John 18:19-23

[ShoutGrace]

Was Jesus lying in John 18:19-23?


"The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, 'I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.' When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, 'Is that how you answer the high priest?' Jesus answered him, 'If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is correct, why do you strike me?' Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest."

[grace86]

I am not exactly sure of what part you are asking is a lie.

Is it this part you are thinking about?

Jesus answered him, 'If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is correct, why do you strike me?'

If that is part you are asking about, I do not think Christ is lying. At least, I think that is the part that could make one think that He might be lying. I think that in that verse, Christ is saying "Well, if you (the guard) think I am wrong, speak out against me." I think that Christ knew that the guard either 1. Really did not believe in Christ and who he was or
2. Christ knew that the guard did know.

It seems like He is telling the officer, the priest, and everyone there that they know of what He has done, who He is, and that He has not done anything wrong. He obviously knows that He is going to be crucified by these people...so he is not lying and knows that what He has spoken has been only the truth, and He has not witheld that from anyone.

What could Jesus say, "Yes I am right." They will crucify Him, or "I am wrong and have just been playing with all you guys." They will still crucify Him. I doubt Christ was lying at all, He just stated the truth - He knew what would happen either way.

By the way, why are you asking? Are you genuinely thinking this passage was a lie, or is it just a conversational piece you brought up?

[ShoutGrace]

I am not exactly sure of what part you are asking is a lie.

Grace, I am asking about this part: "Jesus answered him, 'I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret.'"



By the way, why are you asking? Are you genuinely thinking this passage was a lie, or is it just a conversational piece you brought up?

I prefer to remain deferential to others opinions for a moment; thusly, I'd like to keep my understanding of the passage to myself right now.

We could call it a 'conversational piece'; I just want to hear what the members of the forum have to say about it. Thanks for replying :nod:.

[Virgil]

Well, isn't the sermon on the mount evidence that he spoke openly? I don't see a lie in there.

[grace86]

I am still not seeing a lie.

At times he spoke to the masses in the temples and synagogues, and at other times he spoke with people in confidence. But nothing he said was ever hidden.

You are welcome.

[AimusSage]

It's not possible to either prove or disprove this, since their is no primary source which can say it either way, that's the thing about saying things in secret, personally, I would give Him the benefit of the doubt, since He did speak openly, and as such, whatever He said privately, and or in secret, must have been of a completely different nature.

Now that I think of it, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would probably have a severe bout of paranoia right now, and think that it was all a charade by Jesus, or someone impersonating Him. The ultimate goal of a man like that would have been to take over the world, much like Brain from Pinky and the Brain.

It's a good thing I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and as such can let the whole thing slide. Besides, it would make little difference anyway, because either way, He took over the world, with Christianity.


Well, isn't the sermon on the mount evidence that he spoke openly? I don't see a lie in there.
But virgil, is speaking openly the same as not speaking in secret? I'm not saying He did, But many people speak openly, while still having a secret agenda, one does not discount the other.

[grace86]

In another sense, I think you might be incorporating that Jesus was human. Human nature has us keeping secrets and telling lies.

But Jesus was different. He was the son of God. Though the devil tempted Jesus more than I am sure any other human has been tempted, Jesus is our example by not falling - so He would not lie.

If Jesus said something in confidence alone with one person...He would not turn around and tell someone else with the same problem something totally contradictory to the first (If that makes sense). If we asked what Jesus said to the first person, he would not lie to us.

I might be grasping at straws here, my method of explaning myself is probably not all that clear. I am curious to find out your point of view later :D

[AimusSage]

In another sense, I think you might be incorporating that Jesus was human. Human nature has us keeping secrets and telling lies.

But Jesus was different. He was the son of God. Though the devil tempted Jesus more than I am sure any other human has been tempted, Jesus is our example by not falling - so He would not lie.

If Jesus said something in confidence alone with one person...He would not turn around and tell someone else with the same problem something totally contradictory to the first (If that makes sense). If we asked what Jesus said to the first person, he would not lie to us.

I might be grasping at straws here, my method of explaning myself is probably not all that clear. I am curious to find out your point of view later :D

That is assuming Jesus was who He was, the son of God. I'm not saying He wasn't, but when looked at objectively, there is not a single shred of evidence that Jesus is who He said he was. I know this goes against the very concept of belief, but I try to look at all angles and not just see what I want to see.

What you say is true in the sense that that is what is written in the Bible, and many people belief it to be true, but it cannot be proven. This also makes this whole discussion a bit of a mute point, since the belief that Jesus tells no lies is evidence enough for you. That is perfectly fine with me, and I commend you on your firm belief in Jesus.

I cannot disprove Him not lying and personally have no interest in doing so either. I was merely trying to say that things might not always be what they appear.

Oh, and Jesus was human, a good man, and the son of God, according to the bible, but also human. That was the whole idea, that He would die for the sins of humanity. Did He not have a moment of weakness in the garden of Gethsemane in which He asked God to let this Cup pass him by, or something like that? (Can't be bothered to look up the exact quote since it would be in Dutch and make little sense at that, you know what I am referring to. :)

[grace86]

Oh, and Jesus was human, a good man, and the son of God, according to the bible, but also human. That was the whole idea, that He would die for the sins of humanity. Did He not have a moment of weakness in the garden of Gethsemane in which He asked God to let this Cup pass him by, or something like that? (Can't be bothered to look up the exact quote since it would be in Dutch and make little sense at that, you know what I am referring to.

I was not trying to contradict anything you said, Aimus. I was actually addressing ShoutGrace, I am looking for his reason as to why he has brought up his point...I have to wait patiently since he will not do so until he has heard enough opinion. I was suggesting that maybe he brought up the verse to portray the potential that Jesus would lie...simply because he was human.

You are right, there is no way in proving or disproving anything that happened in the bible. But that is why christians have faith that it is true.

Sorry for the mix up.

[AimusSage]

no problemo, I think I can see what ShoutGrace point might be, but I sure don't know his opinion on the matter. I too am interested in knowing it. :)

[grace86]

Hehe...I guess we are both awaiting the moment of truth right!

[AimusSage]

possibly. :) I'm waiting for something, and it could be one man's truth, or one man's doubt, I hope it is the former.

[byquist]

Good question. Jesus seems to lots of us to say what he means, to be direct without any trickery or deception.

On the other hand he certainly says things that others don't understand, and he knows they don't understand; say "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." He knows they don't know what the hell he's talkin' about. They didn't get the implication until after the resurrection. So in some ways he stated big-time concepts that others didn't get; indeed, we only partially get the statements today. "Before Abraham was, I am," is a good one; what does that mean? I don't think its meant as a trick, but it is a deep perception.

He was very honest and direct when interviewed by Pilate. And apparently Pilate thought he gave some sincere and honest answers, and said something like, "I find no fault in this man."

Plus at 12 he was talking in the synagogue that time when his parents lost him, and apparently held his own with the Pharisee, so he was a good elocutionist and discusser/debater.

[Virgil]

But virgil, is speaking openly the same as not speaking in secret? I'm not saying He did, But many people speak openly, while still having a secret agenda, one does not discount the other.
I see your point. I like byquist's view just above me.

[ShoutGrace]

AimusSage, I think that your ‘secret agenda’ ‘conspiracy theory’ is an interesting take on the words that I presented. That is a slightly grander view that I hadn’t considered, and a very imaginative one. It is a good take on an angle of the verse that didn’t come to me. I was thinking of it a little more literally.

grace86, Your ideas are intriguing as well. In my reading of your posts, I guess that my objections come from ideas similar to AimusSage’s. I know that according to the Bible Jesus couldn’t have possibly lied (and I am keeping my adherence to or objection of that doctrine separate for a moment); keeping that in mind, what are the implications of his uttering a lie? As far as examining the text goes, some would consider it circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence that Jesus wasn’t lying. I am looking for a more critical examination.


That is assuming Jesus was who He was, the son of God. I'm not saying He wasn't, but when looked at objectively, there is not a single shred of evidence that Jesus is who He said he was.

What you say is true in the sense that that is what is written in the Bible, and many people belief it to be true, but it cannot be proven. This also makes this whole discussion a bit of a mute point, since the belief that Jesus tells no lies is evidence enough for you.

I think that in deliberating this passage, we should keep in mind that it is an exegetical study. To even address it, we have to acknowledge that Jesus existed, which is debated by some. We also have to acknowledge that the Bible factually reports the events and ideas contained therein.

I am looking at the verse and asking, ‘Is there a contradiction?’ Is there an incongruity between this verse and the other verses of the Bible? The Bible teaches that Jesus was perfect in the eyes of God, and incapable of sin. His lying would obviously work against that particular grain.


At times he spoke to the masses in the temples and synagogues, and at other times he spoke with people in confidence. But nothing he said was ever hidden.

That is a very interesting choice of words, Grace. I have a lot of different thoughts about that, though I would be loathe to misrepresent your meaning. For now can you expound on that idea a little bit? I think it incorporates a key idea that might serve to mitigate the difficulties I think are being presented here.


But virgil, is speaking openly the same as not speaking in secret?

I think that the literal meaning of this sentence hits on the crux of the matter. Jesus wasn’t at all claiming that he didn’t speak openly/publicly (as we can be sure he did), he was stating that he had said “nothing in secret”. How do we interpret that phrase? Obviously, Jesus said things “in secret”. He repeatedly told his disciples things that he didn’t tell anyone else, indeed performed miracles in their presence, and sometimes specifically ordered that they keep it to themselves. He must also have talked to people individually and privately.


I was suggesting that maybe he brought up the verse to portray the potential that Jesus would lie...simply because he was human.

This too is interesting, though not what I was getting at. Jesus’ lying would certainly constitute a Biblical contradiction, and render fundamental Christian doctrines faulty, but wouldn’t necessarily effect other Christian belief systems too disastrously. What I mean to say is that some Christians aren’t Bible literalists and wouldn’t find this verse at all problematic.

[rufioag]

I believe its quiet clear of the implications here. Jesus, as i believe to have interpreted the verse, is saying that I have said these things openly for all to hear, that is, Jesus has claimed to be the Mesiah. Now, if Jesus is claiming to be this, but is not, then yes He is lying. Now if Jesus is claiming this and we take into account that we know Jesus was truthful, then we must therefore associate these comments with truth.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this interpretation

[mtpspur]

From Shoutgrace: "This too is interesting, though not what I was getting at. Jesus’ lying would certainly constitute a Biblical contradiction, and render fundamental Christian doctrines faulty, but wouldn’t necessarily effect other Christian belief systems too disastrously. What I mean to say is that some Christians aren’t Bible literalists and wouldn’t find this verse at all problematic

NOTE: My first attempt at quoting a posted comment--please forgive--I only know the copy/paste trick on the computer. I'm one of those stubborn literalists who have a huge problem with the concept of choosing which parts of the Bible to believe/disbelieve. I generally approach my readings that this is God speaking to me and He is willing to reveal what He desires to me and if there's something that doe not make sense either I'll receive peace about it or continue to pray/study for more light.

Not for a minute do I believe the Lord Jesus has ever lied or misled anyone and He does not have a hidden agenda or indulge in mindgames. If it wasto be proven He lies then the entire structure of Christianity collapses on a rotted foundation. It's why God places such emphasis on coming to Him in faith.

[lily of valley]

Hey guys,
This is a very interesting thread!
"I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together."
Of course, he did. The bible is our evidence here.

"I have said nothing in secret."
Certainly, there are certain things that he said directly to the disciples such as his crucifixion whereas he talked about the same point using different imagery and different symbols ,for example, when he talked about destroying the temple and raising it up in three days.

But if he uses such a language, does this mean that he is lying?! No
If he uses such a language, does this mean he says things in secret? No
I think it is we, Christians who are to blame coz we don't understand him.
When we do not understand him, we say the guy is a liar!!

Let's say when Jesus was telling the proverb or the Parable of the Ten Virgins, what did people or what do we understand? Most of us grasp the surface meaning, but what about the symbolic use of the word Virgins in this text? Few can answer such a question. This applies to many things told by Jesus. Does this fact about him tell us that he says certain things and hides others? No

TO AIMUSSAGE, But many people speak openly, while still having a secret agenda, one does not discount the other.

I DO NOT KNOW. What u said applies to George Bush more than it applies to Jesus. Isn’t this true? Are u saying that Jesus was a politician of some sort with a political hidden agenda. By the way this looks very Nietzsche-like. I like the way u put it. Was the guy really a politician?

Now if he is not a politician, why would he come with a secret agenda? Tell me. I think his coming was sth the Jews had expected in the prophecies of the Old Testament. So why would he come with a secret agenda?

I hope what I ve said so far will help u, shoutgrace.


I myself do nothing. The Holy Spirit accomplishes all through me. Blake.

[Pendragon]

Yes, Jesus did things in secret and told people not to tell about them, such as the healing of the daughter of Jirus. But people knew that Jirus had come to Jesus, and Jesus threw the mourners out of the house, so how secret could it have been? The people knew the girl was dead, they were there to mourn, Jesus shows up, tells them she is only asleep, kicks them out for laughing in His face, and heals her, and then says to keep it secret. A very open one, wouldn't you agree? The story is in Luke 8: 40-49. I can see no contradiction. Every question asked Him, He answered until they didn't dare ask Him anymore! Don't you suppose the disciples talked about things He said, wondering about them, like the two on the road to Emmaus? No real secrets when everything you say will be discussed openly. God bless.

[RJbibliophil]

I'm back. :D

One observation I made is that Jesus said "I have spoken openly to the world", and not "I have only spoken openly to the world."

What is the meaning of "in secret"? Say you had an ordinary conversation with your neighbor yesterday, and no one knew about it, or ever found out about it, much less what you said. Would you consider that "in secret"?

It is certain that Jesus did not speak any words He would be ashamed of, such words are often spoken in secret. Nothing Jesus said was secret from the Father, " ...Father, who sees what is done in secret..."(see Mat. 6:4, 6:6, and 6:18)

Although Jesus spoke(and still does) to each individual in a different way, His message is the same.

If Jesus was speaking to a few people, in a home perhaps, would He hinder another person from joining them?

It seems to me as though Jesus did not always teach. He must of taken part in ordinary, everyday conversations as well.

I am curious as to why Jesus said He only taught in synagogs and temples. Did He not teach crowds other places? At the seashore?

[mtpspur]

One reason the Lord did not want some of his miracles bragged about was because at that time in His incarnation he was there in the form of a servant and (soon to be) sacrifice for sin--He had His mind on the work of the Lord not His personal glory which if you study the gospels the people's tendency would have been to try to get Him to accept kingship now and (most of all) kick the Romans out. All things in their proper time.

[Pendragon]

I'm back. :D



If Jesus was speaking to a few people, in a home perhaps, would He hinder another person from joining them?

It seems to me as though Jesus did not always teach. He must of taken part in ordinary, everyday conversations as well.

I am curious as to why Jesus said He only taught in synagogs and temples. Did He not teach crowds other places? At the seashore?[/QUOTE]Maria, since I finally have a name to put with the image in my mind, this is a very good point. Jesus was often a guest at the house of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. He and his disciples were invited to the wedding feast in Canna. He went down to Simon the Pharisee's house for dinner when invited, and to Zacchaeus' home. Were our Lord not a man given to friendliness and talking, but always preaching doctrine, He would have made a poor guest. No, He was warm-hearted and well liked, and you must remember He worked as a carpenter until he was 30. There would have been much interaction with the people. Then His ministry began. The only one’s who seemed not to be able to get along with Him were the established church. And, yes, He taught by the seashore, from a boat. :angel:

[WriterAtTheSea]

...He spoke openly, that is a given; however he frequently spoke in parables, which of course were simple stories that he used to assist Him in making a point about something. Jesus was all about making points. :)

[Mary Sue]

It occurs to me that Jesus always spoke to people ON WHATEVER LEVEL THEY HAPPENED TO BE. To some he spoke in parables, knowing that much of the message would be "over their heads." To others, i.e. his inner circle, he spoke much more plainly and directly. But he wasn't KEEPING SECRETS from anyone.

Consider how differently you address different people in everyday life. You may be discussing philosophy with, say, a learned adult. The next minute, you're talking to your 5-year-old child in the sand box. The kid in the sand box isn't capable of comprehending the discussion of Aristotle's ethics, so you don't even try to introduce THAT topic. BUT YOU AREN'T KEEPING SECRETS FROM THE CHILD.

So when Jesus said "I spake ever openly," he was telling the truth.

[tidee98]

just a couple comments. i think jesus was telling them that his 'message' was there for all to see. and i think they thought so too, since the high priest didn't allow any more face slappin'.

my opinion. we all know there is more than face value to any belief system. the more you involve yourself, the more meaning you will find.

[*theReader*]

"I myself do nothing. The Holy Spirit accomplishes all through me."

Amen! Amen, Blake!"

I think Tidee made a really good point. All does not mean all all of the time. I could say "All the world came to see the strange sight." Do I really mean all in the sense every single human being whose heart is beating? Of course not.

Jesus laid everything out on the table. Jesus didn't attach strings to His teachings. I think Peter later says on the day of Pentacost that "this thing was not done in a corner". Everyone knew about Jesus; everyone had heard Him teach; everyone heard about His awful death; everyone knew why He died.

Thank you Jesus, for Your wonderful message of truth!

[WriterAtTheSea]

..scipture actually declairs that Jesus was and is God in the flesh, which is why he came into the world with no sin and why (the man Jesus) was perfect in the eyes of God. Because He was God in the flesh: "I and my father are one," "I am that I am," "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." Not to mention the first chapter of the book of John. In the Greek puts Jesus not only there at creation, but as the creator. :)

[*theReader*]

Absolutely correct, writer at the sea!