Argumentum Ad Hominem
when you argue against the wrong man
Scripture Reading: Luke 16:1-16
Luke 16 is a part of Jesus’ longer discourse extending back to the beginning of chapter 15. That is the chapter in which we find Jesus’ parables on lost things. He was prompted to teach these three turned his attention toward his disciples and used a parable about stewardship that led to his main point, “you cannot serve God and money,” (16:13).
The Pharisees were a part of the peripheral audience. They were listening and felt the sting of what Jesus said. Luke explains: “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard these things…” (16:14). Though Jesus was talking to his disciples (16:1), the Pharisees assumed his words were directed at them. I suspect their consciences held court and pronounced their guilt. But rather than repent they reacted. Rather than admit their sin, they attacked Jesus.
They ridiculed Jesus (16:14). We aren’t told the specific nature of what they said about him. Based on other texts we can speculate that they may have gone after his lack of formal training, his family background, or where he grew up. Of course, none of that had anything to do with whether or not what he said was true.
The Pharisees used what we would say is a logical fallacy called “argumentum ad hominem.” That’s a fancy way of saying, “arguing against the man,” because we like fancy Latin ways of saying stuff. Unable to refute Jesus’ teaching, they sought to undermine Jesus’ authority and, thereby, call into question his teaching in an indirect manner.
Ad hominem arguments seek to poison the minds of people against the person making the argument. That is why it is also called, “poisoning the well.” The Pharisees were trying to poison the well. By ridiculing Jesus, they sought to undermine his credibility and make his teaching invalid.
Jesus uses their argumentum ad hominem to point out an even bigger issue. They were putting their case before the wrong jury and in the wrong courtroom. The Pharisees thought the jury was their fellow man, and the court was the court of public opinion. They were trying to justify themselves before men (16:15). They might very well win their case in that court. That court can only see what can be seen. That jury only considers the evidence before them (the robes and rituals). The verdict in that court, by that jury, might be “not guilty.”
But there is a problem. That is not a real court. It has no jurisdiction over the eternal matters Jesus is dealing with. We are not justified before God by the opinions of men. The court that matters is the one in which God sits as Judge. Ad hominem arguments aren’t persuasive in that court. Externals, while mattering to some degree, aren’t the only evidence presented there. Jesus explains, “for God knows your hearts,” (16:15).