What is Truth?

Over two thousand years ago, Truth was put on trial and judged by people who were devoted to lies. In fact, Truth faced six trials in less than a full day—three of which were religious, and three of which were legal. In the end, few of those involved in those events could answer the question, “What is truth?”



After being arrested, the Truth was first brought before a man named Annas, a corrupt former high priest of the Jews. Annas violated numerous Jewish laws during the trial, including holding the trial in his own home, attempting to coerce the defendant into incriminating himself, and striking the defendant, who had not yet been convicted of anything at that time. After Annas, the Truth was brought before the reigning high priest, Caiaphas, who happened to be Annas’s son-in-law. Before Caiaphas and the Jewish Sanhedrin, many false witnesses came forward to speak against the Truth, yet nothing could be proven and no evidence of wrongdoing could be found. Caiaphas broke no fewer than seven laws while trying to convict the Truth: (1) the trial was held in secret; (2) it was conducted at night; (3) it involved bribery; (4) the defendant had no one present to defend Him; (5) the requirement for two to three witnesses could not be met; (6) they used self-incriminating testimony against the defendant; (7) they carried out the death penalty against the defendant on the same day. All these actions were prohibited by Jewish law. Regardless, Caiaphas declared the Truth guilty because the Truth claimed to be God in the flesh, something Caiaphas called blasphemy.



When morning came, the third trial of the Truth took place, resulting in the Jewish Sanhedrin pronouncing that the Truth should die. However, the Jewish council had no legal right to carry out the death penalty, so they were forced to bring the Truth before the Roman governor at the time, a man named Pontius Pilate. Pilate was appointed by Tiberius as the fifth prefect of Judea and served in that capacity from A.D. 26 to 36. The procurator had the power of life and death and could overturn death sentences handed down by the Sanhedrin. As the Truth stood before Pilate, more false accusations were brought against Him. His enemies said, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar, and claiming that He Himself is the Christ, a King” (Luke 23:2). This was a lie, since the Truth had told everyone to pay their taxes (Matthew 22:21) and never spoke of Himself in a way that challenged Caesar.



After this, a very interesting conversation took place between the Truth and Pilate. “So Pilate went back into the Praetorium, summoned Jesus, and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are you asking this on your own, or did others tell you about Me?’ Pilate answered, ‘Am I a Jew? Your own people and the chief priests handed You over to me; what have You done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’ Therefore Pilate said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.’ Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’” (John 18:33–38).



Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” has echoed through history. Was it a melancholy desire to know what no one else could tell him, a cynical insult, or perhaps an irritated, indifferent reply to Jesus’ words?



In a postmodern world that denies that truth can be known, answering this question is more important than ever. What is truth?



A Proposed Definition of Truth



In defining truth, it is first helpful to note what truth is not:



• Truth is not simply whatever works. This is the philosophy of pragmatism—an ends-versus-means approach. In reality, lies can appear to “work,” but they are still lies and not the truth.

• Truth is not simply what is coherent or understandable. A group of people can get together and form a conspiracy based on a set of falsehoods where they all agree to tell the same false story, but that does not make their account true.

• Truth is not what makes people feel good. Unfortunately, bad news can be true.

• Truth is not what the majority says is true. Fifty-one percent of a group can reach a wrong conclusion.

• Truth is not what is comprehensive. A lengthy, detailed presentation can still lead to a false conclusion.

• Truth is not defined by intent. Good intentions can still be wrong.

• Truth is not how we know; truth is what we know.

• Truth is not simply what is believed. A lie that is believed is still a lie.

• Truth is not what is publicly proven. A truth can be known privately (for example, the location of buried treasure).



The Greek word for “truth” is aletheia, which literally means “to un-hide” or “to hide nothing.” It conveys the idea that truth is always there, always open and available for all to see, with nothing hidden or obscured. The Hebrew word for “truth” is emeth, which means “firmness,” “constancy,” and “duration.” Such a definition implies an everlasting substance and something that can be relied upon.



From a philosophical perspective, there are three simple ways to define truth:



1. Truth is that which corresponds to reality.

2. Truth is that which matches its object.

3. Truth is simply telling it like it is.



First, truth corresponds to reality or “what is.” It is real. Truth is also corresponding in nature. In other words, it matches its object and is known by its referent. For example, a teacher facing a class might say, “The only exit from this room is on the right.” For the students facing the teacher, the exit door might be on their left, but it is absolutely true that, from the teacher’s perspective, the door is on the right.



Truth also corresponds to its object. It may be absolutely true that a certain person needs a specific number of milligrams of a certain medication, but another person may need more or less of the same medication to achieve the desired effect. This is not relative truth, but simply an example of how truth must correspond to its object. It would be wrong (and potentially dangerous) for a patient to ask their doctor to prescribe an inappropriate dose of a particular medication, or to claim that any medicine for their specific condition will suffice.



In short, truth is simply stating things as they are; it is the way things really are, and any other viewpoint is wrong. A foundational principle of philosophy is the ability to distinguish between truth and error, or as Thomas Aquinas observed, “It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions.”



Challenges to Truth



Aquinas’ words are not very popular today. Making distinctions seems to be out of fashion in a postmodern era of relativism. It is acceptable today to say, “This is true,” as long as it is not followed by, “and therefore that is false.” This is especially evident in matters of faith and religion, where every belief system is supposed to be on equal footing when it comes to truth.



There are a number of philosophies and worldviews that challenge the concept of truth; yet, when each is critically examined, it turns out to be self-defeating in nature.



The philosophy of relativism asserts that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: Is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it is truly meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth does exist. Moreover, the relativist undermines his own position when he claims that the absolutist’s position is wrong—why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct as well? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best course of action is to follow his advice.



Those who follow the philosophy of skepticism simply doubt all truth. But is the skeptic skeptical of skepticism; does he doubt his own claim to truth? If so, then why pay attention to skepticism? If not, then we can be sure of at least one thing (in other words, absolute truth exists)—skepticism, which, ironically, becomes absolute truth in that case. The agnostic says you cannot know the truth. Yet this mindset is self-defeating because it claims to know at least one truth: that you cannot know the truth.



The followers of postmodernism simply affirm that there is no particular truth. The patron saint of postmodernism—Friedrich Nietzsche—described truth this way: “What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms … truths are illusions … coins that have lost their images and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.” Ironically, although the postmodernist holds coins in his hand that are now “mere metal,” he affirms at least one absolute truth: the truth that no truth should be affirmed. Like other worldviews, postmodernism is self-defeating and cannot stand up to its own claim.



A popular worldview is pluralism, which holds that all truth claims are equally valid. Of course, this is impossible. Can two claims—one stating that a woman is currently pregnant and another stating that she is not currently pregnant—both be true at the same time? Pluralism unravels in the face of the law of non-contradiction, which states that something cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. As one philosopher quipped, anyone who believes that the law of non-contradiction is not true (and, by default, that pluralism is true) should be beaten and burned until they admit that being beaten and burned is not the same as not being beaten and burned. Also, note that pluralism claims to be true and that anything opposed to it is false—a claim that contradicts its own foundational tenet.



The spirit behind pluralism is an open-armed attitude of tolerance. However, pluralism confuses the idea that everyone has equal value with the idea that every truth claim is equally valid. Put simply, all people may be equal, but not all truth claims are. Pluralism fails to understand the difference between opinion and truth, a distinction Mortimer Adler notes: “Pluralism is desirable and tolerable only in those areas that are matters of taste rather than matters of truth.”



The Offensive Nature of Truth



When the concept of truth is maligned, it is usually for one or more of the following reasons:



A common complaint against anyone claiming to possess absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a stance is “narrow-minded.” However, the critic fails to understand that, by its very nature, truth is narrow. Is a math teacher narrow-minded for holding to the belief that 2 + 2 equals only 4?



Another objection to truth is that it is arrogant to claim that one person is right and another is wrong. However, returning to the earlier example with mathematics, is it arrogant for a math teacher to insist that there is only one correct answer to an arithmetic problem? Or is it arrogant for a locksmith to state that only one key will open a locked door?



A third charge against those who hold to absolute truth in matters of faith and religion is that such a position excludes people, rather than being inclusive. But such a complaint fails to understand that truth, by its very nature, excludes its opposite. All answers other than 4 are excluded from the reality of what 2 + 2 truly equals.



Yet another objection to truth is that it is offensive and divisive to claim to possess the truth. Instead, the critic argues, all that matters is sincerity. The problem with this position is that truth is unaffected by sincerity, belief, or desire. It doesn’t matter how sincerely one believes that the wrong key will fit a door; the key still won’t go in, and the lock won’t open. Truth is also unaffected by sincerity. Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely believes it is lemonade will still suffer the harmful effects of the poison. Finally, truth is impervious to desire. A person may strongly wish that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge shows the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no amount of desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going.



Some will admit that absolute truth exists, but then claim that such a stance is valid only in the realm of science and not in matters of faith and religion. This is a philosophy known as logical positivism, which was popularized by philosophers such as David Hume and A. J. Ayer. In essence, such people maintain that truth claims must either be (1) tautologies (for example, “all bachelors are unmarried men”) or empirically verifiable (that is, testable through science). To the logical positivist, all talk about God is nonsense.



Those who hold to the notion that only science can make truth claims fail to recognize that there are many realms of truth where science is powerless. For example:



• Science cannot prove the disciplines of mathematics and logic because it presupposes them.

• Science cannot prove metaphysical truths such as the existence of minds other than my own.

• Science is unable to provide truth in the areas of morality and ethics. You cannot use science, for example, to prove that the Nazis were evil.

• Science is incapable of stating truths about aesthetic matters, such as the beauty of a sunrise.

• Lastly, when anyone makes the statement “science is the only source of objective truth,” they have just made a philosophical claim—which cannot be tested by science.



And there are those who say that absolute truth does not apply in the realm of morality. Yet the answer to the question, “Is it moral to torture and murder an innocent child?” is absolute and universal: No. Or, to put it more personally, those who espouse relative truth regarding morality always seem to want their spouse to be absolutely faithful to them.



Why Truth Is Important



Why is it so important to understand and embrace the concept of absolute truth in all areas of life (including faith and religion)? Simply because there are consequences for being wrong in life. Giving someone the wrong dose of medication can kill them; having an investment manager make the wrong financial decisions can impoverish a family; boarding the wrong plane will take you where you do not wish to go; and dealing with an unfaithful spouse can result in the destruction of a family and, potentially, disease.



As Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it, “The fact is, the truth matters—especially when you’re on the receiving end of a lie.” And nowhere is this more important than in the realm of faith and religion. Eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong.



God and Truth



During Jesus’s six trials, the contrast between the truth (righteousness) and lies (unrighteousness) was unmistakable. There stood Jesus, the Truth, being judged by those whose every action was steeped in lies. The Jewish leaders broke nearly every law designed to protect a defendant from wrongful conviction. They worked fervently to find any testimony that would incriminate Jesus, and in their frustration, they turned to false evidence presented by liars. But even that could not help them achieve their goal. So they broke another law and forced Jesus to incriminate Himself.



Once before Pilate, the Jewish leaders lied again. They accused Jesus of blasphemy, but since they knew that wouldn’t be enough to persuade Pilate to kill Jesus, they claimed Jesus was defying Caesar and breaking Roman law by encouraging the crowds not to pay taxes. Pilate quickly saw through their superficial deception, and he never even addressed the charge.



Jesus the Righteous was being judged by the unrighteous. The sad fact is that the latter always persecutes the former. That is why Cain killed Abel. The connection between truth and righteousness and between falsehood and unrighteousness is illustrated by a number of examples in the New Testament:



• “For this reason God will send them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9–12, emphasis added).



• “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18, emphasis added).



• “who will repay each person according to their deeds: to those who, by persevering in doing good, seek glory, honor, and immortality—eternal life; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—wrath and indignation” (Romans 2:6–8, emphasis added). • “[Love] is not rude; it does not seek its own interests; it is not easily angered; it keeps no record of wrongs; it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:5–6, emphasis added).



What Is Truth? - Conclusion



The question Pontius Pilate asked centuries ago needs to be rephrased to be completely accurate. The Roman governor’s remark, “What is truth?” overlooks the fact that many things can contain truth, but only one thing can actually be the Truth. Truth must originate from somewhere.



The stark reality is that Pilate was looking directly at the Origin of all Truth on that early morning over two thousand years ago. Not long before being arrested and brought before the governor, Jesus had made the simple statement, “I am the truth” (John 14:6)—a rather incredible claim. How could a mere man be the truth? He couldn’t be, unless He was more than a man—which is, in fact, what He claimed to be. The fact is, Jesus’ claim was validated when He rose from the dead (Romans 1:4).



There’s a story about a man who lived in Paris who had a visitor from the countryside come to see him. Wanting to show the visitor the magnificence of Paris, he took him to the Louvre to see the great art and then to a concert at a majestic symphony hall to hear a great symphony orchestra perform. At the end of the day, the visitor from the countryside remarked that he didn’t particularly like either the art or the music. To which his host replied, “They aren’t on trial—you are.” Pilate and the Jewish leaders thought they were judging Christ, when, in reality, they were the ones being judged. Moreover, the One they condemned will one day serve as their Judge, just as He will for all who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.



Pilate evidently never came to know the truth. Eusebius, the historian and Bishop of Caesarea, records that Pilate ultimately committed suicide sometime during the reign of Emperor Caligula—a sad ending and a reminder to everyone that ignoring the truth always leads to undesirable consequences.





To learn more

Contact

Dr. Success NKONGHO (Ph.D., Religious Philosophy)

Chancellor, Christ Kingdom University

P.O. Box 3259 Bonanjo-Douala

Emailckucameroon@gmail.com

chancellor@cku.cm

www.cku.cm

Republic of Cameroon

Cell: +23779123312