In a dialogue with the chief priests and elders regarding His authority, Jesus used a logical device called a “constructive dilemma” to “impale” His accusers and expose their insincerity. When the elders questioned who gave Him the authority to teach, Jesus responded by asking them to identify the source of John the Baptist’s authority: “The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?”.
The logic of this dilemma placed the elders in a “logical bind” where both possible answers led to an unfavorable outcome for them. As outlined in the sources, the structure of this constructive dilemma consisted of:
- Premise 1 (Implicative Statements): If the elders said John’s baptism was from God, then they should have submitted to it; if they said it was not from God, then the people would harm them because the public revered John.
- Premise 2 (Disjunctive Proposition): John’s baptism was either from God or it was not.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the elders either had to admit they should have submitted to John or face the risk of being harmed by the people.
The elders quickly recognized the logical import of this predicament. Because they were unwilling to admit that John and Jesus derived their authority from the same heavenly source, they chose to feign ignorance by answering, “We do not know”.
By forcing them into this corner, Jesus effectively silenced them. He concluded the exchange by stating, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things,” reasoning that there was no point in providing an answer if they were unwilling to admit the truth about the evidence already before them. This encounter serves as a primary example of how Jesus used precise, valid argument forms to defeat his opponents’ attempts to discredit Him.