Jesus Models - How to Handle Conflict

The Adversarial Conflict  

 In the eleventh chapter of Mark we see that the religious leaders were challenging the authority of Jesus as they approached him at the temple in Jerusalem.  It was not a small group of these religious leaders; Scriptures tell us that the chief priests (more than one), the scribes, and the elders all participated.  Scriptures also reveal that these leaders took no time approaching Jesus with their pressing question.  How could Jesus have known that this encounter would be adversarial?  In Mark 11:27, it says, “as he was walking in the temple,"  from this, we know they met him at the front door.  Earlier in this chapter, we read that Jesus overturned the money tables.  What fuel their anger toward Jesus on this occasion more than likely was this preceding event.  We read in verse 18 that they wished to destroy Jesus.  

     Interestingly at nearly the same time I am reviewing this passage in Mark, I am also reading an account of the apostle Paul in the book of Galatians.  He, too, is defending the authority of Jesus' gospel in the church of Galatia.  This time, Jewish leaders had infiltrated the church teaching a different gospel.  Here, Paul is just as confident of his position as Jesus had been.  Paul writes in Galatians 1:9–10 (ESV), “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

My Application

     As I read Mark 11 several days ago, I posted the following Homiletic overview of this passage with these words: ‘Jesus Models How to Handle Adversarial Relationships.’  My homily describes the application that I have drawn from this passage.  Now I will attempt to explain why I acquired this meaning from this passage.  The first words coming from the lips of the religious leaders were, “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?”  (Mark 11:28 ESV) Can you imagine the speaker poking his finger into the chest of Jesus as he spat these words out of his mouth?  I can only assume that this was not a meek encounter, but a bold response wishing to put Jesus in his place.  Scriptures do not identify the man behind the finger, but we can assume it was probably one of the chief priests.  

Power Over Peers

     In Jesus' day, the chief priests were part of a group called the Sanhedrin.  One of their primary responsibilities was to act in a tribunal to determine matters of law.  They were not the top-ranking official, that would have been the high priest.  Later in Mark 14, we read that the chief priests took Jesus before the high priest as they accused him of blasphemy.  These religious leaders ruled the people using political power, but like politicians, they required the favor of the people they ruled.  As they roamed around the temple, these men did not like to share their authority with an outsider, a Nazarene.  Even their manner of dress was intended to set them apart (or above) others.  Like a popular middle schooler or high school student who wears a certain brand of clothing and acts aloof to gain power over their peers were these religious leaders.  We later read Jesus giving this advice, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” Mark 12:38–40 (ESV) 

For Consideration

     Consider for a moment any adversarial relationship you have come across.  Aren’t these encounters marked by a person assuming they have power over another?  Aren't they also trying to protect something?  When we are vying for a position of importance, or trying to hold on to something we wish not to lose, conflict arises.  Likewise, when someone perceives that their authority is in question, this creates fertile soil for a fight.  We try to protect what we believe we own, whether visible or invisible.  Quite often it is an intangible thing, like the authority in this story.  There was no question in their minds that Jesus was attempting to usurp these religious leaders' authority when he overturned the money tables.  Jesus said, “Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations?'”  Hadn’t he insulted them by suggesting that they had turned the temple into ‘a den of robbers?’  These religious leaders (chief priests, and the scribes) were motivated to meet in a tribunal session that very same evening.  They would not waste any time deciding how to get rid of Jesus, even murdering him was not out of the question.  (Religious Leaders???)  Now, only a day or two later, is their time of questioning Jesus' authority carried out.  

Protect our Position  

     It is human nature to protect our position.  Jesus' response to these finger-poking individuals, was not by force, but by wisdom.  He asked a question.  He did not need to fight for an authoritative position, as most men would.  Jesus was confident that it would soon become evident through his death and resurrection that he was the one and only Son of God.  As if in a tennis match, Jesus returned the ball into his opponent's court with a non-defensive question.  “I will ask you one question, answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.”  How well do you think posing a non-threating question to an adversary might work for you?  Might it defuse the explosive battle and allow rational thinking to emerge?  Even if it doesn't, wouldn't we still be modeling Jesus' approach to love those who persecute us?    

     Did you also notice that Jesus did not ask an open-ended question?  He gave these leaders a multiple-choice question with a contingency, ‘If you answer my question, I will answer yours.’  In this passage, I found more meaning in the behavior that Jesus modeled than the words he spoke.  However, there was far more significance to the question he asked than meets the eye.  I will explain later.  Jesus knew that although he had only given two choices, "A" or "B," that his question provided three possible answers.  They could agree with either “A” or “B,” or could refuse to respond with either answer, as they did.  They chose to opt-out.  Do you suppose that Jesus would have had an equally great response to any of their answers?  Asking a multiple-choice question requires that the inquirer be willing to receive any answer.  In this situation, I can't imagine Jesus blowing an air horn and shouting 'wrong answer,' if they had given one.  This kind of questioning requires that we put thoughts behind our breath before fighting words slip from our lips.  Praying helps; “Lord give me the right words to say as I speak into this conflict.” 
     Another observation one can make, Jesus changed the energy behind his returning question.  If Jesus wanted to find himself smack-dab in the middle of a riot, he would have answered with the same intensity as those who pursued him.  Our problem in conflicts is we want to poke our attacker back.  Jesus did not pull out a finger, wag it in their faces, or poke them in the chest; he asked a question with ears ready to listen to their response.  What can we learn from this?

An Example

    In a recent Bible study, I received a helpful tool to use if someone responds to me in haste.  Rather than react to the specific conclusion drawn by the person who opposes me, I can lift myself above the emotion of my attacker with these four simple questions:  
(1)  Are you Hungry? 
(2) Are you Angry? 
(3) Are you Lonely? 
(4) or Are you Tired?”   
The acronym H.A.L.T. can be used as a memory peg.  Although I'm not sure where to give credit for this approach, I've tried this, and it works.  You may receive a very puzzling look as I did when I've asked, but trust me, this provides time for the accuser to evaluate the motivation behind their outburst.  If you receive the answer, “I’m angry,” a simple question of ‘Why?’ might reveal whether or not you are to blame.  As you evaluate your behavior with questions such as these:
What did I do to create this angry reaction?
Was it the tone of my voice? 
Was it something I said? 
Did I forget to do something I promised to do? 
Did I forget to feed them, hug them, or allow them to rest?  
The external perception of the other person will become more apparent.  Your accuser may even discover that you have become their substitutionary target because someone else let them down.  They may even apologize.  I only use this method as an example.  If I were to apply this tool every time a conflict arose, especially with the same person, I might not always receive a sincere answer.  Employing better skills in conflict resolution should help us achieve better outcomes.  How can we develop skills by looking at divine mentors found in the Bible, like the apostle Paul, or better yet, the Son of God? 

Analyzing Jesus' Question

     Although it is not necessary to understand the context behind Jesus' question, it may have seemed irrelevant to you.  You may be asking why he asked this particular question.  Not long before this occasion, Jesus asked his disciples, "who do people say I am?" (Mark 8:27b)  The disciples provided three answers:  John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets.  Then he asked, "Who do you say I am?" (v. 29)  Peter responds, “you are the Messiah,” which is the foundational cornerstone of the church.    Jesus tells his disciples not to reveal his identity to others until a specific time.  Then Jesus proceeds to tell them about his suffering at the hands of the chief priests, scribes and elders, his death, and resurrection.  They talk about this familiar Old Testament prophesy found in Malachi 4:5–6 (ESV), "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”  After the transfiguration event where some of the disciples encounter Moses and Elijah with Jesus, they asked for clarification of this prophecy.  In Matthew 17:9-13 (ESV) we read, "And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.” And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.  Even though John the Baptist had denied his connection to Elijah before the religious leaders, if we put these stories side-by-side, it becomes clearer why Jesus asked this question, “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?”  There is a link between this question and the argument used by the religious leaders that denied Jesus’ deity.  The beheading of John the Baptist at the hand of Herod explains this statement, 'they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.'

Jesus' Understanding

     Jesus did not stop with that simple question about John; he followed it with a statement,
“Answer me.”  He chose to emphasize that he didn’t wish to have his question ignored with another query in response.  If he hadn’t added that last, “Answer me,” it is likely that these religious leaders would have attempted to wriggle out of the contingency to answer and would continue to press in on Jesus' authority.  As we read in the text, the religious leaders weighed in on their options on how to answer Jesus.  They were analyzing their answers not ready to reveal what they believed in their hearts.  It was not Jesus’ authority that was in question but their own.  Jesus knew that these religious leaders were insecure.  Although customary to do so, these religious leaders conferred among themselves, they knew that their answer was vitally important.  No one gave a personal opinion; they would speak as a tribe.  These religious leaders were excellent in asking deceptive questions, so they recognized that there must be an ulterior motive to this question as well.  We read, “if we say, ‘From heaven,’ then he will say,” or “if we say, ‘From man,’” then this will happen (see verses 31 and 32).  They had to second guess their answer before giving it.  

How does a trapped animal respond?

     The religious leaders concurred among themselves; either way they answered Jesus’ question, they would be trapped.  Question:  “Where does one acquire the belief that regardless of what I say, I lose?”  Since my opinion doesn’t matter, I will pose this question for you to answer.  If you have found yourself in a similar circumstance, how might you respond if you felt trapped?  Could it be from this position that we determine how strong our argument is?  In this case, the religious leaders hoped to create a trap for Jesus but soon discovered that they were in the birdcage.  They decided to walk away from this situation to put their clever imaginations to work again.  They would pursue Jesus on another day.  Could this be what we also do with ongoing conflicts?  Could we be hoping to explore other options giving us a better chance of winning?  I believe this theory is worth exploring.  It may be one of the keys to understanding what makes conflict grow—especially ones we refuse to sweep under the rug.  The ones we know will surface again.  Rather than use our clever imaginations on how to fight, can we become students of Jesus and learn how to ask better questions? 

     These religious leaders were inclined to give up their fight rather than answer either “A” or “B.”  As a parent, I can testify if I ask a question like, ‘why did you do this?’  The response I will often receive is just like the response Jesus received from these religious leaders, “we do not know the answer.”  Seeking the depth of our own motivation can be extremely difficult.  Jesus knew that if they were willing to answer his question that they would be willing to address their sin nature.  

     These men were under the allusion that their importance was man-made not ‘God appointed.’ It was a hard pill to swallow that one with more authority stood before them.   Man-made authority is only upheld by the opinion of others.  The religious leader outwardly exhibited power, but they were dependent on people-pleasing behaviors to stay on top.  They never considered that finding favor with man was actually the trap that held them.  God-given authority removes the need for people-pleasing behavior and provides confidence to the one whom authority is given.  

     We know that Jesus would have had a good response if the religious leaders had either answered “A” or “B,” and they knew it too.  Viewing an answer as a trap rather than an opportunity to bring clarity to a situation may leave a conflict unresolved for a very long time, possibly forever.  How might you look at adversarial relationships differently?  Will you have greater confidence that the Holy Spirit can give you the right words at the right time.  James, the brother of Jesus provides excellent advice in James 1:19-20 (ESV), “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”