity of their claim by using the imagery of a kingdom fighting itself. Satan and his cohort of demons are united in purpose. If they were not, then they would channel their energy into fighting among themselves and would no longer be a threat. By simply taking their challenge to its logical conclusion, Jesus exposed its fallaciousness.
Modern Christians would benefit from learning basic logic if they have not already. While the Bible is not a logic textbook, there are instances where the Prophets and Apostles employ logical reasoning. Recognizing inconsistencies and absurdities can help believers defend their faith. For instance, when someone argues that being confident in one’s ethical beliefs is a sign of arrogance, it can be pointed out that this very argument would be itself arrogant since the person making the claim is equally confident in their own ethical stance.
In conclusion, Jesus demonstrated an ability to avoid traps, shift the conversation, and discredit His opponents in ways modern Christians do not find natural to themselves. Jesus did not see any conflict between behaving in this manner and loving one’s enemy and praying for those who persecute. In fact, it should come naturally for Christians to love others by challenging destructive behavior. This would include exposing those with ill intentions. It is worth noting that Jesus saved His most forceful denunciations for those who used their authority to lead others astray. It is time for modern Christians to do the same.
Sources
(1) – Matt 5:10, John 17:14
(2) – Matt 10:16
(3) – Col 4:5-6
(4) – Richard Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (Echo Point Books & Media, 2015), 158.
(5) – Mark 3:1–6, Luke 6:6–10; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5:1–18
(6) – Mark 2:17
