Did Jesus Debate?

     It is evident from the scriptures that Jesus was the Master Teacher (cp. John 7: 46, Matt. 7: 28, 29). Alas, while Jesus is no doubt the most famous man to have ever lived, many know very little about Jesus, his nature, deeds, and purpose. Mixed into this lack of knowledge and misinformation is Jesus’ teaching style (the style can provide insight as to what Jesus taught and his identity).

     Many believe today that all religious debating is necessarily sinful. Indeed, from a scripture perspective, the idea of "debate" often carries with it a bad connotation. In truth, though, the word "debate" in the King James is used both positively and negatively.  The wise man wrote, "Debate thy cause with thy neighbor himself..." (Prov. 25: 9).  In this verse, the teaching is when one has a serious difference with another, he is to confront ("debate") the matter with the neighbor and not simply talk to others behind his back.  This is essentially Jesus' teaching (Matt. 18: 15 ff.).  "Debate" (eris) is also used in the sense of strife and unjustified contention and is forbidden (2 Cor. 12: 20).

     Having thus acknowledged the immediately foregoing, controlled religious debating or disputing, for the purpose of testing teaching and arriving at the truth, is often observed in the New Testament and is a trait of Spirit prompted preachers (cp. Acts 15: 1, 2, 17: 2). Apollos is seen as a powerful debater in the early church (Acts 18: 24-28). Many do not care for debating today because they do not care for the truth and the necessity of establishing the truth relative to Bible subjects (cp. Acts 17: 11).

     There are a number of descriptive Greek words used by the Holy Spirit to describe the preaching of the First Century.  Luke used dialegomai to describe Paul's style while in Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Troas (Acts 17: 17; 18: 4; 19, 19: 8, 9; 20: 7). Dialegomai is found about seven times in Acts, the first time being Acts 17: 1, 2. The word "reasoned" in the referenced verse (KJV) is the word dialegomai (dialegomai involves comparing positions and discussing attendant differences). Hence, one is correct in concluding that Paul was a skilled and accomplished debater.

     Another Greek word of interest is apologia ("defense,"). Apologia is defined as, "A speech made in defense" (W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Regarding "…set for the defense of the gospel" (see Paul’s statement in Philippians 1: 17), the Pulpit Commentary comments: "…to his work of preaching the gospel, which was both apologetic, meeting the objections of adversaries and aggressive, asserting the truth" (Vol. 20, p. 3).

     Words more directly involved in a study of establishing whether or not Jesus was also a debater are the Greek words apokrinomai, antapokrinomai, and hupolambano. Apokrinomai, both noun and verb forms, is used about 249 times in the New Testament and is often used of Jesus in various teaching situations where there was dialogue. A simple definition is, "To give an answer to a question…or to speak, but always where something has preceded, either statement or act to which the remarks refer" (W. E. Vine). Antapokrinomai means, "Anti, against and aprokrinomai, a strengthened form, to answer by contradiction, to reply against" (Ibid.). Antapokrinomai is used in Luke 14: 6, showing that the Jewish lawyers and Pharisees could not successfully disprove or refute what Jesus had taught.

     Perhaps at this point we need to establish a backdrop anterior to proceeding to notice Jesus’ style of teaching and to see whether or not Jesus debated.

     Several centuries before Jesus was born, there were three, especially two, men who created a basic "norm" in the matter of dialectics and logical protocol. They were Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Of these philosophers and teachers, Socrates is the most polemically influential (see addendum 1). On a simple level, the Socratic style of debate involved the asking of an initial question, usually of a disputant or interlocutor holding a contrary view. The "answerer" was expected to provide as concise answer as possible. The "questioner" would then pose a second question, based on the provided answer and to further probe and test his opponent’s position. While such dialectic dialogue could continue, the probing questions and the provided answers could often only involved a few questions and answers, assuming the questions and consequent answers were replete and skillfully targeted the essential and core differences.

     One thus explains and comments on the Socratic method of debate, a method that continues even to our time:

     Let us now briefly consider some of the teaching situations in which Jesus was involved and see if we can determine the presence of the debate style format and some observable facts. First consider Matthew 19: 3-9.

     The questioner was often improperly motivated (v. 3, however, testing and probing was the goal). In the immediately above dialogue, there was a great controversy that existed between two known groups of religious teachers and thinkers of Jesus’ day, the school of Hillel and Shammai. Those of the persuasion of Hillel believed divorce could be for any cause and those of Shammai contended adultery alone was the cause. They differed in their understanding of "unclean" found in the Deuteronomy 24 text. It is probable that the Pharisees were attempting to array Jesus with one or the other school. Notice the first question (v. 3). It is important that we appreciate that Jesus was not of the too common today clique mentality. Jesus went beyond the thinking of either school, back to the original and universal marriage law (Gen. 2, see Jesus’ answer, vs. 4-6, quoting Genesis 2: 21-24).

     The Pharisees second dialectic question is designed to exposed what they think is a contradiction in Jesus’ teaching (they are referencing the concession law found in Deuteronomy 24, see vs. 7). In Jesus’ answer to their second question, Jesus answers them by explaining the concession law and practically expanding and restoring the original moral marriage law (vs. 8, 9, see addendum 2).

     Let us now consider the question/answer for debate that occurred in Matthew 21: 23-27 that involved one of the most basic of questions:

     Involved in any dispute or difference is authority. In religious matters today, Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28: 18). However, it is of interest to observe that involved in the question/answer dialectic, not all questions must be answered. First, an initial answer may demand a qualification or example as to what is meant or the nature of what is meant (v. 25). Notice that the chief priests and elders knew that their polemic question had backfired on them and would reveal their own inconsistencies, even their insincerities (v. 25). They were trapped (v. 26). Their "we cannot tell" meant that they could not tell without exposing their own doctrinal and moral weaknesses. In the Socratic style, if the questioner failed to provide a needed answer for the sake of qualification, they forfeited the right to proceed. Furthermore, in this circumstance, the answerer was under no obligation to provide an answer to the first question (v. 27).

     Jesus and the lawyer debate the commandments, which is the greater of the commandments (Matt. 22: 35-40):

     Matthew chapter twenty-two has been described as the debate chapter, because there are four separate debates involving Jesus in chapter twenty-two. Jesus had just engaged the Sadducees in debate regarding their false doctrine of materialism (no resurrection teaching, Matt. 22: 23-33). The word was out as a result of this debate with the Sadducees that Jesus had silenced them or defeated their doctrine (Matt. 22: 34). No doubt the Pharisees viewed their particular lawyer as a champion with great polemic acumen.

     There was an ongoing question among the Jewish rabbis as to the number of commandments in the Law of Moses and their descending order. Hence, another famous question is used for this exchange. Depending on the greatest command given, man’s primary responsibilities could be determined. Would it be the Sabbath law of Exodus 20: 8, the do not murder prohibition of Exodus 20: 13, the allowed and disallowed foods (Lev. 11), or medical matters (Lev. 12)?

     Jesus’ answer goes straight to the heart of law, addressing the impetus for man’s substantive responsibilities both to God and fellow man (vs. 36-39, see Deuteronomy 6: 5 and Levitus 19: 18). Jesus’ answer provides not only an answer for the asked question, but also anticipates by providing the answer to a second sequential and related question. These answers are underlying and rather than make secondary on a descending order other commands, set forth the two commands that produce all other commands.

     Another famous debate Jesus had was the exchange with Nicodemus found in John 3: 1-13:

     I mention the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus for several reasons, one being it is a little different in that this exchange is one on one (single "disputant") and does not involve an audience. The exchange also involved more questions and answers (three each, respectively).

     The first question seems implicit rather than explicit (Nicodemus seems to have something perhaps not overt in his statement that could be precipitating, v. 2). Jesus’ answer appears to subtly answer Nicodemus (v. 3). Nicodemus’ second question challenges Jesus’ answer by questioning the possibility of the answer (v. 4). Jesus’ responsive answer explains how as well as challenges Nicodemus to spiritually think (vs. 5-8). Nicodemus’ third question again attempts to extract truths as to the nature of the new birth and its possibility, gently challenging Jesus (v. 9). Jesus designs his third corresponding answer to chide Nicodemus and urge him to consider the difference between physical and heavenly matters (vs. 10-13).

     In the next two dialectic endeavors Jesus is clearly seen as himself initiating the exchanges. The first one is observed in Luke 14: 1-6:

     The debate as recorded by Luke is brief, but powerful. There were many questions about the Sabbath day regulations and Jesus and his disciples were on different occasions accused of violating the Sabbath law. In this particular circumstance Jesus was apparently invited to dine with a "chief Pharisee" (v. 1). The meal was on a Sabbath day (Ibid.). We are told that "they watched him" ("watch" is from the Greek paratereo, "…to observe with sinister intent," W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). The boldness of Jesus is seen in Jesus taking the infirm man and before them, healing him on this Sabbath day, thus prompting them to debate with the question, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?" (vs. 2, 3).

     They did not respond to Jesus’ probative question (v. 3). Jesus who knew the hearts and minds of men is once again seen anticipating their unanswered question of "yes" (vs. 3-5, John 2: 25). They are once again speechless and unable to retort (v. 6).

     Jesus’ final debate was recorded by Matthew in chapter twenty-two, verses forty one through forty-six.

     Each of the recorded debates (there are many, no doubt, that were not recorded, cp. John 20: 30, 31) had a particular and peculiar slant and emphasis. This "final" one consisted of a critical discussion involving Jesus’ linage and, moreover, his deity. Jesus again is seen as the initiator and, thus, the questioner. Whose son Jesus was went to the heart of the issue of essential nature and relative position (question asked in verse 42). Their answer "Son of David" was interesting (v. 42, cp. Ps. 110: 1). Jesus’ second question probed their answer (v. 43). If Jesus is the Son of David, how could, then, Jesus occupy a superior position to David, Jesus pressed (Ps. 132: 11). They are being forced to concede a dual nature involving Jesus, physical as Son of David and also divine as superior. Since they refused to acknowledge this twofold nature, they could not or would not answer Jesus’ second question. Thus, they relinquished the debate.

     Out of these exchanges, many wonderful truths emanated and continue today to resonate. The deity of Jesus; the new birth; the greatest commandments and their foundational nature; the matter of requisite authority; and divorce and marriage to another are a few of these great truths. In each of these instances, whether implemented by others or by Jesus, Jesus only debated the most capable of his day. It is often observed that Jesus’ disputants used the wrong standard of authority or simply altogether refused the scriptures and they were both functionally illiterate in terms of the scriptures and often very prejudice. In Jesus’ debates, he upbraided his opponents when they displayed prejudice and willful ignorance and exposed them to those whom they led (Matt. 15: 3-9, 13, 14). When Jesus could, he commended right answers (cp. Luke 10: 28). Responses to the debates were: "They marveled" (Matt. 22: 22); "they were astonished" (Matt. 22: 33); "they could not answer" (Matt. 22: 46); and they were "filled with madness" (Luke 6: 11). The greatest arrogance manifested by any opponent of Jesus is seen in the debate Jesus had with the devil himself (Matt. 4: 1: 11, notice the commanding nature and all assuming posture of Satan in this debate).

     People are generally familiar with the great parabolic style of the Master Teacher (cp. Matt. 13), but most people, including many preachers, even in the Lord’s church are unaware that a high percentage of what Jesus taught was in a polemic or debate format. Still we hear: "I do not believe in religious debates, such are wrong!" Really? Was Jesus wrong for debating? Jesus believed in the truth and its exclusivity (John 8: 32, 4: 24). Jesus hated error (cp. Mark 3: 1ff.). Hence, Jesus had many debates with the religious leaders, even his own brethren of his day. So much has been learned from Jesus’ exchanges and much can be learned today when debates are conducted for the purpose of eliciting the truth (cp. I Pet. 3: 15; Jude 3).  (Visit the "Polemic Exchanges" section to consider a number of included debates, similar to the style used in the First Century, click here.)