The Sanctity Of Truth
(pilfered from John Murray, WTS) “What is truth?” asserted Pilate (John 18:38). Pilate’s assertion is basic, and it could be restated, “What is the truth?” Our Lord gives Thomas (but not Pilate) the answer: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).The term “truth” appears over a 100 times in both the Old and the New Testaments. Traditional Western philosophy conceives of truth as conformity to fact and the real state of affairs, which occasionally corresponds to biblical usage. But overwhelmingly the Biblical usage of “truth” refers to the word of God. The New Testament teaches that the truth resides in Christ and (in contrast to human fables, traditions and philosophy) would, therefore, set men free. In Scripture, God is pictured as both personal and philosophic - the source of all truth.We should bear in mind that the true in the Bible John is not so much the true in contrast with the false, or the real in contrast with the fictitious. It is the absolute as contrasted with the relative, the ultimate as contrasted with the derived, the eternal as contrasted with the temporal, the permanent as contrasted with the temporary, the complete in contrast with the partial, the substantial in contrast with the shadowy. John tells us this in John 1:17:The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ You miss the point if you suppose that truth is here contrasted with the false or the ficticious because “the Mosaic law” was not false or ficticious. What John is contrasting here is the partial, incomplete, temporary character of the Mosaic law with the completeness and fullness of the revelation of “grace and truth” in Jesus Christ.[1]It is in this sense that we are to understand our Lord when he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He is enunciating the astounding fact that He is the ultimate, the eternal, the absolute, the permanent, the substantial, the underived, the complete.[2],.[3]Little wonder then that the Old Testament speaks of a future redeemed community as a community of truth tellers:These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other and render true and sound judgment in your courts; do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this, declares the LORD (Zech. 8:3, 16-17). This then is the basis and heart of the question of truth. God is “the truth” — truth absolute, ultimate, eternal, permanent, complete in contradistinction from all that is relative, derived, partial, and temporal. When I speak of the sanctity of truth, what underlies this concept is the sanctity of the person of God. He is the God of truth and all truth derives its sanctity from Him. This is why all untruth or falsehood is wrong; it is a contradiction of that who God is. And this is why God cannot lie (Titus I:2; Heb. 6:18; cf., Rom. 3:4; No. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). To lie would contradict Himself and He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). It is His perfection to be consistent with Himself..[4]In God’s word to us the first allusion to God’s truthfulness (and to the necessity on our crediting God’s truthfulness) the is in the garden of Eden in connection with the forbidden fruit: “In day you eat thereof you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). It was by this prohibition that our faithfulness was to be tested. It is at this point that the craft and the malignity of the devil appears. The devil tempted Eve in 2 stages:1) by a question of fact (“God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil.”)2) by flat denial of that fact. (“You will not surely die.”)It is the denial stage that interests us. “You will not surely die.”*It is not simply that God would be unsuccessful in fulfilling his threat of death.*It is not simply a denial of God’s power.*It is not simply a denial of God’s knowledge. (Indeed, Satan credits God with full knowledge and on that basis rests the genius of his attack.)*No, Satan directly assails God’s veracity:God knows that in the day you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:5). Satan accuses God of deliberate falsehood and deception. God has perpetrated a lie, because God is jealous of His own selfish and exclusive possession of the “knowledge of good and evil.”The Satanic denial is not an attack upon God’s knowledge, not an attack on God’s power. Rather, it is an attack on God’s integrity and veracity. In a word, it is the truthfulness of God that is impugned. This was an attack, skillfully framed and designed, upon our integrity by eliciting our distrust in God’s integrity. Our integrity is dissolved when God’s integrity (veracity) is questioned. The way of integrity for you and I is commitment to God, totally trusting in God’s truthfulness. God’s truth is God’s glory. The epitome of malignity is to assail this glory. That was the tempter’s strategy, and by acquiescence, our first parents fell. Sin entered into the world, and death by sin.Thus, the necessity or requirement of truthfulness in us rests upon God’s truthfulness. As we are to be holy because God is holy, so we are to be truthful because God is truthful. The glory of God is that He is the God of truth; the glory of man is that we are the image bearers of God and therefore we are “of the truth” (cf. John 18:37). It is not without significance that the arch-enemy of God and His kingdom is “the father of lies” (John 8:44).[5]The apostle Paul can describe the deeds of the old man and of the manner of life by which the old man is characterized as those of lying and falsehood (cf. Eph. 4:22-25; Col. 3:9, 10).That untruth is the hallmark of impiety is borne out by numerous examples of Scripture, too many to list here.[6] Suffice it to say that lying is of the devil; it is the work of darkness.On the positive side, when heaven is portrayed for us in scripture, it is a place of truth.[7] Just as untruth is the hallmark of impiety, so truth is the ensign of godliness. Scriptures teach that Truth is the mark of godliness*in knowledge,If you continue in my word, then are you truly my disciples; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:31, 32).[8][9][10] *in practice — in thought, word, and action.Of course, practice depends upon truthful knowledge. In reality, truthfulness cannot guide our life unless the truth is formed in our worldview. In sum, we must know the truth if we are to live the truth. Negatively, the Bible proclaims:*that every imagination of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil (Gen. 6:5; 8:21),*that we go astray from the womb speaking lies (Psalm 58:3), that we change the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25),*that with our tongues we have used deceit and the poison of asps is under our lips (Rom. 3:13).[11][12]On the positive side, the Biblical witness is equally explicit.[13] John has no greater joy than to hear that his “children were walking in the truth” (3 John 3-4; 2 John 4).In summary, it is the truth of the gospel, dwelling richly in us in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, that insures the truthfulness of our practical life; that is to say, sincerity, honesty, integrity are formed in us by practicing the truth.I have mentioned truth, but what is truthfulness? It is easy to affirm that to speak, or signify, or live a lie or to “bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16) is wrong, is to violate the core of integrity.[14] But, falsehood is one thing, limited knowledge in understanding or representation is another thing. Journalistically speaking, however, quite apart from sin, there is ignorance and a lack of full understanding on the part of all finite and fallen human beings.It is true, of course, that misunderstanding and misrepresentation often arise when the persons involved are not directly or deliberately intending to create misunderstanding or misrepresentation. For example, a journalist receives information that is erroneous; he believes the report and prints it. He is acting in good faith. And we do not call such a person “a liar” because, though mistaken as to the facts, he reports what he believes to be true and is not motivated by malice or any evil intent. We are all involved to some extent in such reporting. It is a necessity of the trust and credit we must accord to others, and of the limitations of a fallen world. We would be doing injustice if everyone involved in erroneous representations were charged with lying and esteemed a liar.But, we think superficially and sub-Christianly if we suppose that no wrong is entailed in our reporting misrepresentation of fact. Even when we act in good faith with a trusting attitude and we are the innocent victims of misinformation, we are not to assume that we are relieved of all wrong. What we need to understand is that the misrepresentation is still false because it does not accord with truth. Such a representation ought not to be; it is a violation of truth and, therefore, a misrepresentation of God’s truth. Consequently to be a reporter passing on misrepresentation, however trusting our motives and designs, and however deeply unaware of its untruth, entails for us an involvement in the intrinsic wrong of the untruth. The misrepresentation is not simply an evil consequence of sin which is not itself sinful, such as disease. No, misrepresentation is intrinsically wrong because it is false. Now, how we are to measure the wrong of the apparently innocent reporter is beyond our human power of analysis and our province. But to dismiss the entail of wrong is to fail in an Christian analysis with integrity.This consideration that all falsehood, as a deviation from truth, is per se wrong, should arouse us to the gravity of our responsibility as journalists in reporting and promoting truth. This sanctity of truth requires that we not only avoid and hate all deliberate lying, but also that thought and conviction be in accordance with truth.The necessity for this warning is justified by the perversity of those persons who have espoused the lie to such an extent that they actually believe the lies which they invent. Are we to say that such are not liars simply because their intellectual and moral perversity is so aggravated that they come to believe their own lies? This is a case of such aggravated perverseness that the ordinary criterion of lying no longer applies and we must therefore realize how complex the matter of lying is, and how deeply involved we may be in this vice, even when we complacently consider ourselves innocent. Our prejudices and passions and biases make us the ready victims of lies, and insensitive to the claims of truth.In entertaining any belief or conviction it is necessary that our minds be so informed and our judgment so disciplined that we journalists not make a representation until adequate corroborating evidence is discovered and evaluated to verify our representation. Christian journalists must cultivate and exercise the caution whereby we will be preserved from rash and precipitate peddling of reports that are not authenticated by the proper verifying evidence. And the Christian journalist must also strive not to be blinded by prejudice or bias, nor impeded by laziness. Jealousy for truth will make us alert to evidence when it is presented and to the absence of evidence when it is not sufficient.A Christian understanding of epistemology will affirm that humans may certainly come to know true things, and to make valid moral judgments, about events or circumstances. The reason for this confidence rests in an understanding of divine action. Not only does everything we might possibly want to know have existence because of the creative activity of Jesus, but in that same Son of God “all things hold together” or sustain their coherence as part of an integrated universe (Col. 1:17).[15] Biblical revelation contain many statements about the epistemic capacities of humanity that teach us to have confidence in the possibility of historical knowledge (Deut 6:20-25, etc). God created us with the moral and intellectual capacity to have dominion over the physical creation so we can have scientific knowledge (Gen. 1:26). Our minds, created in God’s image, can also have rational knowledge (Is. 1:18; Luke, 12:54-56).However, the Scriptures also teach that we are sinners, and hence empirical recidivists who “keep hearing, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand (Is. 6:9). Freely chosen moral corruption darkens our understanding (Eph. 4:18); it turns our God-given capacity for knowledge into blindness (Is. 43:8; Matt. 15:14; 2 Peter 1:9; etc.). We persistently abandon our capacity for finding the truth in favor of falsehood that springs from idolatrous self-interest. A commitment to the truth rests on the awareness that the very reason we may come to know something is governed by the all-powerful, all-loving hand of God, despite our assertions of autonomy.The injunctions of Scripture which bear directly on the demand for truthfulness have reference to language:*Speak every man truth with his neighbor (Eph. 4:25).*You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Ex. 20:16).*Lie not one to another (Col. 3:9).*You shall not go up and down as a talebearer among your people (Lev. 19:16).[16][17][18]Veracity is habitual truthfulness, and justly guarded secrets are best kept by silence. Diversion, evasion and equivocation are permissible, but only when circumstances prohibit forthright communication or silence. At the point of telling something other than the truth, Augustine taught that “just lies” are no more possible than “chaste adulteries.” 1 John 2:21 is the key verse, “No lie is of the truth.” The Augustinian Christian tradition approves of deception (not concealment alone) in appropriate circumstances, provided only that there are no statements contrary to fact. One may deceive by half-truths or equivocal expression, but never by deliberate falsehood. Consistency of mind and speech, thus become the primary focus of the demand for truthfulness, giving an advantage to the clever reporter who can deceive just as well with “truth” as with lies. Certainly there is a pima facie obligation not to lie just as there is a pima facie obligation not to kill. As the burden of proof falls on one who takes a life to show that it was justifiable homicide, so the burden of proof falls on the one who tells a lie to show that it was justifiable falsehood (cf, Ex. 1:15-22 and Joshua 2:1-24).When mutual understanding is one of the relevant or requisite considerations in human discourse, then we are under obligation to do our utmost to insure that we speak or act in terms of the understanding of others. But mutual understanding is not the indispensable criterion of truthfulness. And mutual understanding can not be imposed as the criterion of truth and truthfulness in making a moral assessment of an action.[19]The sustained emphasis of Scripture is upon the condemnation of untruth and falsehood and upon the necessity of speaking the truth:[20]Wherefore having put away lying speak truth each one with his neighbor (Eph. 4:25). Paul rhetorically asks in Romans 3:7:If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases His glory why am I still condemned as a sinner? Paul is not justifying the sin which he here calls his “falsehood,” his “lie”. He is doing the very opposite. What he is controverting is the logic that says we may do evil that good may come (vs. 
, the argument that, since the grace of God abounds all the more where sin abounds, therefore we may sin in order that God may be all the more glorified. What Paul is saying is that such an inference from God’s revelation is a slander against God. This passage is one of the most pertinent to the understanding that we may never lie that good may come.It is clear that Scripture confronts us with some difficult passages. In some instances, it might appear that Scripture condones or approves untruth when untruth promotes a higher end. Hence many interpreters have taken the position that the Scripture recognizes the legitimacy of the lie of utility, the lie of exigency, or the lie of necessity. However, such an inference is unwarranted. The conclusion of my examination of Scripture is that no historical instances demonstrate the propriety of untruthfulness under any exigency. My argument is that we may not justify deviation from the sustained requirement of the biblical witness that “we put away falsehood and speak truth to his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25).Now, it is quite true that the Scripture warrants concealment of truth from those who have no claim upon it. Christians recognize the justice of this teaching. How intolerable life would be if we were under obligation to disclose all the truth all the time (1 Cor. 3:1-2). In fact, concealment is often an obligation which truth itself requires.He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter (Prov. 11:13). It is also true, as I have argued that some people forfeit their right to know the truth, and we are under no obligation to convey the truth to them. The murderer in search of an innocent victim has no right to the truth of the victim’s whereabouts and no reason to expect honesty from those who are aware of the situation. To insist on verbal truthfulness in such circumstances is manifestly against the purposes for which God has given us speech. The radical disruption of human relationships changes things. Not even the triune Lord binds Himself to uniform straightforwardness irrespective of circumstances. As David sang to the Lord when the Lord delivered him from all his enemies,With the faithful you show yourself faithful;with the blameless you show yourself blameless;with the pure you show yourself pure;and with the crooked you show yourself shrewd (2 Sam. 22:26-27). But these facts of the right and duty of concealment and of forfeiture of certain rights to truthful expression are not to be equated with our right to speak untruth. Forfeiture of right to know the truth and the right of concealment in such cases do not mean that our obligation to write truth is ever forfeited. There is a chasm of difference between the forfeiture of right to know the truth, which belongs to one person, and the right or freedom to write untruth on the part of another person. Those who argue for the right to write untruth on the basis that others have forfeited their right to know or be told the truth have committed an logical error and have sought to justify a deviation from truthfulness which the Scripture does not support.ConclusionNo claim is more basic or ultimate than that of truth. We cannot regard any other sanction as higher on the altar of which truth may be sacrificed. By what warrant may we plead that love is a higher end out of consideration for which untruth is sometimes justifiable and dutiful?[21] Is life itself more sacred than truth? God is love (1 John 4: 8, 16). But God is also truth (cf. 1 John 1:5; John 1:9; 17:3; 1 John 5:20; John 14:6; 1 John 5:6). Love and truth do not conflict in God and His truth is never curtailed or prejudiced in maintaining and promoting the interests of His love. God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son to bear witness to the truth:For this end am I born and for this purpose am I come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth (John 18:37).This was love, and so it is to be modeled in the thought and practice of every journalist who is a Christian (1 John 4).
[1] John had said this earlier: “We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
[2] When our Lord in His high-priestly prayer says, “This is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3) he is predicating of the Father the most ultimate and absolute in respect of deity that biblical language provides. But it is an inescapable fact that John makes this same predication with reference to Jesus Christ himself. John affirms this in 1 John 5:20:And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given to us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
[3] It is this alone that could warrant the word of Jesus to his disciples,Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me: the words which I say to you I speak not of myself; but the Father dwelling in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me (John 14:I0-11).
[4] The works of his hands are truth and judgment; all his precepts are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness (Psalm 111:7, 8; cf. Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 25:1).And there can be little doubt that the specifically redemptive name of God “I am that I am,” points distinctively to the immutability of God’s covenant of grace (Mal. 3:6; Ex. 3:14; 6:5-8; 33:17-19; Deut. 7:9; Ps. 135:13; Is. 26:4, 8; Hos. 12:5-6). This attribute of God is often expressed as His “faithfulness” and is exemplified in the certainty and immutability of His promises and threatenings. God’s covenant is one of faithfulness to such an extent that promise and fulfillment are essential features of the covenant concept (Gen. 9:16; 15:18).
[5] All untruth has its affinity with that lie by which Eve was seduced, and nothing exemplifies the contradiction of God and of man’s integrity more than the lie. It is the acme of reprobation when God sends upon men “a working or error to the end that they may believe the lie” (2 Thess. 2:11) and gives them over to a reprobate mind (Rom. 1:28-32). The foundations of all equity are destroyed when truth has fallen.*It was the lament of Isaiah that “none pleads in truth,” thattruth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth fails; and he that departs from evil makes himself a prey (Is. 59:4, 14, 15).*Jeremiah’s lamentation is to the same effect:This is a nation that obeys not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receives correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth (Jer. 7:28[5]).*Hosea has the same complaint:Hear the word of the Lord, you children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land (Hosea 4:1).*When our Lord himself was made manifest to Israel, one of his severest indictments was this:You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will to do (John 8:44).And why such a charge?But because I say the truth, you do not believe me (John 8:45).
[6] 1) The envy of Joseph’s brethren by which they sold him into Egypt is matched by the deception perpetrated to conceal the vile deed from their father (Gen. 37:31-35). Joseph’s piety is proven by his chastity: “how can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9).2) The lust of Potiphar’s wife is paralleled by the malicious lie by which she sought either to conceal her own wickedness or, more probably, to wreak vengeance on Joseph for his refusal to gratify her sexual desires (Gen. 39:13-18). 3) The perfidy of Pharaoh is but an index to the hardness of his heart (cf., Ex. 9:27-28).4) Judas played the part of the father of lies, who had entered into him (Luke 22:3; John 13:27), when he acted a lie and betrayed the Son of man with a kiss (Matt. 26:49; Mark 14:45; Luke 22:48).5) Ananias and Sapphira lied by an act of pretension. Peter is eloquent when he notes the affinity of the “the father of lies” with the deception by which sin entered the world when he said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart, to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” (Acts 5:3 ).
[7] And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that is unclean, or he that works abomination and a lie (Rev. 21:27).Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and whosoever loves and makes a lie (Rev. 22:15).Liars, like murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, and idolaters, have their part “in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). The new Jerusalem is the holy city “the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it.” His servants “shall see his face, and Iris name shall be on their foreheads. And there shall be no night there” (Rev. 22:3-5). The Lord God who “is light and in whom is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5) will be their everlasting light, and the holy will be holy still.
[8] This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent (John 17:3).I am the way, the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father but by me (John 14:6).
[9] To know God is to know the truth; to be established in the faith and obedience of Christ is to know the truth.To know the Holy Spirit and to be indwelt by him is to be guided into all truth because the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (John 16:13). In all of this we have a rich and complex coordination of elements. We must not set up those false antitheses which are too frequently the coinage of scepticism.
[10] If we know God, we know the truth: But we know God only through His revelation and specifically through His revealed Word. Our Lord prayed to the Father: “Sanctify them in the truth: your word is truth” (John 17:17). Paul could say of the Thessalonians that the gospel he preached came unto them “not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and much assurance” (1 Thessalonians 1:5), and the Thessalonians received the word of the message “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God,” which works effectually in them that believe (I Thessalonians 2:13). To speak of knowing God and the truth that He is, apart from the word of revelation which is incorporated for us in the Scripture, is an abstraction which has no meaning or relevance. When we are of the truth and know the truth we discern in the inscripturated word of truth the living voice of Him who is the truth and there is no tension between our acceptance of the living God as “the only true God” and of His Word as the truth. “I have not written unto you because you know not the truth but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21). It is the certitude which is the only appropriate response to confrontation with God Himself that His Word, the Word of Scripture, must elicit. God’s Word is truth because He is truth.
[11] *that the god of this world, the father of lies, has blinded our minds (2 Cor. 4:4),*that we receive not the things of the Spirit of truth (1 Cor. 2:14),*that the mind of the flesh is enmity against God (Rom. 8:7),*that there is no fear of God before our eyes (Rom. 3:18).Hence the life of truth and truthfulness can emerge only as God shines in our hearts “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). John brushes aside all camouflage when he says, “Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ?” (1 John 2:23). The life of truth takes its genesis from the faith of Jesus, that the Son of God is come in the flesh. “He that acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23), and in this confession we discern the Spirit of God (1 John 4:2) as the Spirit of truth.
[12] Furthermore, the life of faith continues in obedience to the truth of Jesus. It was the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:5) that was at stake in the churches of Galatia when Paul wrote to them: “You were running well: who hindered you that you should not obey the truth?” (Gal. 5:7). In writing to Timothy, Paul makes plain that if men like Hymenaeus and Philetus were overthrowing the faith of some it was because they erred concerning the truth (2 Tim. 2:18); and that men of corrupt mind and reprobate will concerning the faith were those who, though ever learning, were not able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7, 8). Those reprobated to damnation are those who did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11; cf. Romans 2:8).
[13] Paul gives thanks that God had chosen some “unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13), the brethren beloved of the Lord. The love that abides, the love that is greatest of all, without which nothing else profits, is the love that “rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth” (I Corinthians 13:6). The fruit of the light in all who are the children of light is in all truth as well as in all goodness and all righteousness (Ephesians 5:9).
[14] *You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Ex. 20:16).*Thou shall not take tip a false report: put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness (Ex. 23:1).*Keep you far from a false matter (Ex. 23:7).*Speak you every man the truth to his neighbor; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: and let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbor; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, says the Lord (Zech. 8:16, 17).*Wherefore, having put away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another (Eph. 4:25).It needs to be borne in mind that all falsehood, error, misapprehension, every deviation from what is true in thought, feeling, word, or action is the result of sin. There would be no misunderstanding and no misrepresentation if there were no sin. In the last analysis, all misunderstanding and misrepresentation are misunderstanding and misrepresentation of God; all truth is derived from God and only in relation to Him is anything true.
[15] All the human possibilities created by God are “good and nothing is to be rejected” if they are regarded thankfully as manifestations of God’s creating power (1 Tim. 4:4). One of the implications from realizing that we humans may appreciate the creation as good must certainly be that we may know it to be good, and even more basically, that we may know it.
[16] Words are simply signs by which thought and meaning are conveyed. There are numerous other means of communication by which truth can be conveyed or lying perpetrated. There are particularly the signs of gesture and action, sometimes closely associated with words and sometimes wholly intelligible without words.
[17] Scripture deals with the question of truth in terms of speech, of words, and since that is the most common means of communication, we may do likewise.*What does the Scripture mean by “lying” as the prohibited thing and by “speaking truth” as that required?*May we under any circumstances utter what we know to be untrue, what we believe to be false?*Are we always under obligation to declare what we know or believe to be true?*May we affirm part of the truth and conceal the rest?These are questions that inescapably arise. We are compelled to come to terms with such questions because the biblical record supplies us with instances in which untruth was blatantly spoken and in which truth was concealed. Does the Scripture approve such conduct under certain circumstances? I answer, “Yes.”It is to be understood that we are to make full allowance for a variety of literary and rhetorical forms of speech. In irony, for example, the opposite of fact is formally expressed. But it is intended to be understood in that way and there is no intention to deceive. We have notable examples in Scripture (cf. 1 Kings 18:27; 22:15 ). Parables do not necessarily portray actual happenings, though they represent truth. They are understood as illustrative and not always as literally true (cf, 2 Samuel 12:1-6). Literature and language is full of parabolic, figurative, and fictitious forms of expression, and truth only requires that they be used and understood as such. In like manner truth is compatible with change of intention, behaviour, and action. The angels at Sodom said to Lot ‘We will abide in the street all night’ (Genesis 19: 2), but when Lot urged them greatly they entered into his house. In response to Lot’s earnest entreaty they had a right to reverse the former resolution. When new circumstances arise which we may not have foreseen we have a right to alter what may have been our expressed intent. Truth often requires such a change of act and word. To behave truthfully is to behave in consonance with the facts as they are and not as they may have previously been or as they may be in the future. We have in the case of our Lord himself examples of this change of behaviour in response to the developments which had emerged (c/. Matthew 8:7, 13; 15:23, 24, 26, 28; Luke 24:28, 29). Truth demands that we act in accordance with relevant facts and conditions and when these facts and conditions change or action changes accordingly. It would be untruth to do otherwise. The same applies to words and significations.
[18] In Old Testament there are notable instances of obvious untruth:1) Let’s set aside the precise category of Abraham’s action both in Egypt (Gen. 12:12-13) and in the land of Abimelech (Gen. 20:2) in averring that Sarah was his sister. There is the matter of Sarah being the daughter of Terah by a different mother than Abraham. The prohibition against such a marriage was unknown in patriarchal times (Lev. 18:9; 20:1-7; Deut. 27:22).2) There is the indubitable untruth of Jacob and of Rebekah (as his instigator) when he went to Isaac his father to secure the covenant blessing. That Jacob pretended to be Esau and stated a deliberate falsehood cannot be denied.“Who art you, my son?” said Isaac. “I am Esau your firstborn,” said Jacob. And Isaac said, “Are you my very son Esau? and he said, I am” (Genesis 27:18, 19, 24). It might appear utterly impossible to condemn Rebekah and Jacob for the deception and untruth of act and word since it was the very occasion upon which divine blessing was administered to Jacob. Could the Lord countenance such a stratagem if it were a lie of act and word? And, furthermore, we may discover in Rebekah’s action jealousy for the fulfillment of the divine promise she had received, “The elder shall serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23). There was undoubted faith in Rebekah’s action, indeed the urgent impulsion of faith. And there must have been faith in Jacob, too. If he were indifferent to the blessing he would not have acted as he did. Some commentators deny that the Scriptural record teaches that Rebecca was a woman of faith (Gen. 35:8), but lets assume that she was a believer. It doesn’t make any substantial difference in my position.It is bad theology and worse theodicy that will seek to derive from God’s action in the bestowal of the blessing upon Jacob, or in the faith of Rebekah, a vindication of the method devised by Rebekah and enacted by Jacob. We know that God fulfills His determinate purpose of grace and promise notwithstanding the unworthy actions of those who are the beneficiaries of that grace. He fulfills His determinate purpose in spite of our actions which are alien to the integrity of character which His will demands. And surely we have here a signal example of the sovereign grace as well as of the determinate purpose of God. He even fulfills His holy and sovereign will in connection with the unholy means adopted by Rebekah and Jacob. And if we think of Rebekah’s faith we can readily discern the insistent impulsion of faith conjoined with an action that was not of faith. Are we to say that faith is never mixed with the devices of unbelief? Are we to say that strong faith cannot coexist with the infirmities of unbelief? There is no ground upon which we may seek to justify the deception and untruth of Rebekah and Jacob.[18] Jacob spoke and acted a lie, and this fact only enhances our astonishment at the sovereignty of God’s grace and the faithfulness of his promise. In this instance we find no justification of the falsehood perpetrated.3) The apparent prevarication of the midwives in Egypt in Exodus has been appealed to as warrant for lying under proper conditions.The midwives answered Pharaoh, “The Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women. They are vigorous, and give birth before the midwives arrive. And God was kind to (dealt well with) the midwives (Exodus 1:19-20).The context here might seem to carry the divine endorsement of the less-than-straight-forward reply to Pharaoh.We need not suppose that the midwives’ reply to Pharaoh was altogether void of truth. There is good reason to believe that the Hebrew women often bore their children without the aid of the midwives. We may therefore have an instance of partial truth and not total untruth, and partial truth relevant to the circumstances. And since the midwives “feared God” (1:17) and therefore disobeyed Pharaoh’s command, it was not an obligation to tell Pharaoh the whole truth. The 2 midwives (Shiphrah and Puah) in making an excuse to cover their conduct simply took advantage of Pharaoh’s cross-cultural ignorance. Hence, it is possible that the midwives’ answer shows not falsehood but concealment through the means of partial truth. Nevertheless, that the reason they gave for allowing the boy to live was not the whole truth is apparent (Ex. 1:17).Let us grant, that the midwives did speak a lie, that their reply was really false. There is still no warrant to conclude that the lie is endorsed by God, far less that it is the lie that is in view when we read, “And God was kind to the midwives” (Exodus 1:20). Nothing in the narrative points to God approving civil disobedience and not the deception. The midwives stood up to Pharaoh by “letting the boys live” and, when challenged, by falsifying the report. The murderous order of Pharaoh (Ex. 1:16, 22) signaled a radical breakdown in human relationships and hence in human communication. That is, Pharaoh had no right to know the truth of the midwives’ action. The midwives “feared God” in disobeying the king and it is because they feared God that the Lord blessed them (Ex. 1:17-20). It is not strange that their “fear of God” should have co-existed with their sin.The case is simply that no warrant for untruth can be elicited from this instance any more than in the cases of Jacob and Rahab.4) Another instance of equivocation appears in the narrative of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 42. On their departure from Egypt the 1st trip to buy grain, Joseph gave orders to have each of his brother’s silver put back in his sack (Gen. 42:25). When they arrived in Egypt on the 2nd trip, the brothers offered to return the money, but Joseph said to them: “Its all right. Don’t be afraid. Your God, the God of your father, has given you treasure in your sacks; I received your silver (lit., your silver came to me” (Gen. 43:23).Joseph’s words were true but ambiguous; Joseph’s intent was to conceal for the moment that he had returned, as well as received, his brother’s payments for the grain. We read that Joseph’s motivation and justification was complete reconciliation with his brothers (43:30; 45:1-2, 14-15).5) What may we infer to be the biblical ethic regarding the stratagems of war? It is understood, of course, that truthfulness is concerned not only with words, but also with other forms of signification. What we are concerned with now is action intended to deceive the enemy as to the strategy of the opposing forces. When something is pretended, is there not untruth of action, though not necessarily of words? We have a concrete example in the stratagem by which Joshua conquered the city of Ai (Joshua 8:3-29). In this incident, it is not the setting of the “ambush,” nor the action of the men who took part in the ambush, that raises the question of untruth. The ambush was an action of concealment as such. It is the retreat on the part of the other division of Joshua’s army that poses the question (8:15); they fled “towards the desert.” That this was a designed and feigned retreat is made plain by the narrative (8:5-6). So Joshua and Israel feigned an action which did not itself reflect the intent but was designed to lead the people of Ai to think that Israel was fleeing before them. It was simulated defeat. And the question is: May we simulate contrary to actual fact?In this instance it would surely be futile to try to categorize this action on Joshua’s part as wrong. The Lord himself was party to the stratagem (8:18), and it would be sophistry indeed to separate this particular element of the strategy from that which the Lord himself authorized. Is there not here, therefore, the divine sanction upon untruth?When we ask ourselves the question, “Was there a lie”? or, “Where was the lie”?, we find ourselves in real difficulty, and the untruth we may have assumed is not as obvious as it at first appeared to be. Israel did what they intended to do; there was no action on Israel’s part contrary to fact or intent. There was indeed retreat when, in the ordinary sense, there was no need for retreat. In other words, it was a strategic retreat. But Israel did retreat and there was no unreality to that action of withdrawal. Israel was under no obligation to inform the people of Ai what the meaning or intent of this retreat was. Joshua suspected or knew beforehand that the men of Ai would have interpreted it in a way that was contrary to fact and to Joshua’s intent. Joshua was taking advantage of Ai’s unwariness and lack of proper reconnaissance, that is to say, of Ai’s failure to interpret the action of retreat for what it truly was. But are we to say that Joshua was under obligation to act on the basis of their misapprehension of the meaning of his movements rather than on the basis of his own interpretation which had been dictated by all of the facts? The men of Ai were deceived as to the meaning of the retreat of Israel, but that deception arose from their failure to discover its real purpose. So when we view the action concerned in terms of truth, that is, in terms of consonance with all the facts which the agents of that action were not only justified but obliged to take into account, we are at a loss to find wherein untruth resided. That is to say, we are at a loss to find untruth. The case is somewhat similar in the sphere of action to what we found in Elisha’s case in the sphere of utterance. When Elisha spoke to the Syrians he spoke, as we found, in accordance with the facts which he knew and envisaged, and any misapprehension on their part arose from their ignorance of the facts which came within Elisha’s purview and which he rightly took into account. When Joshua acted in retreating he acted in accordance with all the facts which his strategy embraced and the misapprehension on the part of the men of Ai arose from their ignorance of the facts which Joshua rightly took into account.The allegation that Joshua acted an untruth or a lie rests upon the fallacious assumption that to be truthful we must under all circumstances speak and act in terms of the data which come within the purview of others who may be concerned with or affected by our speaking or acting. This is not the criterion of truthfulness. It would oftentimes be incompatible with justice, right, and truth to apply this criterion. When we speak or act we do so in terms of all the relevant facts and considerations which come within our purview, and if we are misunderstood or misrepresented we are not to be charged with falsehood. Mental reservation:Intentional verbal ambiguity or equivocation, which may be appropriate under some limited circumstances, should be sharply distinguished from the doctrine of mental reservation. The idea of mental reservation is that a statement contrary to fact could be qualified by an unexpressed condition in the mind and thus not be a lie; the statement would be true as far as the speaker and God were concerned. Mental reservation must be rejected as a method of resolving moral dilemmas involving truth-telling, for it is subversive of the very purpose of speech for interhuman communication. An utterance that requires a mental qualification to make it true is no different from a lie (that is, a false statement deliberately intended to deceive). The idea that a speaker is not responsible for misinterpretation by the hearer of his mentally qualified statement is absurd. Intentional ambiguity or veiled speech, is sometime appropriate to divert the attention of an indiscreet inquirer away from a justly guarded secret. Such forms as the ambiguous, “Can’t say,” or the counter-question, “Who knows” are not os opaque that their intent is undiscoverable, which sets them apart from mere mental reservation. It needs to be emphasized, however that although we are not always obligated to speak the plain truth, equivocation of whatever sort is wrong when mutual understanding is one of the relevant considerations. The Bible certainly places a higher premium on forthrightness than on cleverness in human communication.1) The vindication of deliberate untruth under certain circumstances receives even more plausible support from the case of Rahab the harlot (Joshua 2). That Rahab uttered an explicit falsehood is apparent. She hid the spies upon the roof. The king of Jericho sent to Rahab and asked her to bring forth the men who had come to her. Her reply is not one of evasion; it is plain contradiction of known fact.Yea, the men came unto me, but I knew not whence they were: and it came to pass about the time of the shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I know not: pursue after them quickly; for you shall overtake them (Joshua 2:4, 5). Rahab was a woman of faith. She is included in the great cloud of witnesses.By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them that had been disobedient, having received the spies with peace (Hebrews 11:31). And in James 2:25 we read,Was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers and sent them out another way?.How could her conduct in reference to the spies be so commended if the words by which she shielded them were wrong?To answer that question we must note that the New Testament which commend Rahab for her faith and works make allusion solely to the fact that she “received the spies and sent them out another way.” No question can be raised as to the propriety of these actions or of hiding the spies from the emissaries of the king of Jericho. And the approval of these actions does not logically, or in terms of the analogy provided by Scripture, carry with it the approval of the specific lying words spoken to the king of Jericho. Again, it is strange theology that will insist that the approval of her faith and works in receiving the spies and helping them to escape must embrace the approval of all the actions associated with her praiseworthy conduct. And if it is objected that the preservation of the spies and the sequel of “sending them out another way” could not have been accomplished apart from the lie uttered and that the lie is integral to the successful outcome of her action, let me suggest 3 things to be borne in mind:a) We are presuming too much in reference to the providence of God when we say that the untruth was indispensable to the successful outcome of her believing action.b) But, granting that the lie was indispensable, in the providence of God, the lie was one of the means through which the spies escaped, it does not follow that Rahab was morally justified in using this method. God fulfills His holy, decretive will through our unholy acts. c) The kind of argumentation that seeks to justify the lie because it is so closely bound up with the total result would be akin to the justification of Jacob’s lie in connection with the blessing of Isaac; Jacob’s deception in deed and word is integral to the outcome of the episode, and yet we need not, and may not, justify his lie.Certainly aiding, comforting and concealing the spies for the king of Jericho (treason from the king’s point of view) is approved. The false lead is also justified on the same grounds as aiding the spies — the king of Jericho had no right to know the truth of their presence inside his condemned city.We see, therefore, that neither Scripture itself nor the theological inferences derived from Scripture provide us with any warrant for the vindication of Rahab’s spoken lie, (Calvin, Commentary on Joshua, 2:4-6, takes a position similar to that quoted above respecting Rebekah: “As to the falsehood, we must admit that though it was done for a good purpose, it was not free from fault. For those who hold what is called a dutiful lie to be altogether excusable, do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God. Therefore, although our purpose be to assist our brethren, to consult for their safety and relieve them, it never can be lawful to lie, because that cannot be right which is contrary to the nature of God. And God is truth. And still the act of Rahab is not devoid of the praise of virtue, although it was not spotlessly pure. For it often happens that while the saints study to hold the right path they deviate into circuitous courses.”) and consequently, Scripture does not support the position that under certain circumstances we may justifiably utter a lie.2) One of the most pertinent incidents in the Scripture is the instruction received by Samuel from the Lord himself on the occasion of the anointing of David as king in 1 Samuel 16:1:Fill thy horn with oil, and go; l will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.Samuel feared the consequences if the reigning King Saul heard of this.How can I go? if Saul hear it he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take a heifer with you, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord (I Sam. 16:2). Without question here is divine authorization for concealment by means of a statement other than that which would have disclosed the main purpose of Samuel’s visit to Jesse. We may call this evasion. But, in any case, there is suppression of the most important facts relevant to Samuel’s divine mission. We do not know if direct speech to Saul himself was intended or necessary, but, if so, there was the divine sanction for the concealment. The question we naturally ask is: Was untruth involved? To answer this important question, there are 3 considerations that must be borne in mind.a) Samuel was obedient and carried into effect what the Lord asked him to say and do.And Samuel did that which the Lord spoke, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, “Do you come peaceably”? And he said, “Peaceably: I have come to sacrifice unto the Lord: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice.” And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice (1 Sam. 16:4, 5; the same doctrine of concealment is taught in Jer. 38:24-28 between Jeremiah and King Zedekiah). Samuel was authorized to say nothing more than what he actually did say and perform. He did not speak what was contrary to fact. There was no lie in what the Lord authorized. Saul had no right to know the real purpose of Samuel’s pilgrimage to Bethlehem. A partial truth was permitted to circumvent full disclosure. If it is objected that this is a fine-line distinction akin to sophistry and quibbling, we must take note that these are precisely the facts which the Scripture itself is meticulously, almost repetitiously, careful to set before us. It is an indisputable fact that what Samuel was told to say was strictly in accord with the facts which followed and there is surely purpose in the explicitness of the narrative to this effect. As Bible-believing Christians, we are compelled to take account of the agreement between Samuel’s words (statement) and his action (fact).b) This incident makes clear that it is proper under certain circumstances to conceal or withhold part of the truth. Saul had no right to know the whole purpose of Samuel’s mission to Jesse nor was Samuel under obligation to disclose it. Concealment is not lying to God (Prov. 11:13; Luke 23:9; John 16:12; 19:8-9; 1 Cor. 3:1-2; Heb. 5:12-14). How often the fool is portrayed as a babbler. James explores this theme (1:26; 3:1-12) as does Proverbs (10:6, 8, 13-14, 18-19, 31-32). Knowing when to speak and when to keep silent is a prominent wisdom theme (Prov. 11:12; 26:4-5; Job. 38:2; 42:1-6). Confidentiality and secrecy are biblical values that are justly guarded by silence. The biblical demand for truthfulness does not mean that everyone has right to know what we know.c) Let us be careful to realize that this Biblical instance gives us no warrant whatsoever for maintaining that in concealing the truth we may affirm untruth. It is the eloquent lesson of this incident, borne out by the plain facts referred to above, that what was affirmed was itself strictly true. This passage is perhaps unique in the Scripture because there is the explicit authorization of the Lord to conceal information in certain circumstances. It is just for that reason that the precise conditions are to be observed; there is no lie involved here. It is necessary to guard jealously the distinction between partial truth and untruth. If we are not hospitable to this distinction it may well be that we are not sensitive to the ethic of Scripture and the demands of truth. After all, this is not a fine distinction; it is a rather broad distinction. But if we wish to call it a fine distinction, we must remember that the biblical ethic is built upon fine distinctions. At the point of divergence the difference between right and wrong, between truth and falsehood, is not a chasm but a razor’s edge. And if we do not appreciate this fact then certainly we are not sensitive to the biblical ethic.3) The statement of Elisha the prophet of Israel to the host of the king of Syria when they encompassed the city of Dothan, evidently for the purpose of apprehending him, is one that appears untruthful (2 Kings 6:19).And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city; follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek. And [Elisha] led them to Samaria.If we say that this is a lie spoken in order to deceive the host of Syrians, it would be difficult to take the position that Elisha had done anything wrong. The total circumstance of protection on the part of God, and of both justice and mercy on the part of Elisha, would make it precarious to infer that Elisha had done wrong in leading the attacking Syrians to Samaria. And so, if lying is involved, this instance would provide an example of a justified lie uttered in order to fulfill a worthy end. Perhaps more than any other incident in Scripture this would be the justification of the untruth of exigency or necessity. As we study Elisha’s statement, however, it is difficult to find untruth in what Elisha said. Granted, the Syrians understood Elisha’s words in a way entirely different from Elisha’s intent, does it follow that Elisha lied? Elisha is clearly ambiguous and veiled, but is he a liar? Elisha was under no obligation to inform them that he was the man whom they sought. The Lord had miraculously intervened to guard him from the Syrian intent by blinding them, and to disclose himself to them would have been counter to the miraculous providence by which Elisha was shielded. Furthermore, when Elisha said, “This is not the city,” (6:19) how are we to know precisely what he intended? He may have meant, “This is not the city in which you will find the man whom you seek.” Apparently he was outside (vss. 18-19) the city when he addressed them and he did not intend to re-enter the city. Of what purpose would it have been for Elisha to say, “This is the city”? If there was deception in what Elisha said, it would have been more of deception to have said “This is the city.” Was he to encourage them to wander aimlessly in Dothan to find their man when he would not have been there and especially since their eyes had been blinded? Again, when he said, “Follow me, and I will bring you to the man who you are looking for,” he carried this into effect, though not with the result which the Syrians envisaged or the reader might have envisaged. In the light of the providence by which their eyes had been blinded and the of mercy and justice meted out to these Syrians at Elisha’s demand, how can we say that Elisha had spoken an untruth? Elisha did bring them to the city in which they found the man whom they sought. He did this in a way that they could not have anticipated, but he did it with such a merciful outcome for both the Syrians and for Israel. If the Syrians had reflected, they would have said, “How true this statement was, ‘This is not the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.” Therefore, when we view Elisha’s statement in the light of all the facts, unseen indeed to the Syrians at the time but envisaged by Elisha, facts which Elisha had a right to take into account when he made the statement in question, we can see how true Elisha’s statement was. And we have no right to insist that the understanding of the Syrians at the time of the statement having been made should have dictated the sense of Elisha’s statement. The meaning of Elisha’s words are to be understood in the light of all the facts and not in terms of the temporary blindness and bewilderment which had overtaken the Syrians. Is this not often times the way of truth? We make statements or promises which are very imperfectly understood by others and have, even for them, a far more real and beneficent meaning than they could have anticipated. The meaning of our language is dictated by the facts which come within the purview of the person making the statement or promise, and not by the limited or erroneous conception of these facts entertained by others. In a word, the utterance is determined by the relevant facts which come within the horizon of the person speaking; it is dictated by what is true. If another person is temporarily deceived by inadequate understanding or foresight, this is not deception springing from lies on the part of the speaker. And this is the question with which we are now concerned. Elisha’s statement was not untrue to the facts which in due time were disclosed.
[19] Ie, opposing force in time of war and in the exigencies of battle.
[20] It is scarcely necessary to show that Paul is not saying in 2 Corinthians 12:16 that ‘being crafty he caught them with guile’. That was the charge brought against him by his detractors which he is vigorously protesting and denying, as is apparent from the rhetorical questions of verses 17, 18. And with reference to Romans 3:7:’But if the truth of God hath abounded unto his glory by my lie, why am I also still judged as a sinner?’, Paul is not justifying the sin which he here calls his ‘lie’. He is doing the very opposite. What he is controverting is the pernicious logic that we may do evil that good may come (cf. vs. 8), the argument that, since the grace and righteousness of God abound all the more where sin abounded, therefore we may sin in order that God may be all the more glorified. What Paul is saying is that such an inference from his doctrine of the grace of God is a slander and that the condemnation of those who use it is just. This passage is in reality one of the most pertinent to the position propounded above — we may never do evil that good may come.
[21] But while we thus find the ground of manifold collisions especially in the corruption of human society, we must with no less emphasis insist that their insolubility very often proceeds from the weakness and frailty of individuals. For the question ever still remains, whether the said collisions between the truth of the letter and that of the spirit could not be solved if these individuals only stood on a higher stage of moral and rehgious ripeness, possessed more faith and trust in God, more courage to leave the consequences of their words and actions in the hand of God, and likewise considered how much in the consequences of our actions is hidden from our view, and cannot be reckoned by us; if these individuals possessed more wisdom to tell the truth in the right way; in other words, whether the collision could not be solved if we were only, in a far higher degree than is the case, morally educated characters, Christian personalities?
