If I bear witness concerning myself, my witness is not true.
At first this verse sounds strange: Jesus says His own witness about Himself is not true. The law standing behind the words explains what He means, and the rest of the chapter shows what He did about it.
The word "true" here is not about honesty but about legal standing. Jesus is applying a rule from the law to His own case.
Then we have what is strange to a great many in verse 31, "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true," that is, not valid. The law requires two witnesses, and He recognises its claims upon Him. In the verse before it He says, "I can do nothing on My own." That is, He cannot act on His own.
One witness can be completely right and still not be enough.
The testimony of one man might be true — absolutely; just as true in itself as that of two. But it would not be true in the same way to others: it would need confirmation.
His words come from the place He had taken among men. He lived as a dependent Man.
It was the testimony of One Who had taken the place of the perfectly dependent Man. In consistency with this place He could do nothing of Himself. Behind His testimony there was the hidden life of communion with the Father and dependence upon the Father. So He can say, "As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I seek not My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me." His judgment did not come from what He heard from men. He never warped it by seeking His own will. Too often our own judgments go wrong. Men sway our minds, and our own wills push us.
The verse also states a rule about motives. A man who is out to promote himself has already disqualified his own account of himself.
His own witness was also true. But what He says is this: He does not seek to glorify Himself. He does not demand their trust. He does not ask them to believe. Just as He says elsewhere, "The one who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of Him who sent him is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him." And this always holds good. If a man is seeking to exalt self, he has a motive that is not truth — his witness is not true.
His mission explains His silence about Himself.
He had not come into the world to speak about Himself; it was not the purpose of His mission. He had come to speak about the Father and to make Him known. This is why He said, "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true." He never spoke of His works as His own, or of His words as His own. He gave the Father credit for everything. Suppose He had put Himself forward as the source of His work, or as the subject of His words. That would have given a completely false impression of why He was in this world. This is what made Him so different from the great men of this world, who were always calling attention to themselves and trying to make themselves great in the eyes of men.
Later Jesus insists that His witness about Himself is true. The two statements do not clash.
He had said earlier that if He bore witness of Himself, His witness was not true — that is, not valid (John 5:31). Yet now He insists that His witness is true. The answer is not difficult. If He were merely a witness independent of the Father, this witness would have no weight. But in fact His witness never stood alone, "of Himself." It was in total unity with the Father, from whom He had come and to whom He was going.
He accepted the law's standard. Then He gave far more than it asked.
The law could not accept the testimony of only one witness. So He brings forward more than the law required. He cites four witnesses: John the Baptist (verses 32 to 35), the works He did (verse 36), the Father Himself (verse 37), and the Old Testament Scriptures (verse 39). They all confirm His own testimony.
- Valid, not honest. "Not true" means "not valid". One witness alone could not settle a case under the law.
- Submission. Jesus does not override that standard. He puts Himself under it, as One who does nothing on His own.
- Motive. A man out to exalt himself has a motive that is not truth. That test still holds.
- Subject. He came to make the Father known, so He refused to make Himself the theme of His own message.
- Overflow. The law asked for two witnesses. He gave four — John, His works, the Father, the Scriptures.
It is another who bears witness concerning me, and I know that the witness which he bears concerning me is true.
Jesus has just made the highest claims about Himself, so any court would ask: who else says so? He does not rest on His own word alone, but points to another witness whose testimony He knows is true.
The previous sentence has puzzled many readers, since Jesus never spoke a false word. The point is legal, not moral: a single witness could not establish a case under Israel's law.
Verse 31 sounds strange to a great many: "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true." That is, not valid. The law requires two witnesses, and He recognises its claims upon Him. In the preceding verse He says, "I can of Myself do nothing." That is, He cannot act independently.
So is His own witness worth nothing? The seeming contradiction has an answer, and it lies in the place Jesus takes in this chapter.
What then is the answer to the seeming discrepancy? It seems to be this: in John 5 He speaks not only as Son, but as one who has become flesh, and He does nothing of Himself except what He sees the Father doing. Our Lord's argument is that if He was the only one to bear witness of Himself, His witness would not be true. He meets the Jews' claim with grace, and He also searches them. They held that if a man bears witness of himself, his witness cannot be true. There must be two witnesses. Three were better — more than enough, according to Jewish law.
Commentators differ on the identity of this other witness. Some take it to be John the Baptist, the first witness named in the verses that follow. One writer rules that out.
But another bore witness of Him, a witness of absolute truth. This cannot refer to John the Baptist, for the Lord puts John's witness on a much lower level in verses 34 and 35. It is the Father's witness of which He speaks, both in the works the Father had given Him to finish, and in the Father's spoken word (v. 37).
Jesus does not only receive this witness. He knows it is true, and that knowing tells us something about Him.
"There is another." Here I believe our Lord secretly refers to God's witness to Him, known to Himself, not the witness He gives to others (see chapter 8). … From this we may indeed learn the unity and divinity of our Lord, for as the Father bore witness, so He was able to know its truth.
This other witness is not the last. Jesus goes on to call several more.
However perfect His own witness, it would not be valid by itself according to the law. The law says, "The testimony of two people is true." So, though His judgment was just and His motives pure, He does not ask men to believe in Him on His own witness alone. He goes on to give four other witnesses. First, John the Baptist (verses 32-35). Second, His works (verse 36). Third, the Father Himself (verses 37, 38). Fourth, the Scriptures (verses 39-47).
Behind the legal argument lies a moral one. A man pushing his own claim has already given himself away.
His own witness was also true. But what He states is this: "If I am seeking to glorify Myself, I do not demand your confidence. I do not ask you to believe." … And this always holds good. If a man is seeking to exalt himself, he has a motive that is not truth; his witness is not true.
He does not need human backing. He calls for it anyway, out of love that wants people saved.
John the Baptist, then, is the first witness. The Lord summons him in that ready and everlasting love which said nothing of His own testimony, hoping somehow to convince them and bring them to believe the truth. John had plainly been raised up for this very purpose, and no witness among men could be harder to doubt… Christ did not seek testimony from man; yet how low He stooped to save souls!
- One witness is not enough. "My testimony is not true" means "not valid on its own." The law demanded two witnesses, and the Son placed Himself under it.
- A second witness. He rests His case on someone outside Himself. Commentators differ over who it is: the Father, or John the Baptist, named in the verses that follow.
- A known witness. He does not just receive this witness. He knows it is true, and that points to the unity and divinity of the Son.
- Four more witnesses. John, His works, the Father's own voice, the Scriptures. The testimony piles up far past the two the law required.
- Witness that saves. He needed no human word, yet He stooped to call one, hoping to convince His hearers and save them.
Ye have sent unto John, and he has borne witness to the truth.
Jesus answers His challengers, and He does not rest His case on His own word alone. He calls witnesses. The first one He names is a man these same leaders had already sent men to question.
Under the law, one voice on its own could not settle a case. Jesus holds Himself to that same standard.
However perfect His own witness was, on its own it would not be valid under the law, which says, "the testimony of two people is true". One has said, "The testimony of one man might be true — absolutely; just as true in itself as that of two. But it would not be true in the same way to others; it would need confirmation". So although His judgment was just and His motives pure, He does not ask men to believe in Him on His own witness alone.
The words "you sent" point back to something already on record. These men started the inquiry themselves, so its outcome is theirs to answer for.
They had sent a special team to John the Baptist to look into his claim, and everyone knew that John had recognised the Lord. They "sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth." So what about the baptism of John? Was it from heaven or from man? Either they had already settled the question of John's authority, or else they were in no position to give a verdict on the Lord. A judgment about the one had to take in both. Either way, they already had what they needed to answer their own question.
Jesus says John bore witness to the truth, not simply to Himself. What made John's witness so strong was how little he claimed for himself.
This record sets John the Baptist aside entirely. The truth was that he was nothing, and that the Christ — the Prophet whom he had not yet seen — was everything. This testimony is beautiful. John the Baptist sets himself aside so that the truth may win. Later, after making nothing of Himself, the Christ whom John announced stands before Pilate, testifies that He is a King, and counts His own life as nothing to hold to the truth. John the Baptist had said, "I am not;" Jesus said, "I am."
Jesus needed no human voice to prove who He was. So why name John at all?
John the Baptist, then, is the first witness the Lord calls. He calls him in that ready and everlasting love which said nothing of His own testimony, hoping that somehow they might be convinced and believe the truth... His own testimony was never self-serving and never stood alone. Yet He sets it aside and points to the man sent ahead of Him. God had raised up John for this very purpose, and no one could deny it. No human testimony could be imagined more trustworthy. His birth, his life, his preaching, his death — all bore the stamp of truthfulness... On the other hand, Christ did not seek testimony from man. Yet how low He stooped, so that souls might be saved!
John is only the first name on the list. Three more follow in this chapter, and the problem at the end is not weak proof but an unwilling heart.
The Lord brings forward four witnesses to Himself... (1) John the Baptist bore witness of Him: "You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth" (ver. 33). (2) "But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me" (ver. 36). (3) And then, again, "And the Father who sent me has Himself borne witness about me" (ver. 37). (4) And, last of all, the Scriptures bear witness of Him... But He adds these solemn words: "yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." This fourfold testimony to Christ might well convince any heart.
Evidence, then, is never the missing piece. Something deeper decides the outcome.
Responsibility rests on this: God has given full and adequate evidence, suited to man. But man's will and desires are such that he loves darkness more than light. So God's power gives life by His own sovereign act. Conscience is the one faculty that lets light in, and nothing else does — except that love draws; for God is love as well as light, and He reveals Himself in Christ.
- Sent — They started the inquiry to John themselves, so his answer was evidence they had asked for.
- Truth — John testified to the truth by declaring what he was not, so that Christ might be everything.
- Stoop — Christ needed no human witness, yet He named one anyway, so that they might be saved.
- Greater — John is only the first of four witnesses; the works, the Father, and the Scriptures follow.
- Will — Full evidence leaves men responsible. Only love drawing the heart makes them come.
But I do not receive witness from man, but I say this that *ye* might be saved.
Jesus is answering religious leaders who have challenged Him, and He calls witnesses to prove who He is. The strange part: He names a human witness, John the Baptist, then says He does not need one — and that He speaks so that they may be saved.
Jesus had just pointed to John the Baptist's witness. Now He sets it in perspective.
The first witness, John, was just a man. Jesus needed no such testimony, yet He mentioned it, if by that means some might listen and be saved. In verses 33-35, Jesus is really bearing witness to John, who had borne witness to the truth as a burning and a shining lamp. John's witness had both warmth and light. Yet he was only a lamp — that is the word the Lord used. Jesus was the true light, like the sun shining in its strength. Now the sun needs no witness from a mere lamp, even though it burns and shines.
If His own word is enough, why produce witnesses? Because He was meeting men on the ground of the law they claimed to keep, which required more than one voice.
However perfect His own witness was, on its own it would not be valid under the law. The law says, "The testimony of two people is true." One has said, "The testimony of one man might be true — absolutely; just as true in itself as that of two. But it would not be true in the same way to others; it would need confirmation." So, though His judgment was just and His motives pure, He does not ask men to believe in Him on His own witness alone.
In the rest of the chapter He names four witnesses: John, His own works, the Father, and the Scriptures. That is more than the law asked for.
He sets His own testimony aside and points to the man who came before Him. Love is what moves Him to do it.
John the Baptist, then, is the first witness. The Lord calls him in that ready and everlasting love which said nothing of His own testimony, hoping that by some means they might be convinced and believe the truth... Nor did Christ seek testimony from man; yet to what did He not stoop that souls might be saved?
Another writer adds what happened to that light once Christ had come.
He points to John's testimony. It was a merciful concession to man's need, though He Himself had no need of a witness that was only human. It was a call to rouse men's attention and awaken a sense of need in them, and in fact many were roused... Like everything human, John's testimony was limited in time and place, so it had to give way to the One he testified about.
The words "so that you may be saved" tell us why He speaks at all. One writer turns them straight on the reader.
God is giving you now the opportunity of being saved. Hear what the Lord Jesus says: "I say these things so that you may be saved" (v. 34). Are you saved? Not yet! Do you not want to be saved? He wants you to be saved. How may you be saved? Only by Him. Will works do it? A dead man cannot work, and that is what you are.
The Lord's description of John — burning and shining — gives a pattern for anyone who speaks for God.
Perhaps difficulties arise because we may shine a little but do not burn. Clearly, though we may express the truth, if the warmth of love is absent there will be a lack of interest... People have often refused the testimony of a saint of God. Yet those who heard it had to admit he meant what he said. He burned as well as shone.
The evidence was not the problem. Their refusal came from somewhere else.
Their unwillingness was the real hindrance. He read their hearts. And now He tells them plainly what He knew about them. Their actions betrayed them.
- Sufficient — Jesus needs no human recommendation. John was a lamp, and the sun needs no lamp to prove it is shining.
- Stooping — He names a human witness anyway. The law asked for more than one voice, and He met men where they stood.
- Salvation — He says why He speaks at all: not to defend Himself, but so His hearers may be saved.
- Shining — John's testimony burned as well as shone. It roused people to their need, then gave way to Christ.
- Stubbornness — the proof was never the problem. They were unwilling to come to Him.
*He* was the burning and shining lamp, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
Jesus is answering the Jewish leaders who want Him dead for healing on the Sabbath and for calling God His own Father. Instead of defending Himself, He calls witnesses — the first being John the Baptist, whose light they enjoyed for a while but never followed to Christ.
Jesus did not need a witness from man, yet He brings John forward anyway.
John the Baptist is the first witness. The Lord calls him in that ready and everlasting love which said nothing of His own testimony, hoping that somehow they would be convinced and believe the truth. John had been raised up for this beyond all denial, and no human testimony could be imagined more trustworthy. His birth, his life, his preaching, his death all bore the stamp of truthfulness. … On the other hand, Christ did not seek testimony from man; yet what would He not stoop to, so that souls might be saved?
The Greek word behind "lamp" is not the word used of Christ as the Light.
The word properly means "lamp" — a hand-lamp fed with oil. … It fits John the Baptist in John 5:35: a lamp lit by another to shine for a time. The older King James wording loses this, and wipes out the difference between him and Christ. Christ is in Himself the light, and John was only its witness.
That difference carries the Lord's argument. Christ does not depend on the man who points to Him.
John's witness had both warmth and light. But he was only a lamp — that is the word the Lord used. Jesus was the true light, like the sun shining in its strength. Now the sun needs no witness from a mere lamp, even though it burns and shines.
People often misquote what the Lord said about John. The older translation quoted here reads "light" where the ESV reads "lamp."
Light is good, but it is not heat. John the Baptist was "a burning and a shining light," not "a bright and shining light," as people often quote it. He did shine, but not like an electric light. There was heat, as well as light.
Applied to service now, this explains why clear words sometimes leave people cold.
Perhaps difficulties arise because we may shine a little but do not burn. Clearly, though we may express the truth, if the warmth of love is absent there will be a lack of interest. … If people see that we mean what we say, because we learned it in God's presence, the service is bound to bear fruit.
John's single-mindedness put him in the way of harm.
That light not only shone, it burned. He was no "reed shaken by the wind." His life was one of power and effect, because it had one absorbing object — one grand purpose. … So he burned, not with zeal only, but in condemning everything that opposed his Master's advancement. He had, therefore, to suffer.
Their gladness was real, but conditional. It lasted exactly as long as it cost them nothing.
As long as it did not interfere with their self-importance, and before their opposition of heart came out, they were willing to rejoice, and to please themselves in John's light instead. They were willing to rejoice in it, but they were not baptised by him.
Their gladness never brought them to Christ Himself.
They were very willing to rejoice for a while in the light, but they would not come to the Son to have life. (John 5:35, 40.)
A lamp is lit for the night. It is not meant to compete with morning.
He was like the lamp, burning and shining — not the light of day, but lighting up the darkness of the night. They had been glad of it, and willing to make use of its cheer for a while. John's testimony was limited in time and place, like everything human. So it had to give way to the One he testified about.
- Lamp. John was a lamp lit by another and burning for a time; Christ is the Light itself. Every faithful witness holds borrowed brightness.
- Burning. John gave heat as well as light. Truth spoken without the warmth of love leaves hearers unmoved.
- Cost. Because John burned for one object — his Master's honour — he also had to suffer for it.
- Season. The crowd's joy lasted only while John's light cost them nothing. They enjoyed it, but they never let him baptise them.
- Life. Enjoying the lamp is not the same as coming to the Light. Verse 40 finishes the story: they would not come to the Son to have life.
But I have the witness [that is] greater than [that] of John; for the works which the Father has given me that I should complete them, the works themselves which I do, bear witness concerning me that the Father has sent me.
In this chapter Jesus answers people who will not accept His claims. Rather than stand on His own word alone, He calls a line of witnesses to speak for Him. The verse points to a testimony He rates above the preaching of John the Baptist: the works themselves. The ESV says "accomplish" here. Older translations say "finish," and that is the word several writers below use.
The verse sits inside a court-room style list. Jesus produces witness after witness, and this one is the second of four.
In this chapter the Lord brings forward four witnesses to Himself. It is very important that you and I pay attention to what Jesus says. (1) John the Baptist bore witness of Him: "You sent to John, and he bore witness to the truth" (v. 33). (2) "But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father has given Me to finish... bear witness of Me" (v. 36). (3) And then again, "The Father Himself, who has sent Me, has borne witness of Me" (v. 37). (4) And last of all, the Scriptures bear witness of Him... This fourfold testimony to Christ might well convince any heart.
John's voice was a human voice. The works were of another order altogether.
The works that the Father had given Jesus to finish were like beams of light thrown off by the sun. They were a greater witness to Him than anything John could say. They were so clearly divine that they proved Him to be the One the Father had sent.
Their weight as evidence does not lie mainly in the raw power on display.
In every way Christ's works testify not so much of the power displayed as of their character. What grace and truth shine through them as in Him!
That character shaped the kind of works He did.
But why were the miracles done? The Saviour Himself tells us — "the very works that I am doing bear witness about Me that the Father has sent Me" (John 5:36; John 10:25). They were given in grace as aids to faith in His person and mission. This is why He rebuked Philip: "Believe Me because of the works themselves." ... Because the miracles were aids to faith, they were all acts of mercy, with one exception. Each one should have touched the feelings of everyone there, because each showed God's heart towards people.
He does not say the works are His own idea. They were handed to Him, and they carry on something the Father was already doing, as He had said earlier in the chapter.
The works that the Father had given Him to finish were the great signs of John's gospel. They completed the Father's works (verse 17). They bore witness to the glory of His Person as the One sent by the Father.
This receiving of works from Another runs through the whole of John's Gospel and marks the place Jesus took.
John's gospel presents Christ to us as the eternal Son. Yet it is remarkable that all through it we see Him taking the place of the Servant. In keeping with that place, He states three things. First, He did not come of Himself; the Father sent Him. Second, He did not speak His own words. Third, He did not do His own works.
Commentators differ over how far the finishing reaches. One writer links the phrase to Jesus' later words about having completed the work given Him, and limits both to His life of service.
"I have glorified You on the earth, having finished," as we should read, "the work which You gave Me to do" (17:4). What had He finished? Comparing this last clause with v. 36, "the works that the Father has given Me to finish," we take it to be His life-work in service. That work had now come to an end. It does not include His death, which had not yet taken place. We know, of course, that this is not the view most people hold.
Jesus did not leave His hearers with words alone.
The works of His Father done by Him confirmed all this in the fullest way... So there was enough witness to the truth of His claims. If they would not believe His words, they might at least believe His works.
- Sent — The point the works establish is His mission: they proved Him to be the One the Father sent.
- Given — He did not choose His own works. The Father handed them to Him, in the place of Servant He took throughout this Gospel.
- Greater — John the Baptist's word was a human word. These works were so clearly divine that they outweighed anything he could say.
- Gracious — Their force lies in their character, not their power. Nearly every one was an act of mercy, granted as an aid to faith.
- Enough — The witness was enough. If they refused His words, the works still stood. Four witnesses — John, the works, the Father, the Scriptures — might well convince any heart.
And the Father who has sent me himself has borne witness concerning me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor have seen his shape,
Jesus is under challenge, and He will not rest His claim on His own word alone. Here He names the highest of His witnesses: the Father who sent Him has spoken for Him, yet the men listening had never heard that voice or seen His form.
He gives His reason from the law itself.
However perfect His own witness was, it would not by itself be valid according to the law, which says, "The testimony of two people is true." One writer has said, "The testimony of one man might be true — absolutely; just as true in itself as that of two. But it would not be true in the same way to others; it would need confirmation." For this reason, though His judgment was just and His motives pure, He does not ask men to believe in Him simply on His own witness. The Lord goes on to give us four other witnesses. First, the testimony of John the Baptist (verses 32-35). Second, the testimony of His works (verse 36). Third, the testimony of the Father Himself (verses 37, 38). Fourth, the testimony of the Scriptures (verses 39-47).
The witnesses are not a flat list. Each rises higher than the last, and the Father's almost reaches the top.
The third witness is the Father's voice. This attestation to the relation and glory of the Son rises still higher — we might have thought to the highest, had not our Lord added another and crowning testimony.
The Father did not speak in secret. Crowds were standing there when He spoke.
But the Father Himself had also borne witness of Him. Crowds were present at John's baptism, and when John baptized the Lord Jesus, there was a visible sign of the Spirit descending on Him like a dove, and the audible voice of the Father declaring, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17). That voice was certainly heard; yet the Jews, in hearing, did not hear: they had no heart to hear in the reality of faith. Nor had they seen His form, for the only true revelation of the Father is in the Son.
Sound reaching the ear is not the same as a voice reaching the heart. What God said, they registered as noise.
The Father Himself had directly borne witness to the glory of His Person. As far as the opposers were concerned, this witness was all in vain. Though the Father had spoken, they had never heard His voice; to them, when He spoke, it was only thunder. Clearly His word had no lodging place in their hearts, for they did not believe the One He had sent.
The same holds for what they had never seen. God had appeared in many forms, and not one of them had reached these men.
The Father had even directly spoken with His own voice in confirmation. But they, sadly, had never at any time heard His voice — to them He had never spoken; nor had they seen one form of His many manifestations.
So the problem was never a lack of evidence. The Son Himself became the test that showed what was in the heart.
By His humbling of Himself and His obedience, the Son was at once honouring God and testing man. He gave God, the only true Ruler, His rights in this world, and so He became a sign that brought the thoughts of the heart into the open. The Jew — the Jew with every privilege — was found in the common atheism of man. Our Lord's discourse in this chapter was moving to uncover this hidden spring of unbelief in Israel. It was not for want of light and testimony. They had the works of Christ, the Father's voice, their own Scriptures, and the testimony of John. But along with all this, they had the love of the world in them, and not the love of God; and so they were unprepared for the Son of God.
- Sent — Jesus does not rest His claim on His own word. Four witnesses stand behind Him: John, His works, the Father, and the Scriptures.
- Spoken — the Father's own voice came at the baptism, before crowds: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
- Unheard — they caught the sound and missed the Speaker. To them it was only thunder, because they had no heart to hear in faith.
- Unseen — no form of God had ever reached them, since God shows Himself nowhere but in the Son.
- Refused — the failure was never a lack of evidence. It was a heart that loved the world instead of God.
and ye have not his word abiding in you; for whom *he* hath sent, him ye do not believe.
Jesus has just named the Father as a witness to His mission, and now He turns to His hearers: God's word has no home in them. These were men who searched Scripture and were ready to kill Him for God's honour — so how can a person know the Bible well and still not have God's word within?
Jesus lays a chain of witnesses before His opponents, and one writer marks where this one falls in the list.
The third witness is the Father's voice… This testimony to the relation and glory of the Son rises still higher. We might have thought it the highest, had our Lord not added one more, crowning testimony.
The Father had spoken out loud. One writer points back to the day of Jesus' baptism.
The Father Himself had borne witness directly to the glory of His Person. At the baptism, the voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." For those who opposed Him, this witness was all in vain. Though the Father had spoken, they had never heard His voice. To them, when He spoke, it was only thunder. Clearly His word had no home in their hearts, for they did not believe the One whom He had sent.
Verse 37 also says they had never seen God's form. One writer explains why they never did.
That voice was certainly heard. Yet the Jews heard and did not hear: they had no heart to hear with real faith. Nor had they seen His form, for the only true revelation of the Father is in the Son.
These men studied the Bible; they were not sceptics. That is what makes the charge so severe.
The Jews here, in opposition to the Lord, proved that the word of God had no dwelling-place in their hearts. They proved it by refusing to believe the Son, whom the Father had sent. They did search the Scriptures, but not as honest seekers of the mind of God. They searched only because they wanted eternal life without truly submitting to God. But those Scriptures were full of testimony to Christ Himself, and this they ignored or refused. Their wills were set against coming to Christ. So men may know a great deal about the truth of the Bible and still be complete strangers to the word of God.
Jesus does not just state the charge. He proves it from how they acted.
He read their hearts. And now He tells them plainly what He knew about them. Their actions betrayed them. They claimed zeal for God, and were ready to kill Him for making Himself equal with God. Yet they did not have God's word abiding in them, and they had no love for God in their hearts (38, 42). What an exposure by the discerning and unerring Judge! Would anyone think He was overstating the case? He gives proof of what He said. They did not believe the One whom the Father had sent (38). He had come in His Father's name, and they did not receive Him (43).
The loss runs deeper than missing information. One writer follows it to the end.
Not to have the Father's word abiding in them was to not know Him. It is clear that they did not believe in the Son. That is, they had neither the Father nor the Son. So they did not have eternal life abiding in them: "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Elsewhere the same phrase describes believers. One writer shows what having the word abide in you actually looks like.
They so loved the word that they had it always, not just beside them but abiding in them… These had the word always over them. This is the true way. It is not us sitting over the word, which often ends in a good deal of talk. It is the word over us. The word puts an end to our thoughts, strengthens us as much as it governs us, and rebukes our presumption… It was not the mere searching of it, nor looking into it for curious questions.
- Witness. The Father Himself spoke from heaven to testify to His Son. This verse explains why that witness did the hearers no good.
- Deafness. They heard the sound, but they did not hear in faith. They never saw God's form, because only the Son reveals the Father.
- Diagnosis. Searching the Scriptures is not the same as having God's word abide in you. A person can know the Bible well and stay a stranger to it.
- Proof. Jesus points to their unbelief as the evidence. Refusing the One God sent shows that His word has no dwelling-place inside.
- Loss. Without the word abiding they had neither the Father nor the Son, and so no eternal life. The word abiding means the word ruling us, not just studied by us.
Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me;
Jesus has healed a man on the Sabbath and called God His own Father, and now men want Him dead. He answers by calling witnesses, and the last is the book His accusers trusted most — so how could they read it and still miss the life it points to?
The verse does not stand alone. It closes a list of witnesses the Lord builds through this chapter.
In this chapter the Lord brings forward four witnesses to Himself, and it is very important that you and I pay attention to what Jesus says. (1) John the Baptist bore witness of Him. (2) The works the Father gave Him to finish bear witness of Him — a greater witness than John's. (3) And then again, the Father Himself, who sent Him, has borne witness of Him. (4) And last of all, the Scriptures bear witness of Him.
Some translations read "Search the Scriptures" as a command. The same words can also describe what these men already did. One commentator says the difference matters little.
It makes little practical difference whether we read it as "you search the Scriptures" or as "search the Scriptures." The context decides that it is an appeal, as others have well said, rather than a command. They were not so foolish as to think they had eternal life in themselves. They looked for it in the Scriptures, and so they were in the habit of searching them, as they do, more or less, to this day.
The witness Jesus points to covers the whole Old Testament, not a few scattered predictions. Later in the same conversation He names Moses in particular.
Verse 39 applies to all the Old Testament Scriptures: they bear witness about Christ. Verse 46 points to the early books written by Moses, and he wrote of Christ. This, then, is the key that unlocks the whole Old Testament. Its main theme is the Christ who was to come.
These men were not wrong to look for life in the Bible. Their mistake was narrower than that.
The Scriptures, as the Jews judged, were the storehouse of life; and in this they judged rightly. Their error was that they mistook where in the Scriptures the life lay. They thought it lay in the law God had given them, so that life belonged to them alone. But we know it really lay in "the testimony of Jesus," who is the Life.
The verse settles what Bible study is for. Reading that ends anywhere but Christ has failed, however thorough it was.
They thought they had eternal life in the Scriptures, but Christ is the Giver of it, and to Him they would not come. If searching the Scriptures brings men to Christ, then they do have eternal life through the Scriptures. If not, they only gain knowledge of a technical, theological sort and remain in spiritual death.
Another writer points to the motive behind their search.
They did search the Scriptures, but not to honestly seek the mind of God. They searched only because they wanted eternal life without truly submitting to God. So men may know a great deal about the truth of the Bible and still be complete strangers to the word of God.
The next verse names the real obstacle: they refuse to come to Him. One writer weighs an older translation's wording, "you will not come."
The Lord does not say, "You cannot come," but "You will not come." It is true that man is dead in trespasses and sins and cannot come. It is just as true that he is alive in sins and will not come.
For a reader today, the verse turns from rebuke into invitation. It names the one place where we still meet Christ.
The only place where we can come into contact with Christ is in the written word of God... In the Scriptures we find Christ in every aspect, position, character, and office: Christ in humiliation and rejection, and Christ in exaltation and glory. So the more I read and think about God's word, the more I will learn of Christ.
- Witness. Scripture is the fourth and final witness Jesus calls, after John the Baptist, His works, and the Father.
- Witness to whom. Its testimony has one subject. The whole Old Testament points to Christ, and Moses wrote of Him.
- Witness misread. They were right to look for life in the Bible. But they looked for it in the law, not in the One the law announced.
- Witness refused. The barrier was not inability but unwillingness. The Lord said they will not come, not that they cannot.
- Witness received. Study that leads to Christ gives life. Study that stops at facts leaves a person expert in the Bible and a stranger to God's word.
and ye will not come to me that ye might have life.
Jesus has just named four witnesses to who He is: John the Baptist, His own works, the Father, and the Scriptures. This verse is His verdict on the men listening. Life itself was standing in front of them, and the one thing lacking was not evidence but willingness.
(The ESV says "you refuse to come to me." The commentators quote an older wording, "you will not come to me," and their comments turn on that "will not.")
The verse lands at the end of a legal case. Christ had produced every witness, and the refusal still stood.
The Son gives life to whom He will, but when you come to the end of the chapter, you get the side of man's responsibility. You have the testimony of John the Baptist, the testimony of My Father, the testimony of My works, and the testimony of your own Scriptures (where you think you have eternal life), which testify of Me. And yet you will not come to Me that you might have life. I have four witnesses that there is eternal life here for you, and you will not have it. It was the rejection of the One in whom life was present from God.
These men were Bible students. The verse shows what Bible study is for, and what it becomes when it stops short of the Person it describes.
They thought they had eternal life in the Scriptures, but Christ is the Giver of it, and to Him they would not come. If searching the Scriptures leads men to Christ, then they really do have eternal life through the Scriptures. If it does not, they only gain knowledge of a technical, theological sort and remain in spiritual death. These words are most illuminating as to what the true function of Scripture is.
The exact wording matters. Jesus points at their desire, not their ability.
The Lord does not say, "You cannot come," but "You will not come." It is true that man is dead in trespasses and sins and cannot come. It is just as true that he is alive in sins and will not come.
Verse 39 can be read as a statement or as a command.
Whether the words are a statement or a command makes little practical difference. The context decides that it is an appeal, as others have well noted, rather than a command. They were not so foolish as to suppose that they had eternal life in themselves. They looked for it in the Scriptures, and so were in the habit of searching them, as they do, more or less, to this day. But though the Scriptures testify about the Lord Jesus, they are not willing to come to Him for the life He alone can give. For the Scriptures cannot give life apart from Him, nor will the Father.
Nothing on God's side blocks anyone. Something on man's side does.
As far as God is concerned, man is completely free to come now. He is invited to come — yes, begged. The precious blood of Christ is there on the mercy seat, so God's own grace has removed the moral difficulty in the holy One receiving a sinner. But then there is the other side, man's own will and state. There is no will to come, but the opposite. Life was there in Christ. "You will not come to me that you might have life."
A heart closed to Christ is not closed to everything. It will open — to someone else.
What a testimony against man!
Refusal does not stop Christ. What follows their no is more grace.
Here (chapter 5:40) He says, "I have eternal life for you, and a fourfold testimony to the truth, and you will not come!" What comes out next? ... Do you not feel our need of the Holy Spirit? We need Him to lead our souls into a full appreciation of a grace that yields to no rejection, until everything has been tried in vain.
- Witnesses. Jesus named four witnesses — John, the works, the Father, the Scriptures — and the answer was still no.
- Where life is. Life is not stored in the letter of Scripture; the Scriptures testify of Christ, and He is the Giver of it.
- Will, not power. Jesus said "you will not," not "you cannot" — the block is in the desire, not the door.
- Both sides. God leaves the way open and sends the invitation. The obstacle lies in man's own will and state.
- The alternative. A heart that refuses Christ, who came in the Father's name, will receive another who comes in his own. Yet grace keeps offering until everything has been tried.
I do not receive glory from men,
Jesus is speaking to men who have already turned against Him. He tells them that their approval was never what He wanted — and He goes on to say what their refusal proves.
His refusal was not a single statement made under pressure; it was the shape of His whole life. One writer contrasts what drives everyone else with what drove Him.
Did the Lord Jesus seek present honour? His whole life, from His birth to His death, declared the opposite, so plainly that no one could mistake it. Glory from men is the driving force of the world. Jesus not only did not seek it; He did not receive it. He always did the things that pleased the Father, who told Him what He should say and what He should speak. He kept His Father's commandments and remained in His love.
His refusal went deeper than modesty. To accept honour from someone is to vouch for them.
He was no creature of His circumstances. He did not derive anything from man; He received no honour from him. Nor could He, on His part, put honour on man, or vouch for one who had fallen away from God. He could serve, and for this come into the lowest place, when from man He could not accept the highest.
If not honour, what was He after when He invited people to come to Him?
The Lord's motive in inviting men to come to Him was not to gain honour from man. It was that man might get blessing from God. Their refusal to come to Christ exposed their condition. It proved that the love of God meant nothing to them. It had no place in their hearts.
He refused more than praise.
We have just heard Him say, "I do not receive testimony from man," and again, "I do not receive glory from people." So we are not surprised that He will not receive a kingdom from the hands of men either. The glory of the greatest kingdom on earth that man can build is only tinsel before Him.
What the Lord refused, people still chase. One writer warns where that ends.
It is a fatal thing to seek glory from men. God and the world are always opposed. The Lord says, "I do not receive glory from people," and, "I know that you do not have the love of God within you." God looks for the single eye. It would settle many a difficulty if our one aim were to please the Lord. There is no such thing as labouring for salvation; that would be uphill drudgery. But having received it, I can labour to please Him. Those who seek glory from men will get it, but this is not glory from God.
Christ's refusal is not only something to admire. It also settles where His followers look for honour, and whose company they keep.
"I am among you as the one who serves." "I do not receive glory from people." True honour comes from God only. If I know something of gathering up the manna, Christ's friends — mark it well — will be my friends. His path will be mine, His joy mine, His interests mine.
- Source. Honour from men drives the world. Jesus lived to please the Father instead, and His whole life said so.
- Refusal. To take honour from man would be to vouch for man. So He stooped to the lowest place and refused the highest.
- Consistency. He refused man's testimony, man's honour and man's crown. The greatest kingdom on earth is only tinsel to Him.
- Motive. He called people so they might get blessing from God, not so He might get honour. Their refusal exposed hearts with no love of God in them.
- Path. Seeking glory from men is fatal. Those who chase it get it and nothing more. Make pleasing the Lord your one aim, and most other questions settle themselves.
but I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
Jesus has just laid out the witnesses to who He is — and none of them moved His hearers. So He stops arguing from evidence. He tells them what He sees inside them.
The verse opens with what Jesus knows. Older translations read "I know you." Commentators say this is not a guess about their behaviour. It is a claim about His own knowledge of them.
But His divine knowledge shines through in verse 42. He knew their inmost souls had no love of God in them. Compare this with John 12:43, those loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. For when someone really knows God's love, His honour comes first of all.
The Lord had just said they were unwilling to come to Him for life. Their refusal is what makes the diagnosis visible.
The Lord invited men to come to Him. His motive was not to gain honour from man, but that man might get blessing from God. Their refusal to come to Christ exposed their condition. It proved that the love of God was nothing to them. It had no place in their hearts.
They were the people entrusted with the Scriptures, and they had heard and seen more than anyone. So their problem lay deeper than the mind.
And the Jew, the specially favoured Jew, was found in the same atheism as other men. Our Lord's discourse in this chapter was moving to uncover this hidden spring of unbelief in Israel. It was not for want of light and testimony. They had the works of Christ, the Father's voice, their own Scriptures, and the testimony of John. But along with all this, they had the love of the world in them, and not the love of God. So they were not ready for the Son of God.
An empty heart still wants something. Writers see the missing love of God as the cause of a craving for human praise, and they trace where that craving ends.
They had nothing of the love of God in them. So they were greedy for honour from one another, instead of seeking the honour that comes from God. In their minds they glorified men. This, as always, was an effective barrier to faith, and they could not believe… Another would come in his own name, seeking his own glory. That would suit them exactly, and they would receive him.
Several writers apply the sentence past the crowd standing in front of Jesus, taking it as the plain state of anyone apart from new life.
There is one great sin that leads men to commit all the others — the desire to please themselves… While we act on this as a principle, we are spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. There is no life, no love, in us. As our Saviour said to those standing around Him: "I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you." This is the real fact: in man's natural state there is nothing like God in him. Instead there is the opposite principle — hatred, enmity.
Read that way, the words reach past those old opponents. They question the reader's everyday motives — even the pleasant ones.
What is the spring, the stimulus, the motive of almost every action? What is it that makes a man — perhaps you — try to be likeable, pleasing and agreeable? Is it not so that you may "receive honour one of another"? And yet of such people the word says, "I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you." Man's actions begin and end in one continual effort to raise self up. Instead, there must be the death of self.
This verdict is not the end of Israel's story. One writer sets their promised future beside it.
Israel, gathered from the four corners of the earth, shall rest in peace under the rule of David's Son… The heart of redeemed Israel shall throb with the love of God. And this is the very people to whom He has to say, "I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you."
- Known. "I know you" is how One who sees inside speaks. His verdict rests on His own knowledge of their souls, not on their record.
- Empty. The heart He looks into has no love of God in it. Their refusal to come to Him for life proved it.
- Fed. An empty heart still hungers, so it feeds on honour from other people — and that appetite is what blocks faith.
- Deceived. A heart trained to prize man's glory will one day welcome the man who comes in his own name.
- Cured. The problem is not a self that needs improving. It is a self that must die. And a day comes when this same people's heart beats with the love of God.
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Jesus has just told these hearers that they have no love of God in them. In one sentence He now names why they refuse Him, and who they will welcome instead.
One writer sets the two names side by side. Each name shows whose glory the bearer is seeking:
He was here in His Father's name, so the honour and glory that man can offer meant nothing to Him. ... Jesus came in His Father's name, which means He was seeking His Father's glory. All that was foreign to them, and they refused Him. Another would come in his own name, and so would be seeking his own glory. That would suit them exactly, and they would receive him. In these words the Lord predicted the coming of antichrist, in whom the false glory of man will reach its climax.
One writer weighs what these men lived on, and what they had no room for:
"Glory from men" is the moving spring of the world: Jesus not only did not seek it, He did not receive it. He always did the things that pleased the Father... In no sense did the Jews have the love of God in them. They were ambitious for human glory and pleased with themselves. Their souls hated Jesus, while His soul was pained for them. His coming had put them to a fresh and far fuller test. He had brought God too close to them — yes, the Father; but they knew neither Christ nor the Father.
There is a warning here for anyone who wants truth on flattering terms:
The Son came in the name of the Father, and they would not receive Him. Another will come in his own name, and him they will receive. This better suits the heart of man. They sought honour from one another: how could they believe? Let us remember this. God does not adjust Himself to the pride of man — He does not shape the truth to feed it.
So who is this other one? One writer answers from the verse itself:
Be clear about this: antichrist is not a figurative term for some evil principle or system. The word points to an actual person... Our Lord, no doubt referring to this embodiment of evil, says, "If another comes in his own name, you will receive him" (John 5:43). This is unthinkable unless he came from their own nation. He will in fact present himself as the Messiah in his opposition to Christ.
The swap is a moral one. The Man they refuse and the man they accept are opposites in character:
Self-exaltation is man's downfall and Satan's bait. It ends in ruin under God's judgment, and that ruin cannot be undone. It is the man of sin in contrast with the Son of God, the Man of obedience and righteousness... They would not have the true God and eternal life in the Son, who became man and suffered in love for man. They will receive Satan's man when he sets himself up to be God.
The verse looks ahead, but it also names something true now. A soul that turns Christ away does not stay empty:
They received glory from one another; they did not seek it from God; they had not the love of God. So they would not receive One coming in His Father's Name. But that would put them into the hands of Antichrist. He will come in his own name, doing his own will, and be received. It is a solemn thing to realise, and yet certain: everything that would displace Christ in the soul makes room for Antichrist.
One writer turns it into a personal question:
The Saviour's voice, now heard in the gospel, will soon be silent. The next thing will be the last great deception. Men who would not come to Him so that they might have life will welcome the Antichrist of the Devil with delight, to their eternal ruin. Let us ask ourselves how far His bitter complaint applies to our own case.
- Name means motive. Coming in the Father's name means seeking the Father's glory. Coming in your own name means seeking your own.
- Cause. They had no love of God. They lived on praise from one another, and that praise was the one thing they would not give up. It blocked faith.
- Refusal. God will not reshape the truth to flatter human pride. So they rejected the One who sought only His Father's glory.
- Substitute. Commentators read "another" as a real person, the antichrist. Men will welcome him because his self-exaltation matches their own.
- Result. Anything that displaces Christ in a soul makes room for his rival. So this verse asks about today, not only about the end.
How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and seek not the glory which [comes] from God alone?
Jesus has been showing the religious leaders who He is, and they still will not believe. Now He names the real obstacle — not a lack of evidence, but a heart trading in the wrong currency of glory.
Jesus does not ask why they will not believe. He asks how they can. Commentators read this as a verdict on their moral state, not their reasoning power.
Their own low moral condition made it impossible for them to believe in Christ and receive the truth. Wanting honour and esteem from men kept them from taking the low place. It kept them from owning their true condition as sinners, so that they might receive blessing and honour from God.
Human praise here works like a rival god. One writer links it to the command that God's children keep clear of idols.
If God tells His "children" to keep themselves from idols, it is no surprise that the idolatry of man — of self — should be the death of faith. The heart welcomes any object rather than the true and only God.
There is no way to hold both glories at once.
They sought honour from one another: how could they believe? Let us remember this. God does not adapt Himself to the pride of man. He does not shape the truth to feed it.
The verse does not only forbid something. It points to a glory worth seeking. One writer points to the One who won that glory and then shared it.
Here we have the hindrance to faith and hope: receiving glory from each other, and not seeking the glory that comes from God only, or "the only God." … There has been One on this earth who said at the end of His journey, "I glorified you on earth," … "and now, Father, glorify me." God has answered this. He has already glorified Him, and more than that (wonder of wonders!) "the glory that you have given me I have given to them" (John 17).
Jesus can ask this question because He lived the opposite of it.
"Glory from men" is the driving force of the world. Jesus not only did not seek it, He did not receive it. He always did the things that pleased the Father, who told Him what He should say and what He should speak. He kept His Father's commandments, and remained in His love.
A heart hungry for human glory will not stay empty. It will welcome someone who comes offering it.
The truth was, the conditions of faith were lacking in them. They received glory from one another; they did not seek it from God; they had not the love of God. So they would not receive One who came in His Father's name. But that would put them into the hands of Antichrist. He will come in his own name, doing his own will, and they will receive him. It is solemn to realise, and yet completely certain, that everything which would displace Christ in the soul makes room for Antichrist.
The love of reputation is not only a sin of open opponents. It can hide under a godly life. One writer points to Job.
This has a voice for our ears, dear friends! Does it not tell us that we must watch the heart and its hidden motions? "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life." There may be strong and dangerous currents running under the surface. Job was a godly man. There were none like him in his generation. But in his soul there was flowing a rapid current. He valued his character and his circumstances… He valued his estimation among men. In the hidden exercises of his heart, he used to survey his good condition with satisfaction. That was a strong undercurrent. His neighbours had not traced the course of that stream; but his heavenly Father had.
- Cause. Faith fails here for a moral reason, not an intellectual one. A heart set on human esteem cannot take the low place of a sinner before God.
- Rival. The praise of men works as an idol. The heart will welcome any object rather than the only God, and that idolatry kills faith.
- Refusal. God will not reshape His truth to flatter pride, so the glory-seeker and the gospel never meet.
- Exchange. The glory God gives is real. Christ glorified the Father. The Father glorified Him in return, and Christ has given that same glory to His own.
- Result. A soul that refuses the One who came in the Father's name lies open to one who comes in his own name. So watch the hidden currents of your heart, as Job had to.
Think not that I will accuse you to the Father there is [one] who accuses you, Moses, on whom ye trust;
Jesus is speaking to men who trusted the law and rejected His claims. He tells them He will not be the one to bring charges against them before the Father. The accuser they must fear is the very figure they had built their confidence on — Moses, the man who gave them the law.
Jesus refuses the role of accuser. One writer ties this to how He lived among men: He sought His Father's honour, not His own.
He did not receive testimony from men. It was with the Father He had to do, whose honour He bore. However, He would not accuse them to Him. That would have been seeking His own honour, at their expense. But it was the reception of Him as bearing His Father's honour that tried their moral character. But that in which they trusted and boasted, being of God, would be their ruin or their accusation — even Moses, for it was his business to bear witness of Jesus.
He showed the same grace to a guilty woman in the temple.
What wonderful grace! Christ did not come to accuse, nor condemn. He said to the poor trespasser in the temple, "Neither do I condemn you." Moses accused her, and his law condemned her, but Jesus came to save.
Moses had stood between God and the nation as the go-between of the law. That very office turns against them. The law he mediated exposed sin but could not repair it.
This is the law as given the second time, after the people had made the golden calf. It is not pure law. It is law modified and tempered by mercy, to give man, having failed, a means of self-recovery — if self-recovery were possible. But it was not possible for them, and is not possible for any. The mediator of this law was Moses, not Christ. The law was so useless that its own mediator must become the accuser of the people.
Their mistake was not respecting Moses too much. It was where they chose to stand.
Again Moses, instead of defending them, becomes their accuser and judge. It is always dangerous for a sinner to take his stand on the law. The law can only expose and condemn him. It has no power to pardon and forgive.
Their history with Moses did not match their claim to follow him.
Despite their boasted reverence for Moses, the people of Israel never really received him as God's messenger. They rejected him in Egypt, and later grumbled against him again and again. But when Jesus came — the true and faithful witness, the true light — the Jews used Moses' claims to reject His own. This is one of the marks of the evil heart and twisted will of man. He constantly refuses to own the rights of God. Despisers of His grace in Christ, they pretend to own His rights in the law, and use the law to reject Christ. But Jesus would not accept their pretended submission to Moses. Had they believed Moses, they would have believed Him, for Moses wrote of Him. The veil was on their hearts when they read Moses.
The same trust is alive today. One writer names what lies underneath it.
The law, as 2 Corinthians 3 tells us, was a ministry of condemnation and death. Sinful flesh cannot meet its righteous requirements. Yet men love the Moses principle! Peter's words in Acts 15:21 are as true as ever: in every city there are those who preach Moses. Everywhere people preach works as the ground of blessing before God. Confidence in Moses is really confidence in self. Men cling to the notion that flesh holds some good in it, if only it gets a fair chance.
Moses stands in contrast to Christ, and one word marks the difference.
After Israel's dreadful sin with the golden calf, we hear him say, "Now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin." No such uncertain words ever rested on the Saviour's lips. He first made complete atonement for His people's guilt, and then went up on high in the power of it.
- Trust decides. Whatever you set your hope on will speak at the judgment. For these men, the one they trusted became their accuser.
- Moses accuses. The mediator of the law had no power to recover them, so his office turned into a charge against them.
- Christ declines. He will not accuse them to the Father; that would be seeking His own honour, and He came to save, not to condemn.
- Self, not Moses. Confidence in law is confidence in self — the idea that flesh has some good in it if given a fair chance.
- Certainty replaces "perhaps." Moses could only hope he might make atonement. Christ made it in full, then went up on high in the power of it.
for if ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.
Jesus is speaking to men who prized Moses above everyone else and who had just refused Him. He tells them that Moses himself wrote about Him, so their confidence in Moses and their rejection of Him cannot stand together.
They were resting their case on Moses. One writer shows why that case collapses: the law Moses gave could not save anyone.
The mediator of the law was Moses, not Christ. The law was so completely unable to help that its own mediator must become the accuser of the people. "There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope," says the Lord to Israel.
The obvious question is where in the five books Moses spoke of Christ. Commentators point to Moses' promise of a coming Prophet — and note that the New Testament itself identifies who that Prophet is.
There is one special prediction of the lawgiver. He foretold the coming of a Prophet like himself, to whom they were to listen. Both Peter (Acts 3:22-23) and Stephen (Acts 7:37) quote it... Refusing, then, to listen to Christ, they were guilty of direct disobedience to Moses. The lawgiver would be their accuser. The professed disciples of Moses, so sure they were guarding his honour, would find themselves accused before God by him!
Others read the reference more widely than one prophecy. > Moses wrote of Christ in many ways, in pictures and in prophecy, as the true and full answer to Israel's needs.
Christ gives Moses' writings a weight beyond His own spoken words. The Jews never doubted those writings — and one writer shows why that was still not faith.
Here the Son Himself gives the writings of Moses a place in testimony beyond His own words. This is not because the servant approached the Master, but because Scripture has a permanence in testimony that can belong only to the written word... Had the Jews believed Moses, they would have believed Christ. These words teach us that faith is no idle exercise, as some would make it. The Jews in no way questioned his writings; they received them as Divine. But not to doubt is far from believing. In none of his books did they see the great object of testimony in all of them: Jesus the Messiah, a man, yet far more than man, a Divine Saviour of sinners and Sacrifice for sins, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
The Lord links His own words to the writings of Moses. One writer takes that straight into the modern argument over who wrote the first five books of the Bible.
If men refuse the earlier testimony through the servant, they will not receive the Son, when He speaks. And so indeed it is. The men today, who disbelieve the books of Moses and even deny his authorship, do not believe the words of Jesus. This is perfectly clear, since He endorses here the very thing they deny. We must make our choice between the rationalistic critics and Christ. They have stepped into the shoes of His Jewish opponents: that is all.
The phrase itself carries further weight, and it bears on how the five books hold together.
This scripture — "he wrote of Me" — shows a unity of purpose in the writings of Moses. It also shows a prophetic outlook into the future that could be nothing short of divine inspiration. However many "documents" Moses may have used in putting the Pentateuch together, all of them serve one dominant purpose: testimony to Christ.
Their unbelief cost them more than a right opinion about old books. One writer describes the loss in the language of Egypt.
His brothers should have understood that God would deliver them by His hand. But they did not understand. They did not believe Moses, and so were, in principle, still in Egypt, still in the flesh, still unredeemed. Had they believed Moses they would have believed Christ. He would have led them out, as at this time, from under the hand of Pharaoh — the power of the flesh and the world.
- Trust — they leaned on Moses, and the support gave way. The mediator of a law that could not rescue had to become their accuser.
- Testimony — Moses promised a Prophet like himself. Refusing Christ was not loyalty to Moses but direct disobedience to him.
- Test — accepting the writings as divine is not yet faith. They never doubted Moses, yet they missed the Person all his books point to.
- Two voices — Christ ties His own words to Moses' writings. Denying Moses' books means siding against the One who endorsed them.
- Result — unbelief left them, in principle, still in Egypt and unredeemed, while the true Deliverer stood in front of them.
But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Jesus ends this exchange with a question, not a claim. He is speaking to religious leaders who prized the books of Moses. If those writings could not win their faith, what hope was there that His spoken words would?
The verse belongs to a reversal. The men who assumed Moses was on their side are told he stands against them, and the reason is that his writings point to Christ.
The Lord Jesus had not come as their adversary, to accuse them. Their actual accuser was Moses, of whom they claimed to be disciples. Moses was of course the lawgiver, and the very law he gave was their condemnation — and they could not see it. But Moses wrote of Christ in many ways, in pictures and in prophecy, as the true and full answer to Israel's needs. Moses' writings and Christ's words were perfectly in agreement. So they did not believe Christ's words because they had not believed Moses' writings.
Others add a caution about where a sinner takes his stand:
Moses becomes their accuser and judge instead of their defender. "There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope" (John 5:45). It is always dangerous for a sinner to take his stand on the law. The law can only expose and condemn him. It has no power to pardon and forgive.
The leaders knew Moses' words well. What they missed was who those words were about.
The importance of the Old Testament Scriptures lies in the fact that they speak of Christ. "It is they that bear witness about me," our Lord told the religious leaders of His day. That statement carries enormous weight. They failed to grasp the meaning of what they read. They boasted in their knowledge of Moses' words. Pride and self-importance marked their approach to God. Yet they failed to see that Moses wrote of Christ.
Notice the direction of the argument. Jesus does not put His own spoken words first. He treats the written record of Moses as the greater test.
The Lord closes the discourse by bearing striking witness to the importance and value of the writings of Moses. He gives greater value to the form of Moses' communications than to the form of His own. Moses' communications were written; His were spoken. The writings of Moses and the Lord's words had the same divine authority. But inspired writing has a greater lasting value than inspired words spoken aloud.
This answers a wish many readers have — to have heard Him in person:
Let no one make light of the word out of ignorance, or think that because His word is written it is not He Himself speaking to us. What difference does the writing make? What difference there is, is in our favour. Suppose we could hear the Lord speaking to us in person, without His word in permanent written form. Would we gain? No — beyond doubt we would lose. And that is why our Lord in John 5 puts the Scripture, as a weapon to use with others, above His own words.
Jesus says Moses wrote these books, and that they speak of Him. So doubts about who wrote them land on Jesus Himself.
The way the Lord linked His words with Moses' writings is very striking. If men refuse the earlier testimony given through the servant, they will not receive the Son when He speaks. The men today who disbelieve the books of Moses, and even deny that he wrote them, do not believe the words of Jesus. This is perfectly clear, since He endorses here the very thing they deny. We must make our choice. As the love of God is in us, and as the glory of man fades in our eyes, we shall accept and believe the Holy Writings. They will lead us in faith to Christ.
The warning reaches past five books. Take away the base, and the top comes down too.
What does the Lord Himself say? He says, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). That is the power of Moses and the prophets. And again Jesus said, "If you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" So Satan knows what he is doing. Let him remove the foundation in these books of Moses, and he is in fact removing the very Word — or part of the Word — that we do prize. He is removing the New Testament itself.
- Written — Jesus set Moses' writings above His own spoken words: what is written stays, and we can return to it again and again.
- Wrote of Christ — their value is their subject; the men who knew the text best missed the Person it was pointing to.
- Weighed against Him — the Moses they trusted became their accuser; the law they leaned on could only condemn.
- Warning — refuse the earlier writings, and you will not receive the later words. Deny that Moses wrote of Christ, and you contradict Christ Himself.
- Welcome — as love for God grows and human reputation loses its shine, we receive the writings, and they lead us to Christ.