What thinkest thou? Fielding Curveballs

It’s a question I remember dreading – especially as a response from a teacher or parent, or when it seemed like I’d made a good effort at an earlier answer. Immediately, it made me feel like there was something obvious I was overlooking, or that ought to have occurred to me already. There usually was!

Christ on occasion ‘answered’ a query or circumstance with “what thinkest thou?”; for example, upon being asked by a lawyer “who then is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29-37), the Lord via an artful parable, ultimately directs them to answer their own question. 

Another recipient of this probing question was Peter. 

The occasion behind the miracle of Matthew 17:24-27 is somewhat lesser-known; Peter is asked by administrators in Capernaum whether Christ paid “the half-shekel” (not Roman tax, but originally for the temple service - which like many other funds became abused). Upon answering confidently, Peter returns home where he is met at the door and gently brought up short by Christ’s question. It must have been startling and a little disconcerting to hear this as His first word of greeting!

What was the issue? Peter’s mind must have raced through what he had said wrong. He had defended his Master’s orthodoxy (as he thought) and he himself intended to continue with temple tribute personally. However, Peter’s answer had implications for the identity of Christ; He had no requirement to pay “atonement money” (Ex 30:16) because of Who He is: the Son of God. 

As it happens, Christ opts to pay it anyway to avoid stumbling the questioners. A well-meaning mistake on Peter’s part had no lasting consequences it seems. But is there a lesson in this short episode? 

I was struck by a simple observation. 

When fielding a clear, straight question around a week previously (16:13-20), Peter can flawlessly articulate the truth of Christ’s identity. Christ’s questions in 16:13-14 had perfectly set up the direct question to Peter in 16:16. Peter answers well, and his famous confession receives the praise of the Master. But what happens when a question about Christ comes in ‘from left field’? Peter hasn’t been prepared for this one, and he gets it all wrong. 

Am I the same? When the straight questions are teed up for me, can I (supposedly) knock it out of the park … but then struggle to think on my feet? 

Peter himself later calls for readiness to give an answer to every man that asks a reason for the hope within you (1 Peter 3:15). It is healthy to aspire to this: to develop and defend convictions personally, and to affirm and defend truth. Sound teaching, time in study, and prayerful meditation help form those convictions. 

Often this is primarily with apologetics in mind – to answer the ‘man on the street’ who confronts us as to our faith. As we grow, it is also relevant to our gatherings: to be able to take an informed position regards biblical truth, and to help others understand scripture. 

What about the curveballs though; questions about our Saviour or our faith that we never saw coming? Is there scriptural wisdom to safeguard us when fielding these? 

Firstly, we don’t have to have every intellectual answer – Peter’s epistle calls us not to be omniscient, but to have an answer for “the hope that is within you” – for the cause of our own, reasonable, personally-placed faith. 

Secondly, questions could be asked of us (including online) that simply bait, waste time, or mock the believer. We should value our time in these cases and avoid (Titus 3:9). 

Sometimes the batter on home base ‘takes a pitch’: i.e. they don’t even try to hit the baseball if the pitch is poor. They let it go without swinging. It’s perhaps a good idea to ‘take a pitch’ if we honestly haven’t the answer to a theoretical question, or if there clearly is malicious intent. Christ can be gracious with a well-meaning swing and a miss, as with Peter, but it still does not help our encounters. 

Thirdly, Peter was posed a question in Matthew 17 not about doctrine but practical life decisions. This is usually what opponents are interested in – arguably, most pressure in daily life will be applied where there is outwardly visible difference to the world. We ought to have a reason for the way we live our life, based upon private appreciation of doctrine, and obediently acting on this. If I’ve already established why I do something in my own mind first, then so much the easier when it comes to being questioned. 

Lastly, an older, inspired Peter has a simple default stance for us. Rather than answering hurriedly or fearfully, “Set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts” (LEB) and begin with this in any answer. Perhaps writing this, Peter himself remembered what he missed in Capernaum. 

Start with Christ and His identity. The foundation upon which He builds, is also the foundation upon which we build any answer. 

Examples abound; at times I’m asked about opinions of other systems of worship, and I could launch into issues of clerisy, head coverings, or salvation through faith alone. Asked about world religions, I might be tempted to debate the source of their ethics. These are all legitimate issues, worthy of raising – but is it clear to the questioner why I am convicted of them to the point that I act as I do? I don’t want to appear unconvincing or circular. On the other hand, I might make a mistake in my reasoning, and discourage myself. 

What though, if I consider the place that is given to Christ? In all those examples, His Person is at stake. Better to place that issue front and centre and take both my sensitivities and my actions from there. If I’m clear on that, I can give my answer; perhaps more briefly, courteously and firmly. 

We already test genuine faith, doctrine and the spirit behind newly-encountered teaching by the place they give Him (1 John 4:2). If we must suddenly field a curveball, we might start in the same place: getting it right regards Christ. 

What thinkest thou? 

‍

Bible References:

Matthew 17:24-27

1 Peter 3:15