Testimony Regarding Jesus (5:3147)

5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.76 Jesus here does not indicate that he
actually will testify about himself; he is simply stating a supposition in order to comment on it
(Wallace 1996: 471). If all that Jesus has is his own claims, this is insufficient (Carson 1991: 259;
Morris 1995: 287 n. 95).77 He ought not to pose as an independent, self-authenticating authority
(Barrett 1978: 264), for that would be open to the charge of being motivated by self-interest
(Bultmann 1971: 263). Even so, Jesus shortly will note that self-witness is valid if confirmed by
other witnesses (Ridderbos 1997: 202). Moreover, since everything that Jesus says and does is in
obedience to the Father, his witness is, in reality, that of God the Father (Carson 1991: 260;
Beasley-Murray 1999: 78).78

The interrogation of witnesses was central to Jewish legal procedure. 79 This is clearly borne
out by Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin, where, to the dismay of the Jews accusing Jesus, witnesses
did not agree (Mark 14:5564; cf. Matt. 26:5966). The need for multiple witnesses, already taught
in the Hebrew Scriptures (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; cf. Num. 35:30), is reiterated by Jewish tradition
(m. Ketub. 2.9; m. Ro Ha. 3.1; cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.8.15 219).80

5:3234 Anticipating his audiences need for additional witnesses, Jesus proceeds to refer to
another. The Jews initially may take this as a reference to the Baptist (cf. 5:3335; so
Chrysostom, cited in Morris 1995: 288 n. 96), but Jesus is referring to God the Father (5:37), in
common Jewish fashion avoiding the name of God.81 Jesus did not need the Baptists witness
(5:34); it was for the people (Carson 1991: 260; Bultmann 1971: 26465). You have sent to John

76
The rendering not valid (rather than not true, indicating a courtroom setting) is suggested by
Carson (1991: 259) and Morris (1995: 287) (contra Ridderbos 1997: 202).
77
Note the preponderance of emphatic first-person Greek pronouns in this section (5:30, 31, 34, 36, 43,
45; see Morris 1995: 286).
78
As Lee (1994: 104) notes, following Schnackenburg, instead of summoning three witnesses in 5:3247,
Jesus ultimately is only calling upon the witness of God, whose testimony is effected through John the
Baptist, Jesus own works, and the Scriptures.
79
On the trial motif in Johns Gospel, see especially Lincoln 2000.

Ketub. Ketubbot

Ro Ro Haanah

Ant. Jewish Antiquities

80
Relevant NT parallels include John 8:1318; 2 Cor. 13:1 (citing Deut. 19:15); 1 John 5:7; Rev. 11:3.
81
That another refers to God the Father represents a broad consensus among commentators: so
Ridderbos 1997: 202; Morris 1995: 288; Moloney 1998: 190; Beasley-Murray 1999: 78; Schnackenburg
1990: 2.121; Barrett 1978: 264; R. Brown 1966: 224.
probably refers to the delegation sent by the Jews from Jerusalem to inquire about the nature of
the Baptists ministry (1:1928).82 He has testified to the truth reiterates the claim made already
in the prologue (1:7; see Carson 1991: 260).83

5:3536 Jesus calls John a lamp (, lychnos) that burned and shone (see 1:79, which
already made clear that John himself was not the light [, phs], i.e., the Messiah). The verb
(n, was) may indicate that John is now dead or at least in prison (cf. 3:24; see Morris 1995:
289; cf. Schlatter 1948: 156). A lamp is more accurately rendered the lamp (note the Greek
article), pointing to a known person or phenomenon. Most likely, Ps. 132:17 is in view (so Carson
1991: 261; Morris 1995: 289 n. 100; Barrett 1978: 265), where it is said that God will set up a
lamp () for his anointed one. Though the Baptist earlier denied being Elijah (John 1:21),
Jesus here identifies him as that lamp set up by God to cast its light on the coming
Messiah.84 Inherent in the designation of the Baptist as a lamp is the recognition that his witness
was small (yet important) and of a temporary nature. He was a lamp that exuded light, but he was
not the light itself (Carson 1991: 261).85

You chose to enjoy his light indicates peoples respect for John yet also indicts them for their
superficiality and insincerity.86 For a season points to the temporary nature of peoples openness
to Johns message; the depth of peoples commitment to John did not exceed the level of their
allegiance to Jesus in 2:2325 (Carson 1991: 261; Ridderbos 1997: 203). One witness weightier
than the Baptists is Jesus works (, erga).87 What the evangelist may label signs is simply
subsumed under his works by Jesus. Thus, his works include the signs but are not limited to
them. Everything Jesus does, or even says (Ridderbos 1997: 203), that is, his entire ministry
(Carson 1991: 261), constitutes his works. Jesus does not ask people to believe in him by some

82
Have sent and have testified are in the Greek perfect tense, indicating the settled condition
resulting from the Baptists witness to Jesus (cf. Barrett 1978: 264; Carson 1991: 260; Beasley-Murray
1999: 78; Morris 1995: 288; R. Brown 1966: 224; Wallace [1996: 577] calls this an extensive perfect).
83
The idea of bearing witness to the truth occurs in the NT only in this Gospel (similarly, 18:37; cf. 3 John
3, 12); cf. 1QS 8:56.
84
Sir. 48:1 portrays Elijah as having arisen like fire [, pyr], and his word burned like a torch [,
lampas].
85
There may also be a hint at burning up in the sense that his witness was borne at a high personal
cost (Morris 1995: 289), similar to Jesus being consumed by zeal for God (2:17).
86
The aorist (thelsate, you chose) may be intended as a contrast to the perfect tense forms
in 5:33, which indicate the settled condition of the Baptists witness (Barrett 1978: 265). The word here
for enjoy (, agallia[found elsewhere in John only in 8:56]) also occurs in the Greek text of
Ps. 132:16. Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2 118) writes that people were aroused to the highest degree [variant:
overjoyed] by the Baptists message.
87
See Kstenberger 1998b: 7273. The term is repeated in 5:36 for emphasis (Morris 1995: 290).
blind leap of faith; he offers his works as evidence for his messianic claims. People ought to be
able to see Gods hand in Jesus works, and Gods voice in Jesus words (Ridderbos 1997: 203).

5:37 By stating that the Father he has borne witness concerning me, Jesus may be referring
to the voice at his baptism (Matt. 3:17 pars.), an event not explicitly mentioned in John, though
the primary reference probably is to Gods witness in Scripture (Beasley-Murray 1999: 78;
Bultmann 1971: 266).88 At another place John writes, We accept mans testimony, but Gods
testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son (1 John
5:9).89 The perfect (memartyrken, he has borne witness) points to the confirmed
state and continuing significance of the Fathers witness.

You have never heard his voice or seen his form. Old Testament figures who heard the voice
of God include Noah (Gen. 7:14), Abraham (Gen. 12:13), Moses (Exod. 3:44:17; 19:36, 9
13; 33:11), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:4, 6, 8, 1114), and Elijah (1 Kings 19:13, 1518). Abraham (Gen.
18:12), Jacob (Gen. 32:2430), Moses (Exod. 33:11), and Isaiah (Isa. 6:15) all saw the Lord
in one sense or another (see Carson 1991: 262; Morris 1995: 291). Though not seeing God directly,
Israel received the law at Mount Sinai and accepted it from Gods servant Moses. Now, however,
the Jews are rejecting greater revelation from an even greater messenger.90

5:38 The defense turns into an indictment (Borchert 1996: 245): and you do not have his word
residing in you.91 If Gods word had dwelt in Jesus opponents, they would have accepted rather
than rejected him (Ridderbos 1997: 204). Jesus language harks back to the OT depiction of a God-
fearing individual as someone who has the Word of God dwelling in his or her heart. Joshua (Josh.
1:89) and the psalmist (Ps. 119:11) are both characterized in this way. New Testament saints
correspondingly are exhorted to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly (Col. 3:16). By contrast,
Jesus Jewish opponents do not have Gods word dwelling in them, because they do not believe
the one he [God] sent (5:38b).

5:3940 Jewish diligence in studying the Torah was legendary. 92 But although the Jews zeal in
studying Scripture was undeniable, Jesus maintained that such zeal was misguided, for alone it

pars. parallels
88
See 5:4547; Luke 24:27, 44; Acts 13:27; 1 John 5:9. Carson (1991: 262) sees here a general reference
to all of the Fathers revealing work (citing R. Lightfoot 1956: 14647).
89
Cf. m. Abot 4.22; Exod. Rab. 1.20; Wis. 1:6 (cited in Kstenberger 2002c: 61, 201 n. 164).
90
Cf. John 1:1718; 8:5658; 12:41; Heb. 1:13; 2:13; 3:16.
91
Keener (2003: 658) lays out 5:3844 as a probable chiastic structure, with 5:4243a as the center of
the chiasm.

OT Old Testament
92
See Kenyon 1939: 38 (cited in Morris 1995: 292 n. 118). See also b. Meg. 18b (cf. Kstenberger 2002c:
6162).
was insufficient for attaining eternal life.93 What is required, rather, is an understanding of
Scriptures true (christological) orientation and purpose. Not merely are individual sayings of
Scripture fulfilled in Jesus;94 Scripture in its entirety is oriented toward him.95 Yet Jesus Jewish
opponents did not want to come to him (i.e., to accept his claims and believe in him): their refusal
is deliberate (R. Brown 1966: 225).

5:4143 Anticipating the charge that he is acting out of self-interest, Jesus asserts that he is not
seeking human acclaim, in contrast to his interrogators (5:41; cf. 5:44; see Carson 1991: 264), who
are devoid of love for God (not love of God; see Bultmann 1971: 269 n. 2; Moloney 1998: 192)
and whose self-love caused them to reject the God-sent Messiah (Carson 1991: 264). Jesus has
come in his Fathers name and was rejected;96 false prophets, who come in their own name, the
Jews will accept. This is nothing new: the false prophet Shemaiah is charged by the true prophet
Jeremiah with speaking in his own name.97 Jesus himself predicted the proliferation of false Christs
as a sign of the end times (Matt. 24:5 pars.), and Josephus reports a string of charismatic figures
in the years prior to A.D. 70 who at least temporarily accumulated a following (Ant. 20.5.1 97
99; 20.8.6 17172; J.W. 2.13.46 25865).98 The delegation sent to investigate the Baptist
(1:1922) may well have been aware of such stirrings.

5:4445 Why were the Jewish leaders prepared to accept false prophets while rejecting their
Messiah? Because they accepted honor from one another, being so self-absorbed in the
fulfillment of their religious duties that they had no room for Gods revelation. Having turned blind
spiritually, they had lost the ability to perceive Gods work in their midst. In the rabbinical schools,
Scripture study had become a means of self-advancement whereby authorities engaged in
inconsequential verbal disputes (Morris 1995: 294 n. 125, with reference to Strachan 1955). The
only God once again affirms Jewish monotheism, which is firmly embedded in the Torah and
Second Temple literature (cf. 5:18; 17:3).

93
The famous first-century Jewish rabbi Hillel used to say, The more study of the Law the more life. If
a man has gained for himself words of the Law he has gained for himself life in the world to come
(m. Abot 2.7; cf. Bar. 4:1; Gen. Rab. 1.14). Paul argues against this view in Rom. 7:10 and Gal. 3:21.
94
See John 12:38; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 3637.
95
See John 1:45; 2:22; 3:10; 5:4547; 12:41; 20:9; cf. Luke 24:27, 4445; and Matthews fulfillment
quotations. See Bruce 1978: 3553.
96
On name, see commentary at 1:12. On the Jewish concept of agency, see commentary at 5:23.
97
Jer. 29:25, 31; cf. Deut. 18:1920; Jer. 14:1415; 23:25; 29:9.

J.W. The Jewish War

98
See Barnett 198081; Schlatter 1948: 160; Piper, ISBE 3:33233; van der Woude, TDNT 9:50927.
However, calling these figures messianic pretenders goes beyond the evidence. Thus, Meier (1994:
61112 n. 75) and R. Brown (1997: 820 n. 6) emphatically deny that any Jew (other than Jesus) claimed
or was said to be the Messiah prior to, contemporaneous with, or even in the decades immediately
following Jesus ministry.
 The Jews hopes were set on Moses (see 9:2829);99 yet, ironically, it was precisely he who
served as their accuser. In OT history, Moses frequently served as Israels intercessor.100 Yet both
the Song of Moses and the Book of the Law function as witnesses against Israel (Deut. 31:19,
21, 26; cf. Rom. 3:19). In Jesus day, many Jews, in keeping with the portrayal of Moses in OT and
Second Temple literature, saw Moses role as that of continuing mediator and advocate.101 The
Samaritans, too, regarded Moses as their heavenly intercessor.102 Even many pagans knew him as
Israels lawgiver.103 This widespread confidence in the efficacy of Moses intercession shows how
shocking Jesus statement would have been for his Jewish audience.104

5:4647 The present verses reveal the familiar Johannine pattern of a statement in the affirmative
followed by the converse. Belief in Moses and Jesus is developed in terms of believing in Moses
writings and Jesus words.105 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me106 most likely
refers to the Jews misdirected reading of the law. The reason why Moses would accuse them was
that he, as the lawgiver, knew the laws true purpose. Rather than being an end in itself, it served
to point to Christ (Carson 1991: 266). Moses wrote concerning me (cf. 5:39) may refer to the
first five books of the OT (attributed to Moses) or to the prediction of a prophet like Moses in
Deut. 18:15, or both. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
refers to the Jews failure to grasp the true essence of the Scriptures, including their prophetic
orientation toward Jesus (cf. Matt. 5:17). The argument is from the lesser to the greater, a

99
This is the only instance of the term hope (be it verb or noun) in Johns Gospel (but the expression is
also virtually absent from the Synoptics). The intensive perfect tense (, lpikate) underscores
the settled state of the Jews hope set on Moses.
100
See Exod. 32:1114, 3032; Num. 12:13; 14:1920; 21:7; Deut. 9:1820, 2529. See also As.
Mos. 11:17 (cf. 12:6; Jub. 1:1921; cited in Kstenberger 2002c: 62; cf. Beasley-Murray 1999: 79;
Ridderbos 1997: 207; Carson 1991: 266).
101
See Exod. Rab. 18.3 on Exod. 12:29, where Moses is called a good intercessor.
102
Schnackenburg 1990: 1.470 n. 139, with reference to Meeks 1967: 25455.
103
E.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 1.94.2.8; 34/35.1.3.9 (first century B.C.).
104
For a treatment of Moses as a character in the Fourth Gospel, see Harstine (2002: 4075), who treats
1:17, 45; 3:14; 5:4546; 6:32; 7:19, 22, 23; 9:2829. According to Harstine, Moses dominant function
throughout the narrative is as a witness to Jesus (p. 72), whereby Moses serves as a historical/legendary
figure similar to Jacob (4:5, 12), David (7:42), and Abraham (8:3358). On Moses in the Fourth Gospel,
see also Glasson 1963; Meeks 1967; and Boismard 1993. Keener (2003: 662) observes how, on a literary
level, the closing appeal to Moses in 5:4547 prepares the way for chapter 6, where Jesus is presented
as the new Moses providing Gods people with the new bread from heaven.
105
The word (pisteu, believe) is central, occurring four times in these two verses (see Morris
1995: 29698).
106
On the grammatical construction, see Wallace 1996: 693, 695.
customary rabbinic device.107 His writings and my words are here set in parallelism (cf. John
1:17), underscoring the correspondence between the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus teaching
(Moloney 1998: 19293).
1

107
Jesus: Luke 16:31; John 3:12; 6:27; 7:23; 10:3436; Paul: Rom. 5:15, 17; 2 Cor. 3:9, 11:
other NT writers: Heb. 9:14; 12:9, 25. See Carson 1991: 266.
1
Ko stenberger, A. J. (2004). John. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (190). Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.