Do John 5:31 and John 8:14 Contradict One Another?

Why Does This Matter?

It is an evangelical belief that the Scriptures are internally consistent. That means that, unless intentionally done, they do not contradict one another. This alone is a reason to try to square up a supposed inconsistency in the text. But there are other reasons.

One way that we resolve these tensions is to give priority to one text over another and interpret them in light of one another. But which of these verses should have priority? How we answer this question will have a bearing on how we defend the faith.

If we say that John 5:31 has priority, then what this would mean is that Jesus’ testimony is truly not valid unless He brings in other witnesses. This would mean that His testimony is not self-attesting, it’s not sufficient by itself. But do we realize what that claim would mean for the identity of Jesus? David Ford gets at the conundrum when he says this:

If we affirm an unsurpassable truth, then to claim that some other truth testifies to it adequately seems to make that other truth the encompassing one. Anselm of Canterbury saw God as that “than which none greater can be conceived.” To think that God can be shown to be real within any framework of reality apart from God, therefore, means that something greater than God is being conceived.

For this reason, alone, it is probably best that we see that John 8:14 has the priority. Jesus’ testimony is self-attesting. So, when he says in 8:14 that even if he alone bears witness, then it is “true,” we must take this at face value. This now leaves us needing to see how John 5:31 can square up with that claim.

What Does John 5:31 Mean?

John 5:31 seems to square up with what we see in Deuteronomy 17 and 19. Two witnesses seem to be required in order to determine that something is valid. In this instance, what Jesus would be saying in 5:31 is that a self-testimony is not legally admissible.

Imagine an employee is accused of stealing money from the cash register. Money always seems to be missing at the end of his shift. This does not happen with other employees. And they have video evidence of him pocketing the money. So, his supervisors call him in for a meeting. At this meeting, they question him about whether or not he took the money. He denied it. Now, imagine if the supervisors simply took him at his word and said that the matter was settled. That would be silly of them to clear him of charges because he said, “I did not take the money.”

The same is true in matters of accusations. Simply because someone makes an accusation does not mean that we immediately prosecute the one who is accused. We have due process. In the Old Testament, witnesses were needed. You had to build a case. You cannot simply condemn people based on the accusation of another, nor can you clear someone simply because they deny a charge.

But why?

Because people lie. But is this the case with God? God never lies. And God is the highest authority. There is no other by which He could swear. What He says is self-attesting. If we believe, then, that Jesus is God in the flesh—we must accept that He, too, is self-attesting.

Yet, the people Jesus was speaking to did not believe Him to be God. Should he dig in and refuse to give them any other evidence? He could. But the Son of God does not do this. He condescends and provides in John 5 not only two witnesses but four: John the Baptist, the Father, the Scriptures, and Moses. Not to mention that His works also speak for themselves.

John 5:31 is Jesus stooping to give them evidence even though, as John 8:14 declares, it is not needed. Perhaps what William Hendriksen suggests is the best option: “Jesus simply means, ‘If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true in your estimation.’”

It’s not a contradiction, then. In 5:31, Jesus is saying that according to the standards placed upon fallen humanity, two witnesses are required. He then goes on to give His witnesses. In 8:14, Jesus is calling them into deeper belief. There he gets at the reality of the situation. His word is self-attesting.

How Do We Apply This?

What do we do, then, with Jesus’ words? Do we believe Jesus simply because He said it, or are we constantly asking for other evidence?

If I say, “I’ll believe Jesus’ words if you can show me X,” then whatever X is, that thing is held in the highest esteem. Is it scientific evidence? Is it the approval of others? Is it my own logic and reason?

A few verses later in John 5, Jesus said that he did not accept or need the glory of man. But the religious leaders did. They were driven by something other than the glory of God. That was their “X.” If Jesus’ words had squared with their traditions, their pre-conceived notions, and their view of God, then they would have readily accepted Him. But when He exposed these categories as insufficient, they went after Jesus rather than changing their own views.

This is why Jesus said in John 5:44, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God.” To seek God, to be shaped by God’s self-attesting Word, would mean that you believed the testimony of Jesus.

Do you accept Jesus’ testimony as true?

Sources:
David F. Ford, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2021), 133.
William Hendriksen. The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975), 206.

Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/pixelheadphoto