What Is Truth?

The goings-on in this world constantly remind me why a certain quotation from the late novelist Michael Crichton, author of The Andromeda Strain, Timeline, The Great Train Robbery, State of Fear, and many other bestselling books, resonates so much. In a speech delivered to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on September 15, 2003, he said in answer to the question of what he considered the most important challenge facing mankind:

The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

Last night, millions of Americans viewed the intense debate between Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican. Both candidates thrust and parried with a steady onslaught of statistics—an armory of dollars and percentages—that each insisted were correct and verified by both governmental and independent audits and studies. Of course, the statistics that were waved about had been carefully chosen to support and spin each candidate's position on the several major policies that were "discussed."

But who is the viewer to believe? Among the topics that the moderator brought up, a few were contentious. For instance, Romney-Ryan will put forward a "framework," sparse on details, to reduce the deficit, lower taxes, and create twelve million jobs, welcoming bipartisan support. Obama-Biden will cut middle-class taxes but force wealthy Americans to "pay their fair share," ensuring that Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare remain to help everyone. The Republican candidates will take foreign policy out of the hands of the UN and take a cautious approach to pulling out of Afghanistan and intervening in Syria. The Democrat candidates will honor their agreement with their allies regarding the Afghanistan exit plan and do what they can to support the rebels in Syria without sending in troops.

One viewer may see a clear choice between the two sides, while another may see only different shades of red. This brings up another point made by Crichton:

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

Or, as a cynical, career-politician named Pontius Pilate once asked Jesus, "What is truth?" (John 18:38). Not only had he spent his adult life clambering upward in Roman politics, but as governor of Judea, he had also spent many years skirting the pitfalls inherent in Jewish politics. He knew how the world works. Each political party or religious sect had its own "truth," and who could know which was correct? Certainly, an outsider as he was could not separate the pure from the dross. He knew from experience that in a sophisticated world like the Roman Empire—or like our modern civilization—what is perceived to be true is often more important than what is actually true. Clever men can ride such perceptions to the heights of power.

Crichton's warning, then, while intended for us in these Daniel 12:4 times, spotlights an age-old challenge: How do we determine the truth? Our problem is more difficult than Pilate's was only in the fact that we are faced with a tsunami of information each day, as compared to his mere trickle of news. It has been posited that just one Sunday New York Times contains more information than the average medieval villager would receive in a lifetime, and we can be sure that a Roman official would gather somewhat more. As the prophet wrote, "Knowledge [information] shall increase."

Even so, human nature is the same now as it was then, so the level of dishonesty and trickery in those who supply the information is probably nearly the same. Just as Pilate had to discern the facts in the case the Jews brought against Jesus, we have to determine, in a myriad of instances, what is truth and what is marketing, propaganda, spin, disinformation, hyperbole, etc. We must ferret out motives, discover fallacies, and consider probabilities and potentialities. None of these things is easy to do, but some of us, perhaps even many of us, have become proficient in doing these things due to being constantly forced to make such evaluations.

By "us," I mean members of the church of God. There is a good reason—in fact, two good reasons—why we may be better at this than others are: 1) We have access to the truth in God's Word, and 2) we have the help of the Holy Spirit to discern truth. Jesus tells us in John 8:31-32: "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." This is an extremely significant statement. It links God's Word with the truth, discipleship with living the truth, and understanding the truth with liberty.

Divine revelation, which we have in Scripture, gives us the foundational truths that do not change, providing us with a starting point of discernment and oftentimes a great deal more. This allows us to cut through the static and grasp the heart of an issue, comment, or claim, making the determination of truth or error easier. Moreover, if we are living the truth, we have experience to know what works and what does not, giving us a further edge. Finally, a deep understanding of the truth allows us the freedom to choose what to believe and what to reject.

In terms of discerning truth, God gives us an awesome gift in the Holy Spirit, which John 14:17 calls "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive." Later in that Passover message, Jesus instructs the disciples that the Spirit "will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Most specifically, He implies spiritual truth, "the deep things of God" that Paul writes about in I Corinthians 2:10-16. However, those spiritual truths do not exist in a vacuum. They reach out into every area of life, shining a light on what is real and exposing what is false. Paul concludes his teaching by saying, ". . . he who is spiritual judges all things" (verse 15), and in actuality, such a person with God's Spirit is in process of developing the very mind of Christ (verse 16).

The task of discerning the truth in these confusing times is before us. We can be thankful that God has given us the tools to meet the challenge and overcome it.

In the Presence of Enemies

David writes in Psalm 25:19, “Consider my enemies, for they are many; and they hate me with cruel hatred.” This verse applies equally well to Jesus of Nazareth, a Man who, because of His goodness and truth, attracted enemies like ants to honey. From His birth to His death, he was surrounded by antagonists, many of them out to kill Him for who He was and what He taught.

Just a list of His enemies would be fairly long, but there are several major people or groups who require a few lines of explanation, as a few of them are frequently confused.

The chief and most dogged adversary of Jesus Christ is, of course, Satan the Devil. Knowing that God had sent His Son to replace him as ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), Satan pulled out all the stops to destroy Jesus physically or to tempt Him into sin, destroying Him spiritually. From the killing of the Bethlehem innocents (Matthew 2:16-18) to rousing the rabble to choose Barabbas and condemn Jesus to crucifixion (Matthew 27:20-23)—and beyond—Satan was intent on manipulating people to obstruct and derail God’s purpose. He even personally confronted Jesus in the wilderness just prior to the beginning of His ministry (Matthew 4; Luke 4), but that ended in utter failure to tempt the Son of God into sin. Insanely, he still thinks he can win, seeking to “devour” the elect (I Peter 5:8), and at the end of this age (Revelation 13) and at the end of the Millennium (Revelation 20:7-10), he will again attempt to incite humanity against Christ.

Jesus’ earliest human enemy was none other than Herod the Great, King of Judea at the time He was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2). When the wise men from the East asked the whereabouts of the One born King of the Jews, Herod was troubled—a classic biblical understatement. Herod was paranoid about usurpers of his throne, having killed at least a half-dozen people—all of them relatives—whom he suspected of conspiring against him. A claim that a newborn was the real King of the Jews only fueled his paranoia, which was perhaps heightened by advancing years and failing health. He died soon after his attempt on Jesus’ life and his actual massacre of all boys two and under in Bethlehem and its environs.

Perhaps Jesus’ best-known adversaries were the Pharisees. These men belonged to a sect of Judaism that prided itself on its strict adherence to the traditions of the Jewish people. Their name, Pharisee, refers to being “separate” by means of their practice of religion—that they had separated themselves from all ritual impurity. They set themselves up as lay-interpreters of God’s law and vowed to follow the thousands of uninspired rules and regulations regarding proper conduct, particularly on the subjects of the Sabbath, tithing, purification, foods, and other various religious procedures, many of which Jesus criticizes in Matthew 23. They opposed Jesus so vehemently because He upset, not just their religious sensibilities, but also their popularity with and esteem of the people, as well as their political power under the Romans.

Closely linked to the Pharisees were the scribes or lawyers. Originally, they were simply writers or copyists of the law, but over time, due to the growing use of Aramaic rather than Hebrew among the people, their occupation had become a prominent, learned profession: They became doctors of the law whose job was to interpret biblical statements for the people. Thus, they became the jealous guardians of both the text and interpretation of Scripture. Jesus’ teachings frequently overthrew their rulings, and they did not take kindly to it.

Another sect of the Jews called themselves Sadducees. The name evidently derives from the Hebrew word tsadaq, which means “righteous.” As the party of the aristocracy and the priests, the Sadducees were the bitter rivals of the Pharisees, and other than at His trial, only once are they shown united with the Pharisees against Jesus (Matthew 16:1, 6). Jesus does not denounce them as vehemently as He does the Pharisees, yet He still warns His disciples against their doctrines (Matthew 16:12). They were the arch-conservatives of Judaism, clinging to their historical responsibilities and interpretations and rejecting the Oral Law touted by the Pharisees. The Sadducees were extensively involved in the politics of the time, and in fact, held many of the chief positions in Judea. The Herodians, also called Boethusians, were a sub-sect of the Sadducees and were political partisans of Herod. Their particular opposition to Jesus was almost entirely political. The chief priests were Sadducees of a handful of distinguished and wealthy families of the Levitical aristocracy.

Although the Zealots were not an organized political or religious party at the time, there were some zealous groups that were intent on overthrowing the Romans and installing a Jewish king on the throne of David. Early on, some of them probably had high hopes that Jesus, a Son of David, would fulfill the earthly Messianic role that they envisioned. However, He soon disappointed them by refusing to take the path of armed rebellion against the Romans. Some believe that Judas Iscariot, His betrayer, may have been the member of such a group, as his surname is thought to mean “dagger-man,” hinting at political skullduggery.

The Romans themselves in due course became His direct enemy through Pontius Pilate and his sentence of crucifixion. The Empire probably did not care what Jesus taught one way or another, but they were terribly concerned about two matters: treason and riot. The Jewish authorities tried to compel Pilate to convict Jesus on His assertion that He was a king, which Pilate found not to rise to treason (John 18:38). The Jews then switched the charge to “He made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). Pilate tried to release Him, but the Jewish leadership and the crowds forced his hand to crucify Jesus.

So Jew and Gentile, rulers and rabble, priestly and secular—all had a hand in opposing and ultimately killing our Savior Jesus Christ. This fact leads to the inescapable conclusion that they represented each one of us, for had we been in their shoes, we would have done the same. No matter how vociferously we deny that we also would have shouted with the crowd, “Crucify Him!” we cannot deny that we have sinned, making His atoning death necessary (see Isaiah 53:5-6, 10-12). Paul writes: “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. . . . For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Romans 5:8, 10; see Colossians 1:21-22).

So, though our names may appear on the list of His enemies, upon God’s calling and the acceptance of Christ’s blood in our behalf, they have been struck through, transferred to the list of God’s redeemed.

The Historical Jesus

Listen (RealAudio)

In the academic world of biblical history and archeology, scholars of the "minimalist" camp are gaining increasing prominence. Essentially, minimalists give the biblical record little credence; they minimize the importance of the Bible to the historical record, placing more trust in evidence from other sources. They tend, then, to discredit the Bible's claims until an archeologist digs up confirmatory proof or until other manuscript evidence comes to light to corroborate Scripture. It seems that, according to modern critical scholarship, the venerable Bible is the ugly stepchild of history, an embarrassment to today's "scientific" study of the past.

Of course, minimizing the Bible's claims cannot help but bring its main Character, Jesus Christ, into question. Since 1985, the Jesus Seminar, a group of about 200 scholars and authors, has done just that. Its aim is to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus by using modern critical methods, weeding out fact from fiction in the gospel narratives. Out of hand, the members reject all "apocalyptic eschatology," or prophecy concerning the end times. In addition, they say that He "healed" only psychosomatic illness, and so discard His miraculous abilities. They do admit that He was crucified—as a public nuisance—by the Romans, but they reject His resurrection as the visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. In the end, stripped of all the "fictions" His early followers spread about Him, Jesus is revealed as merely an itinerant Jewish peasant who mingled with the socially disadvantaged and uttered a few pithy sayings.

Yet, if they are to be believed, how did such a common fellow make such a huge impact on world history—to the point that two billion people presently profess to be His followers?

There is a disconnect somewhere, and it is not in the people of faith.

Granted, no serious historian can claim that Jesus Christ is not a historical figure. There is simply too much evidence from the early Christian era to show that He really did exist. As biblical theologian and historian F.F. Bruce has written, "The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th ed., 1972, p. 119). Ancient documents from respected writers like Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger—and others—refer unreservedly to Jesus of Nazareth as an actual person.

The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about the great fire of Rome in AD 64 during the reign of Nero (AD 54-68), tells of how the emperor blamed the Christians living in the city for starting the conflagration. Perhaps referring to extant Imperial records, he notes in his Annals, XV.44:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

Josephus, a Jewish general and historian who lived into the early second century, penned a controversial paragraph about Jesus (yet attested as early as about AD 324 in the writings of Eusebius, a Catholic church historian):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful miracles, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and then thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day. (Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII.3.3)

Suetonius, an annalist of the Imperial dynasty and a court official in the reign of the emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138), writes in his Life of Claudius, XXV.4: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [an alternate spelling of Christus], he expelled them from Rome." This decree of Claudius can perhaps be dated to AD 49. In another work, Life of Nero, XVI.2, Suetonius observes, "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

Finally, Plinius Secundus, more commonly known as Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, corresponded with the emperor Trajan in AD 112 (Epistles, X.96) about how to treat Christians who refused to pay homage to the emperor as a god. He admits, "Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them." He mentions Christianity, Christians, and the name of Christ ten times in the short letter, even remarking that Christians "addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity."

The Emperor's reply is also preserved, in which he commends Pliny for his actions:

You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. . . . If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian. . . .

There are many other, later, secular attestations of Jesus Christ as a historical figure from antiquity, but just these four reveal Christ and Christianity as being known by Roman officials at the highest levels as early as the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54). Certainly, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate knew Jesus Christ and reported His trial and execution in his official records, which unfortunately have not survived.

If nothing else, these early mentions provide unbiased support for many of the biblical claims about Jesus, including His truthful teachings, His miracles, His crucifixion, His resurrection, and even His divinity! The truth is that the critical scholars do not want to believe these things, even from the pens of historians that they usually trust, because they know that believing them would bind them to following Christ's teaching—and they will do anything to avoid that!