Download JESUS AND TRUTH SEEKERS (John 18-19)

JESUS AND TRUTH SEEKERS (John 18-19)
12-7-08
Ever been amazed by a warning label?
These are supposedly actual warning labels:
Have you seen those windshield screens to protect the interior of your car?
One comes with the warning: “Do not drive with sunshade in place.”
That a good thing: After all how many people have forgotten to remove their sunshade
and taken off down the street?
One hair dryer comes with the warning label: “Do not use while sleeping”
Which makes perfect sense because you never know how your hair will turn out
if dry it while your asleep
Another warning on an electric drill:
“Warning this product is not intended as a dental drill”
Which is good to know because I knew a guy in high school who tried to solder
his friends tooth to fill a cavity
How about this label on a microwave oven?
“Do not use for drying pet.”
That would certainly ruin their day
Then there’s the label on box of rat poison:
“This product is known to cause cancer in laboratory mice”
Nothing like a fast working product
And then here’s an important warning on children’s cough medicine:
“Do not use while operating heavy machinery”
That is a scary thought, nothing worse than a three year old driving a fork lift
when they’re drunk on cough syrup
And then in a railway station: “Warning to touch these wires means instant death.
Anyone found doing so will be prosecuted.”
Nothing worse having to go to court after you’ve been shocked to death
If you saw one of these warning labels how would you know to evaluate them?
How do you tell what is true or not?
Is there even such a thing as truth?
In our series on personal encounters with Jesus we come today to Pilate’s encounter with Jesus
Of all the injustices of human history none was ever more injust than the trials of Jesus
No Person ever deserved less the verdict they received than Jesus
Perfection was put on trial and executed for the supposed sin of blasphemy
But Jesus’ claims were not blasphemous but truthful
Now you may or may not realize that the four gospels actually reveal six different trials
that Jesus went through
I have included in your sermon notes a chart from Chuck Swindoll which lists these trials
And today we are going to very briefly look at the fourth of these trials and spend the majority of our time
considering the crucial question that Pilate asks Jesus
Pontius Pilate was born in Spain and after serving in the Roman legion he moved to Rome
to make his fortune
In Rome he met and married Claudia Procullla, the granddaughter of the Emperor Augustus
This obviously advanced his social status
It ultimately resulted in his being appointed the Prefect or we’d say Govenor of Judea from 26-36 AD
Being a Prefect or Govenor was normally a great privilege
However Judea was considered the most troublesome governship in all the Roman Empire
Virtually every other conquered people compliantly bowed the knew to Rome
but not the Jews
They never passively accepted Rome’s domination
Thus the Jews hated Pilate and Pilate hated the Jews
We know of several dramatic confrontations between Pilate and the Jews
Herod was a harsh man and no pansy but in many ways his relationship with the Jews was a stalemate
Pilate had had so much difficulty with the Jews that his relationship with the Emperor was
precarious
His job was on the line and he was caught between the proverbial rock and hard place
So when the Jewish religious leaders come wanting permission to execute Jesus Pilate is cautious
John 18 records our story
28Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was
early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be
able to eat the Passover.
Note the hypocrisy and irony here
The religious leaders will not go into Pilate’s palace as this would make them ceremonially unclean
that is, unable to participate in the Passover Feast
And yet they are conspiring to kill the true Passover Lamb
They are willing to kill the only perfect Person of history but unwilling to go into Pilate’s palace
This is a classic case of religious people failing to see their own sin while attacking others
But verse 29 continues:
29So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?"
30"If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."
31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."
"But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.
32This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die
would be fulfilled.
33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him,
"Are you the king of the Jews?"
34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
Jesus’ question is important because He would have to answer it in two different ways
according to where Pilate is coming from
If Pilate is asking him as a Roman Govenor if He is a threat to Rome the answer is no
Jesus is not plotting to overthrown Rome
His kingdom is of a different order entirely as we’ll see in a moment
On the other hand if Pilate is asking if Jesus is the Messianic King promised to the Jews
then the answer is yes
But Pilate is only concerned about His being a threat to Rome
He has no time for what he considers petty Jewish religious squabbles
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me.
What is it you have done?"
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest
by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born,
and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
38"What is truth?" Pilate asked.
Now there is more to this dialogue and a lot more that we could say about it
but today I want to focus our attention on Pilate’s question
What is truth?
How do we know if something is true?
Is there a such thing as truth that is always true?
Pilate may ask Jesus this question flippantly or cynically or honestly
We don’t know for sure what his voice inflection or intention here was
BUT Pilate asks as important of a question is anyone can ever ask: What is truth?
And so in our remaining time I want to consider three issues:
Where is truth to be found?
What is the nature of truth?
How do we recognize truth?
1) The Source of Truth (John 14:6,17:3,17; cf. Exo. 34:6; Num. 23:19; Deut. 32:4; 1
Sam. 15:29; Ps. 25:10; Is. 65:16; Jer. 10:8-11; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18; 1 Jn. 5:20-21)
Where can we find truth?
Some believe that the ultimate source of truth is human reason, human logic.
It is true that no belief contrary to human logic can be true
BUT reason alone cannot prove what is true
Reason alone ends in agnosticism
Some believe that experience, what we discover by our senses, is the ultimate source of truth
But experience is authoritative only for the individual
Futhermore skeptics can demonstrate that not everything is provable by experience
and that reason must be used to interpret experience
Some trust in various forms of authorities to tell them what is true
But how do those authorities decide what is true?
Others argue that what is true is what works
but some things seem to work which are based on lies
Patients can be given placebo drugs which they are told will heal them
and they may get better by using sugar pills that have no true value
I have confronted Jehovah Witnesses & Mormons with various lies in their history
and they respond: “I don’t care about that I have a testimony.”
In other words it doesn’t matter that the founder of my faith, Joseph Smith, was a lying con artist
my life has been changed
Reason, experience, authorities, there are all sorts of things that can help us find truth
but none of them are infallible sources of truth
To know truth absolutely requires omniscience, knowing everything
If we knew everything then we could be absolutely certain of what is true and what is false
But all human beings are finite
None of us is all knowing
If we are to know truth absolutely then Someone Who knows everything must tell us what is true
Unless there is an Omnisicent God who tells us what is true
then we can never know for sure what is true
Ultimately there are only two possibilities regarding truth: Skepticism or God’s Self Disclosure
The greatest intellects of human history have tried to prove what is true
and no one has ever come up with a compelling case that has convinced everyone
Study the history of philosophy and as Hegel suggested all you have is a thesis presented
followed an opposite viewpoint, an antithesis which is then followed by a synthesis
An attempt to find the truth between the thesis and the antithesis
But as soon as the synthesis is formulated someone will propose another antithesis
and on and on it has gone for all of human history
Thus many of the most brilliant minds of history have given up on the search for truth
Indeed the majority opinion today is that there are no absolute truths
Human beings cannot find ultimate truths with our finite resources
Ultimately we if we are honest and think rigorously we will end up with agnosticism
However most people do not think rigorously enough to give up on finding truth
The vast majority of people life fooling themselves
They think they know what they know but the truth is they cannot prove
what they think they know
The truth is that either it is impossible to prove truth
OR we must accept that God is there and He has spoken
If the Bible is true, and the evidence affirms that it is, then God has revealed Himself to us
Thus John MacArthur summarizes the Christian view of truth:
“God is the source of all that exists (Rom. 11:36).
God alone defines and delimits what is true.
He is also the ultimate revealer of all truth.
Every truth revealed in nature was authored by Him (Ps. 19:1-6);
and some of it is His own self-revelation (Rom. 1:20).
He gave us minds and consciences to perceive the truth, and comprehend right from wrong,
and He even wired us with a fundamental understanding of His law written on our hearts (Rom. 2:14-15).
On top of that all that , He gave us is the perfect, infallible truth of Scripture (Ps. 19:7-11),
which is a sufficient revelation of everything that pertains to lfe and godliness (2 Tim. 3:15-18; 2 Pet. 1:3),
in order to lead us to Him as Savior and Lord.
Finally, He sent Christ, the very embodiment of truth itself, as the culmination of divine revelation
(Heb. 1:1-3).” (The Truth War, xviii-xix)
Either God is there and God is the Ultimate Source of all truth
or there is no ultimate truth
Again as MacArthur (xix) says: “All truth starts with what is true of God:
who He is, what His mind knows , what His holiness entails, what His will approves and so on.
In other words, all truth is determined and properly explained by the being of God.”
On the other hand: “Once someone denies God, logical consistency will ultimately force
that person to deny all truth.
A denial that God exists instantly removes the whole justification of any kind of knowledge.
As Scripture says, ‘The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” (Prov. 1:9)
If we reject God as the source of truth we end up being able to prove any ultimate truths
and we end up with things like this:
(PLAY “The Boy With Striped Pajamas” clip)
If there is no way to prove absolute truths that are true for everyone everywhere at every time
then the culture or those with the most power will detemine what has to be believed
Hitler and the Nazis determined that their truth was that all Jews should be removed from the planet
And if there is no God in heaven they had every right to do so
There is no possible ultimate basis for judging their culturally determined truth
If God says that murder is wrong then it’s always wrong
but if God hasn’t said this then everyone decides for themselves when it is wrong
That God is the source of all truth and that has huge implications regarding
2) The Character of Truth
Again as John MacArthur says: “Without God, there cannot be any universal absolutes;
without absolutes there can be no objective, universal, normative truths.
Truth becomes subjective, relative, pragmatic; objectivity gives way to subjectivity;
timeless universal principles become mere personal or cultural preferences.” (John 2:331)
But since God is truth numerous characteristics of truth emerge
But for our purposes today let me just mention two
a) Truth corresponds to reality
The classic definition of truth, the definition that has most often been proposed through history,
is truth is that which corresponds to reality
That truth corresponds to or reflects reality as it really is evidenced in the Bible
For example the ninth commandment to not give false testimony affirms the correspondence of truth
Whenever a lie is told in the Bible something is told that is contrary to reality
When Moses speaks of testing the validity of prophets proclamations in Deut. 18
he means that their proclamations prove correct, they correspond to reality
That truth corresponds to reality might seem self evident and hardly significant
But in the last couple of centuries many have proposed alternative definitions of truth
all of which are problematic
For example some today argue for an intentional view of truth
In other words the important thing is not that something truly corresponds to reality
but that it conforms to the intent of the one proposing it
Thus some today claim that the Bible contains no errors but redefine the nature of truth
They will say for example stories like those in Genesis or Jonah do not reflect what really happen
but only teach the truths their authors intended them to teach
I remember four decades ago debating such a concept with my uncle
He is an Episcopal Priest and I asked him what he thought of the stories in Genesis
and he said he believed they were true myths
Now I don’t know how something can be mythical and be true
That is inconsistent logic that requires redefining truth
There are many theories of truth out there today but the classic view that is exemplified in the Bible
is that truth corresponds to reality, it reflects what is real
Another key characteristic of truth is that it
b) Truth is absolute (John 14:6
More than 2/3’s of Americans today deny that absolute truth exists
(George Barna, What Americans Believe, p. 83)
Twenty years ago already University of Chicago Professor Allan Bloom declared:
“There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering
the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. ...
That anyone should regard this proposition as not self-evident astonishes them.”
(The Closing of the American Mind, p. 25)
In American all truth is personal
That there is no absolute truth is America’s greatest urban legend
The greatest myth of our culture is that all truth is relative
Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl in their excellent book Relativism (62-69)
identify seven fatal flaws in relativism
1. Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
If morality is only a matter of personal or cultural choice then there is no possible basis
for saying somebody else’s behavior is wrong
Whether it’s racism or rape or genocide or whatever if all values or only personal or cultural
it is wrong to identify any of these things as wrong
Relativisits have no basis for accusing others of doing wrong and
2. Relativisits can’t complain about the problem of evil.
The most common complaint against God is that He causes or allows bad things to happen
But if everything is relative whose to say what is bad or evil
There is no problem of evil
There is only pleasant or unpleasant, desired or not desired
In the movie “The Quarrel” the two main characters break off their lifelong friendship
because of their disputes about God and evil
One of them became a rabbi and the other became a skeptical journalist
After the Holocaust they run into each other
They did not know each other had survived but when they meet they begin again their debates
and the Rabbi says:
“If there’ s nothing in the universe that’s higher than human beings, then what’s morality?
It’s just a matter of opinion.
I like milk, you like meat.
Hitler liked to kill people.
I like to save them.
Who’s to say which is better?’
Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil and they
3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise
If there are no absolutes then nothing is ultimately bad or worthy of blame
Everything is only a twilight zone of moral nothingness
If Relativists are consistent they will never praise or blame anyone for anything
Similarly
4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice
If there are no absolutes then there is no justice or injustice
Such terms have no objective meaning
There is no such thing as moral guilt
5. Relativists can’t improve their morality
If there are no moral absolutes there is no basis for becoming more ethical
How can we improve at something that doesn’t exist?
Once a murderer, always a murderer, it doesn’t matter
If you used to kill ten times a year and you cut to 2-3 a year it’s all the same
Being a consistent relativist means moral anarchy
It ultimately justifies being a sociopath and having no morality whatsoever
6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions
What is there to talk about?
If there are no universal moral principles there’s nothing to debated
Gregory Koukl debated one consistent relativist and asked him:
“Are you saying there’s no moral difference between feeding a starving child and murdering him?”
“I’m saying the question doesn’t make any sense.
It’s as meaningless as talking about a snake with legs.
It’s nonsense, so you can’t even get started.” (68)
After 911University of Illinois Professor Stanley Fish wrote an editorial for the NY Times (10-15-01)
entitled
“Condemnation Without Absolutes”
While he did attempt to defend a basis for defending America he lamented appealing to absolutes
He says calling the terrorists the face of evil or irrational madmen is inaccurate and unhelpful
He praises Reuters for recognizing that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
and thus refusing to use the term terrorist
Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions and
7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance
Tolerance is certainly a candidate for the highest cultural value of contemporary America
Tolerance is seemingly prized more highly than love or justice
But to claim to believe all morals are relative demands tolerance is self-refuting
That is, if there are no moral absolutes then you cannot demand tolerance
If you are relativist you cannot make tolerance an absolute
But greatest hypocrisy, the point at which relativists mock themselves,
is their intolerance of those they consider intolerant
I’ll give you an example
Faye Wattleton was the Director of Planned Parenthood for years and in a piece she wrote
entitled “Self-Definition: Morality” she says:
“Teaching morality doesn’t mean imposing my moral value on others.
It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves. ...”
But then she goes on to say: “When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter
or anyone else, that’s not morality: It’s tyranny.
It’s unfair, and it’s un-American.”
In other words she will tolerate anyone who does not tolerate her viewpoint
She is intolerant of those intolerant of her and she totally contradicts herself
If the trumpeters of tolerance today were truly tolerant they would remain silent about whatever
Whenever they reject any one else’s opinion they are no longer tolerant
The truth is that it is virtually impossible to truly be a relativist
Relativism is almost always self-refuting in practice
Listen to a conversations Gregory Koukl had:
“You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
“Do you mean that I have no right to an opinion?”
“No you have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”
“Is that your opinion?”
“Yes”
“Then why are you forcing your opinon on me?”
“But you’re saying that only your view is right.”
“Am I wrong?”
“Yes.”
“Is that your view?”
“Yes.”
“Then you’re saying only your view is right, which is the the very thing you objected to me saying.”
When a Relativist says to us: “Who are you to say to me ....?”
We should respond by saying: “Who are you to say to me: ‘Who are you to say?’”
When a Relativist proudly announces to us that everything is relative and should be tolerated
then we should go for their moral hot buttons
Say: “Oh so you think it’s okay to be a racist?”
Or: “Oh so you think it’s okay to be a homophobe?”
Or: “Oh so it was okay to fly planes into the Twin Towers?
It is loving to show a relativist their own hypocrisy, their own intolerance
It is loving to show them that it is impossible to be a consistent relativist
and that they need to recognize that there are moral absolutes
The question is not whether there are moral absolutes
but what the moral absolutes are and how they are determined
Ours is a bizarre age
The modern west is the first culture in history to try to function without truth
But as Christina Sommers says what we have done in fact is to throw ourselves back to a moral Stone
Age
We have become what Dostovesky warned about in The Brothers Karamazov
Without God nothing is immoral and everything is permitted
In California they sell bumper stickers which say:
“There is no right or wrong - only fun or boring.”
Beckwith and Koukl summarize:
“What kind of world would it be if relativism were true?
It would be a world in which nothing is wrong - nothing is considered evil or good,
nothing worthy of praise or blame.
It would be a world in which justice and fairness are meaningless concepts,
in which there would be no accountability, no possibility of moral improvement, no moral discourse.
And it would be a world in which there is no tolerance.”
(69)
Well there is so much more to say but so little time
I had planned to discuss also today not only what truth is but how we recognize it
3) The Discovery of Truth
In broadest terms I was going to say that truth is found through two basic means
a) Truth is discovered by properly interpreting God’s Word (Matt. 5:17-18;
John 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21)
The Bible teaches that God reveals Himself in two basic ways
He reveals Himself first through what theologians call special revelation
That is God gives us specific information about Himself through the Bible and Jesus
When we properly understand the Bible we learn truth
The truths of the Bible are revealed without error
They absolutely trustworthy
We can misunderstand the Bible but the Bible itself will never mislead us
God never lies
But God not only makes Himself known through specific revelation but also through general revelation
b) Truth is discovered by properly interpreting God’s World (Ps. 19:1-2;
Rom. 1:18-20)
We can learn some general truths about God from His creation
We can examine His creation and see for example that He is incredibly creative
That He values beauty and diversity
That He is orderly
We can also learn truth from His creation
We can discover things like the law of gravity or electricity or how to repair a human body
All truth is God’s truth
If something is truly true then that truth comes from God
Our culture today is somewhat like three different baseball umpires
The first umpire says: “There’s balls and strikes and I call them the way they are.”
The second umpire says: “That’s arrogant. You can’t always be right.
There’s balls and strikes and I call them the way I see them.”
The third umpire says: “That’s no better. Why not admit the truth?
Those pitches aren’t anything until I say what they are!”
The first umpire represents the classic approach to truth
Truth is out there
It is objective and it can be discovered
The other two umpires represent our age
Truth is totally subjective, totally personal and we can even create
Never mind reality
James Montgomery Boice was once flying on an airplane and ended up in a conversation
about spiritual matters with the young lady next to him
She went on and on about how she could not accept the idea of original sin
She said it made no sense
But when she finally came up for air, Boice said simply: “But is it true?”
Well she ignored his question and went on to say how barbaric and immoral the idea of hell is
And again when she finally paused, Boice said simply: “But is it true?”
This went on and on
She kept raising objection after objection to the Christian faith
And every time Boice simply replied: “But is it true?”
And finally she got the message
She said: “I know, I know. It doesn’t matter what I think.
It only matters whether it’s true or not.” (cited in Richard Phillips, Encounters With Jesus, p. 183)