Truth, in this specific sense, forms one of the nuclei of the Fourth Gospel. It is equivalent either to the knowledge of God's being and will, or to the Divine being and will itself ; in other words, it rejiresents the higher and heavenly reality of things, transcendent and absolute, and corresponds generally to light (cf. 1^ and 5^^) in its sphere and functions. Like the light, however, the truth is not an abstract entitj% much less an intellectual .system, to the author, but this Divine reality as manifested in the incarnate Logos, as revealed in the Son. He is the Truth (14"); He and it are identified (ef. 8^^. s6)_ ^jj gjgg ig transitory and unsubstantial. Whatever api^eai'S to compete with this truth is either counterfeit or merely relative. Jesus, as the perfect Son of God, is the final and adequate embodiment of God's saving will ; and the common term for that heavenly nature, in relation to man's errors and ignorance, is the truth. But the errors and ignorance against which it has to struggle are moral rather than intellectual. It is truth to be done (3-^), not speculation to be understood. The prerequisite for coming to the light of the Logos is a sound moral tlisposition, faithfulness to the light of conscience, and genuine sincerity of thought and deed. Such is the point pressed by the author of this Gosjiel. He was sur- rounded by a world which included earnest seekers for the truth (cf. \2^'^^-) and so-called ' philosophers' or religious theorists, in Judaism and paganism, Avlio refused to accept the Christian estimate of Jesus, and probably preferred Gnostic presenta- tions of communion with God. To meet both of these contemporary currents, he states his con- ception of Christ as the Truth. AVith that Christ all truly sincere souls have an affinity, which, if allowed to develop naturally, will bring them into touch with Him. On the other hand, the objec- tions to Christ, often paraded on intellectual grounds, are run back to moral defects, and failure to see the reality of God in Christ is attributed to .some unreality of human character.
The roots of this unique conception may partly be found in Philo, but ultimately they run back to
TRUTH
TRUTH
769
Platonism and the later Stoicism (cf. Grill, p. 204 f.), while even Egyptian theology had crowned the god Thoth with the attribute aUif aXrjdrjs of the Logos (cf. Reitzenstein, Z^vei religionsgcsrh. Fragen, pp. 56, 80 f . ). But the distinctive usage of the Fourth Gospel lies in its correlation of this conception with the historic personality of Jesus Christ. The Asiatic-Greek audience for which the book was immediately composed, learnt that He was a king of truth (IS'"'), instead of l>eing king of some realm whose Jewish Messianic associations failed to im- press Hellenic readers. This was a timely pre- sentation of the Gos])el. It was a reading of Christ's personality which could not fail to com- mend itself to those for whom the more local and national associations of Judaism, or of Jewish Christianit}^ had lost much, if not all, of their interest and appeal. Hence the emphasis on the two realms of truth and falsehood, or of reality and unreality, which, like the cognate antithesis of light and darkness, helps to body forth the moral dualism of the Gospel. The opposition of men to Christ as the Logos is referred to their connexion with the realm of the devil (S*'-), whose hereditary policy is hatred of the Divine truth. The author does not speculate on any fall of the devil, nor does he discuss the origin of this cosmic feud ; he is content to trace it through history, in the practical experience of mankind. Truth and falsehood, reality and unreality, light and dark- ness, are set in juxtaposition. His Christ is a King of Truth. ' He reigns as Himself holy and true, by the power of the truth which He reveals — truth in the conscience, truth in the heart, and truth in the mind — and over those who, through His grace and spirit, have become fundamentally true ; who stand in the eternal, abiding relation- ship of peace and love and holiness towards God ' (Reith, Thr, Gospel of John, ii. p. 138). The con- trast between this and the realm of falsehood and unreality is moral, rather than metaphysical, for tiie writer, though the metaphysical basis is plain.
Hence tliere is a distinction between the witness borne to the triith by John the Baptist (5^^) and tiiat borne by Christ (S'"' 18^'). The former passage ( where ' the truth ' is meant to cover more than its ordinary sense, although the language of the latter is em])loyed) is in the line of F'- ^^^•. But when Jesvis IS said to bear witness to the truth, or to tell the truth, it is in the sense that He bears witness to Himself (8") as the Truth. His whole Person and work are an adequate revelation of the Father's inner being. To see Him is to see the Father. His witness, therefore, consists in what may be termed His loyalty to Himself, and His devotion to that vocation of being true to God's will for which He became incarnate, and from which no fear of death could deter Him (cf. Lidgett, The Spiritual Prin- ciple of the Atonement, p. 24 f.). A further line of witness to the truth of God is afibrded by those who accept the revelation of Clirist (3^'). Their adhesion to the trtith aflbrds to the world fresh evidence of the truth's power ; they, as it were, accredit the transcendent purpose of God by their obedience to it as the moral ideal of their life. This is indicated already in the Prologue by the words 'we beheld . . . we have all received.' Finally, there is the living witness of the Spirit of Truth (see below) in the Church, which, unlike the so-called Gnostic revelations of fresh knowledge, is ever loyal to the historical i)ersonality of Christ, and aims consistently at glorifying, instead of obscuring or diminishing, the vital significance of His life for the human soul.