WAS JESUS' TESTIMONY TRUE? (JOHN 5:31; 8:14)

The supposed contradiction regarding this question appears in the above two verses in John's Gospel. Here is how Bible critics phrase the problem: In John 5:31, Jesus states, “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” but in John 8:14 on another occasion, he says, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14). Thus, we are faced with the above question to answer.

One of the world's experts on the Gospel of John, Raymond Brown, agrees that this conflict can be easily reconciled since God the Father can verify Jesus' words in both cases. However, he still doubts that John would have come up with two such seemingly different statements on his own. Therefore, he proposes that John 8:14 was written later by a different person and inserted into the text.

My personal feeling on the subject is to ask why anyone would insert a statement that seems so at odds with 5:31. The more logical explanation in my mind is that John was simply accurately recording Jesus' words in both places, and that such puzzling language is in keeping with many other such cryptic sayings of the Lord that need to be carefully considered before being dismissed as mere nonsense or the addition of a clueless redactor.

In turning for the answer to this quandary, I am reminded of an old, and probably apocryphal, preacher's sermon illustration. The story goes that an elderly lady approaches her young pastor and asks him for some recommended books to help her understand the difficult passages in the Bible. He mentions some of the latest tomes by his favorite scholarly writers in the field and even loans her one to try out. She comes back a few weeks later to return the book, and he asks her how it went. Her comment is: “At first I couldn't make heads or tails of the commentary you loaned me until I read the Bible passage, and then it clearly explained what the scholar had been trying to say.

That is sort of my response in the present case. I will admit that I had trouble, especially with several of the commentators' words regarding John 5:31 until I looked at the Bible passage as rendered by some other translations and paraphrases. Here is what I found:

    “You may say that I am bearing witness about myself, that therefore what I say about myself has no value.” (J.B. Phillips)

    “When I make claims about myself they aren't believed.” (Living Bible)

    “If I testify on my own behalf, that testimony does not hold good.” (NEB)

    “If I were simply speaking on my own account, it would be an empty, self-serving witness.” (The Message)

    “If I testify own my own behalf, what I say is not to be accepted as real proof.”

    “Were I to testify on my own behalf, my testimony would not be valid.” (Jerusalem Bible)

    “If I am my own witness, my testimony cannot be verified.” (Anchor Bible)

Here are several important take-away points to be derived from these alternative renderings of the Greek text.

    1. In no case does Jesus admit in any way that he is lying.

    2. Five of the above translations give his statement in the conditional mode. Thus, they are understanding the verse as stating that Jesus is not even claiming to provide testimony for himself. It is merely a hypothetical situation.

    3. The context of his speech is a forensic one that uses legal language to show what would happen if Jesus were to try to defend himself in a Jewish court of law.

Kostenberger cites the Old Testament law requiring multiple witnesses as found in Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Numbers 35:30 and then reappearing in John 5:31; 8:13-18; II Corinthians 13:1; I John 5:7; and Revelation 11:3. Note that all but one of these NT references come from writings ascribed to John the Apostle.

    4. The first two quotes above throw the emphasis of Jesus' words not on his validity to make a claim on his own behalf, but on his enemies' unwillingness to believe anything he says.

Some commentators additionally rely on the different contexts of the two verses in order to resolve the issue:

    Blum: “John 5:31 and 8:14 appear to be contradictory. But they speak to different issues. In 5:31, Jesus' point was that if He bore witness to Himself, this witness would not be accepted by the Jewish authorities. They would see it as a arrogant claim of self-exaltation. Yet in another setting (8:14), self-authentication is perfectly valid because an individual is the only one who knows his own full experience.

    Borchert: “I would remind the reader that for anyone engaged in legal argument or debate, contexts are very crucial to the style of argument. In the first case Jesus employed the legal formula of the need for two witnesses to introduce four witnesses, whereas in the second case he defended a Pharisaic charge of false witness to a proclamation concerning his origin. The format of both contexts are clearly conflictual, but the settings move the argument in different ways...”

Somewhat surprisingly, at least to my my mind, was the almost uniform agreement among scholars that the key to unlocking the common meaning behind Jesus' statements in both these verses was the simple fact that Jesus was never alone in action or speech; the Father was with him every step of the way throughout his earthly life. This fact, unknown to Jesus' opponent, has been expressed somewhat differently by the various commentators, but they all are saying the same thing:

    “The statement in 8:14 does not contradict this, for there Jesus is not considering, as here [5:30-31], the impossible hypothesis of a witness by the Son which conflicted with the witness of the Father.” (D. Guthrie)

    “In the present passage [8:14] He has two points to make, the one that He is qualified to bear witness though His enemies are not, and the other that in any case His testimony is not unsupported. The Father bears witness of Him. Here Jesus is contrasting Himself with the Pharisees. He knows both His origin and destination, but they know neither. They are not in a position to comment on His witness. They are totally unaware of the great heavenly verities.” (Morris)

    “If he were to act independently of God (supposing such a thing were possible), Jesus would be completely powerless. The whole meaning and energy of his word lie in the fact that it is not his word but God's.” (Barrett)

    “...before they [his four witnesses] are introduced separately, Jesus reminds his listeners that there has been a joint testimony present in all his discussions. The 'another' of v. 32 [chapter 5] assumes that in everything Jesus has done, the Father has been active. [Thus, Morris speaks of a five-fold, rather than four-fold, witness.] The method of argument used here is to close down the doubt before the actual argument begins. As a former lawyer, given the presuppositions in the case, I find Jesus' method to be intriguing.” (Borchert)

    “Jesus affirmed that he did not seek an independent self-authentication. He was content to submit to the Father's will and to let the Father authenticate Him.” (Blum)

    “Jesus' saying here [5:31] might seem to contradict what He says later (cf. 8:13f). But there is no contradiction. Here, He is referring to those claims which He might have made by self-assertion. But His testimony is at one with the Father's, so He trusts Him (cf. v. 32).” (Ellis)