Homily 40 — John 5, verses 31 to 38

“If I bear witness about myself, my witness is not true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the witness he bears about me is true.” [a]

If someone with no experience of the craft sets out to work a mine, he will get no gold. He will jumble everything together aimlessly, and his labor will be both useless and ruinous. It is the same with those who do not understand the method of Holy Scripture. If they do not search out its particular features and laws, but go over all its points carelessly and in one manner, they will mix the gold with the earth and never discover the treasure stored up in it. I say this now because the passage before us contains much gold. It does not lie open to view; it is covered over with much obscurity. So we must dig and refine if we are to arrive at its true sense.

For who would not be troubled at once to hear Christ say, “If I bear witness about myself, my witness is not true,” when he so often appears to have borne witness about himself? For instance, talking with the Samaritan woman, he said, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.” In the same way he said to the blind man, “It is he who is talking with you” (John 9, verse 37). And rebuking the Jews, he said, “You say, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (John 10, verse 36). And he does the same in many other places besides. Now if all these statements are false, what hope of salvation will we have? And where will we find truth, when the Truth himself declares, “My witness is not true”?

Nor does this seem to be the only contradiction; there is another no smaller than this. Further on he says, “Even if I bear witness about myself, my witness is true” (John 8, verse 14). Which, then, tell me, am I to accept, and which am I to count as false? If we take them out of their context, simply as they are said, without carefully considering the person they are said to, or the reason they are said, or any other such circumstance, both will be false. For if his witness is “not true,” then this statement is not true either — not only the second, but the first as well. What, then, is the meaning? We need great watchfulness, or rather the grace of God, so that we do not stop at the bare words. That is how the heretics go wrong: they do not ask what the speaker intends or what state of mind the hearers are in. If we do not add these and other points besides — the times, the places, and the opinions of the listeners — many absurd conclusions will follow.

What, then, is the meaning? The Jews were about to object to him, “If you bear witness about yourself, your witness is not true” (John 8, verse 13). So he spoke these words to meet them in advance, as if he had said:

“You will certainly say to me, ‘We do not believe you,’ for among men no one who bears witness about himself is readily thought trustworthy.”

So the words “is not true” must not be read absolutely, but with reference to their suspicions, as if he had said,

“To you it is not true.”

He spoke the words, then, with an eye not to his own dignity but to their secret thoughts. When he says, “My witness is not true,” he is rebuking their opinion of him and the objection they were about to raise against him. But when he says, “Even if I bear witness about myself, my witness is true” (John 8, verse 14), he is declaring the very nature of the thing itself: that since he is God, they ought to count him trustworthy even when he speaks about himself.

He had spoken of the resurrection of the dead and of the judgment. He had said that whoever believes in him is not judged but comes to life, that he will sit to call all people to account, and that he has the same authority and power as the Father. And he was about to prove these things again in another way. So he had to put their objection first:

“I told you,” he says, “that ‘as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whom he will.’ I told you that ‘the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.’ I told you that people must ‘honor the Son just as they honor the Father.’ I told you that ‘whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.’ I told you that ‘whoever hears my words and believes them will not see death, but has passed from death to life’ (verse 24); that my voice will raise the dead, some now and some later; that I will call all people to account for their wrongdoing, that I will judge justly, and that I will repay those who have walked uprightly.”

All these, then, were claims, and the things claimed were weighty, and so far the Jews had been given no clear proof of them, only one that was rather indistinct. So when he is about to go on and establish his claims, he puts their objection first, speaking somewhat like this, if not in these very words:

“Perhaps you will say, ‘You claim all this, but you are not a credible witness, since you are testifying about yourself.’”

So first he checks their quarrelsome spirit by setting out what they would say, and shows that he knew the secrets of their hearts — and this was the first proof of his power. Then, after stating the objection, he supplies other proofs, clear and beyond dispute, and brings forward three witnesses to what he said: the works he did, the witness of the Father, and the preaching of John. And he puts first the lesser witness, John’s. For after saying, “There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that his witness is true,” he adds (verse 33), “You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth.”

And yet, if your witness is not true, how can you say, “I know that the testimony of John is true, and that he has borne witness to the truth”? Do you see, my friend, how clear it is from this that the words “My witness is not true” were addressed to their secret thoughts?

“What, then,” someone says, “if John bore witness out of partiality?” [c]

So that the Jews could not say this, see how he removes the suspicion. He did not say, “John testified about me,” but, “You first sent to John” — and you would not have sent if you had not thought him trustworthy. What is more, they had not sent to ask him about Christ, but about himself; and the man they thought trustworthy about himself they would think far more trustworthy about someone else. For it is, so to speak, in the nature of all of us to give less credit to those who speak about themselves than to those who speak about others. Yet they thought him so trustworthy that they did not ask for any other testimony even about himself. Those who were sent did not say, “What do you say about Christ?” but, “Who are you? What do you say about yourself?” That is how greatly they admired the man.

Christ was alluding to all this when he said, “You sent to John.” And that is why the evangelist has not simply related that they sent, but is exact about who was sent: they were priests, and from the Pharisees. They were not ordinary or lowly people, nor the kind who could be bribed or deceived, but men able to understand exactly what he said.

Verse 34: “But I do not receive testimony from man.”

“Why, then, have you brought forward John’s?”

His testimony was not “testimony from man.” For John says, “He who sent me to baptize with water said to me” (John 1, verse 33). So John’s testimony was the testimony of God, for he said what he said because he had learned it from him. But so that no one would ask, “How is it clear that he learned it from God?” and get stuck there, he silences them fully, still addressing himself to their thoughts. It was not likely that many knew these things; up to then they had listened to John as to someone speaking on his own. That is why Christ says, “I do not receive testimony from man.” And so that the Jews would not ask, “If you were not going to receive testimony from man and strengthen your case by it, why have you brought forward this man’s testimony?” — see how he sets right this contradiction by what he adds. For after saying, “I do not receive testimony from man,” he has added, “But I say these things so that you may be saved.”

What he means is something like this:

“Since I am God, I did not need John’s witness, which is a man’s witness. But you paid more attention to him, you believe him more trustworthy than anyone, you ran to him as to a prophet (for the whole city poured out to the Jordan), and you have not believed in me even when I work miracles. That is why I remind you of that witness of his.”

Verse 35: “He was a burning and shining light, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.”

So that they could not reply, “What if he did speak, and we did not accept him?” he shows that they did accept John’s sayings. They sent no ordinary men, but priests and Pharisees, and they were willing to rejoice in him, so much did they admire the man; and at the same time they had nothing to say against his words. But “for a time” is the expression of someone pointing out their fickleness, and how quickly they fell away from him.

Verse 36: “But I have greater witness than John’s.”

“If you had been willing to come to faith by following the natural course of the facts, I would have won you over by my works more than he did by his words. But since you will not, I bring you to John. Not that I need his testimony; but I do everything ‘so that you may be saved.’ For I have greater witness than John’s, namely the witness of my works. Yet I am not only considering how I may be accepted by you through credible evidence, but also how I may be accepted through the testimony of someone you know and admire.”

Then, with a glance at them, and saying that they rejoiced in John’s light for a time, he declared that their zeal was only temporary and unreliable.

He called John a lamp, meaning that he did not have light of himself but by the grace of the Spirit. But the thing that made the absolute difference between himself and John — that he was the Sun of righteousness — he did not yet set down. Only hinting at it so far, he struck at them sharply by showing that the same attitude that led them to despise John also left them unable to believe in Christ. For even the man they did admire, they admired only for a time — the man who, if they had not behaved like this, would soon have led them by the hand to Jesus. So, having proved them altogether undeserving of forgiveness, he went on to say, “I have greater witness than John’s.” What is that? It is the witness of his works.

“For the works,” he says, “that the Father has given me to finish, these very works that I do, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.” By this he reminded them of the paralyzed man he had restored, and of many other things. As for words, perhaps one of them might have claimed they were an empty boast, spoken because John was his friend — though in fact they could not say even this about John, a man equal to the strict practice of wisdom, and admired by them for that very reason. But the works could not allow this suspicion, not even among the maddest of them. That is why he added this second testimony, saying, “The works that the Father has given me to finish, these very works that I do, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me.”

In this passage he also answers the charge of breaking the Sabbath. Those people were arguing, “How can he be from God, when he does not keep the Sabbath?” (John 9, verse 16). So he says, “which my Father has given me.” In truth he acted with full authority of his own; but to show as fully as possible that he does nothing contrary to the Father, he used an expression that makes him seem far lower. Otherwise, why did he not say, “The works the Father has given me testify that I am equal to the Father”? For both of these truths could be learned from the works: that he did nothing contrary to the Father, and that he was equal to the one who begot him. He establishes that point elsewhere, where he says, “If you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me” (John 10, verse 38). So in both respects the works bore witness to him: that he was equal to the Father, and that he did nothing contrary to him. [h]

Why, then, did he not say so, instead of leaving out the greater point and putting forward this one? Because establishing this one was his first aim. It was a far smaller thing to have it believed that he came from God than to have it believed that he was equal to God — the first belonged to the prophets as well, but the second never. Still, he takes great pains over the lesser point, knowing that once this was admitted, the other would easily be accepted afterward. So he makes no mention of the more important part of the testimony and puts forward its lesser part, so that through this they might accept the other too. Having done this, he adds (verse 37), “And the Father himself, who sent me, has borne witness about me.”

Where did he “bear witness” about him? At the Jordan: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3, verse 17); “listen to him.” But even this needed proof. John’s testimony was clear, since they themselves had sent to him and could not deny it. The testimony of the miracles was clear too, since they had seen them done, and had heard from the man who was healed, and had believed — which is also where they got their accusation. What remained was to give proof of the Father’s testimony. So to do this he went on, “You have never heard his voice.”

How, then, does Moses say, “The Lord spoke, and Moses answered” (Exodus 19, verse 19)? And David, “He heard a tongue he did not know” (Psalm 81, verse 5)? And Moses again, “Has any other people ever ‘heard the voice of God’?” (Deuteronomy 4, verse 33).

“Nor have you seen his shape.”

Yet Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel are said to have seen him, and many others too. What, then, is Christ saying now? He is leading them little by little to a teaching of true philosophy, showing that in God there is neither voice nor shape, but that he is above forms and sounds like these. When he says, “You have not heard his voice,” he does not mean that God does utter a voice, only one that cannot be heard. In the same way, when he says, “Nor have you seen his shape,” he does not mean that God has a shape, only an invisible one, but that neither of these things belongs to God at all. And so that they could not say, “You are a boaster; God spoke to Moses only” — and this, at least, they did say: “We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where he comes from” (John 9, verse 29) — for this reason he spoke as he did, to show that there is neither voice nor shape in God.

“But why,” he says, “do I mention these things? Not only have you ‘never heard his voice or seen his shape,’ but you cannot even claim the thing you boast of most, the thing you are all most fully convinced of: that you have received his commandments and keep them.”

That is why he adds (verse 38), “And you do not have his word remaining in you.”

That is, the ordinances, the commandments, the Law and the Prophets. For even if God ordained these, still they are not with you, since you do not believe in me. If the Scriptures everywhere say that people must pay attention to me, and yet you do not believe, it is perfectly clear that his word has gone away from you. That is why he adds again, “For you do not believe the one whom he has sent.”

Then, so that they could not argue, “If we have not heard his voice, how has he testified about you?” he says (verse 39), “Search the Scriptures, for it is they that testify about me.” For it was through these that the Father gave his testimony. He gave it at the Jordan too, and on the mountain, but Christ does not bring forward those voices. Perhaps, if he had, he would not have been believed. For one of them, the one on the mountain, they did not hear; the other they heard, but paid no attention. That is why he sends them to the Scriptures, showing that the Father’s testimony comes from them. But first he removed the old grounds they used to boast of, that they had seen God or heard his voice. Since they were likely to disbelieve his voice and to picture to themselves what happened on Sinai, he first corrected their suspicions on these points and showed that what had been done there was God stooping down to meet them. Then he sends them to the testimony of the Scriptures.

From these Scriptures let us too arm and fortify ourselves, when we do battle against heretics. For “all Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be perfect, fully equipped for every good work” (Second Timothy 3, verses 16 and 17) — not so that he may have some good works and not others, for such a man is not “perfect.” [o]

For tell me, what good is it if a man prays continually but does not give alms generously? Or if he gives alms generously but is greedy or violent? Or if he is neither greedy nor violent, but gives generously for show before people, to win the praise of those who watch? Or if he gives alms carefully and as God pleases, but is puffed up by that very thing and grows proud? Or if he is humble and faithful in fasting, but greedy, grasping for gain, nailed to the earth, bringing into his soul the mother of all evils? For “the love of money is the root of all evils.”

Let us shudder at this thing, then; let us flee the sin. This has laid the world waste; this has thrown everything into confusion; this lures us away from the most blessed service of Christ. “You cannot,” he says, “serve God and mammon.” For mammon gives commands contrary to Christ’s. The one says, “Give to those in need”; the other, “Plunder what the needy have.” Christ says, “Forgive those who wrong you”; the other, “Lay traps for those who do you no wrong.” Christ says, “Be merciful and kind”; mammon says, “Be savage and cruel, and count the tears of the poor as nothing” — so that he may make the Judge stern toward us on that day. For then all our actions will come before our eyes, and so will those we have wronged and stripped, cutting us off from every excuse.

For if Lazarus, who suffered no wrong from the rich man but only did not enjoy any of his good things, stood up then as a bitter accuser and would not let him obtain any pardon, what excuse, tell me, will those have who give no alms from their own goods and, besides, seize the goods of others and overturn the houses of orphans? If those who did not feed Christ when he was hungry have brought such fire down on their heads, what comfort will those enjoy who plunder what does not belong to them at all, who weave ten thousand lawsuits, who unjustly grab everyone’s property?

Let us cast out this desire, then. And we will cast it out if we think of those before us who did wrong, who were greedy, and are gone. Are not others enjoying their wealth and their labors, while they lie in punishment, and vengeance, and unbearable woes? And how can this be anything but the height of folly: to wear ourselves out and torment ourselves, so that while we live we strain ourselves with toil, and when we depart from here we undergo unbearable punishments and vengeance — when we might have enjoyed ourselves here (for nothing gives such pleasure as a conscience that knows it has given alms), and on departing to that place might have been set free from all our woes and obtained ten thousand blessings? For just as wickedness usually punishes those who follow it even before they reach the pit, so virtue, even before the gift of the kingdom, provides delights for those who practice it here, making them live in the company of good hopes and continual pleasure.

So, that we may obtain this both here and in the life to come, let us hold fast to good works. In this way we will win the crown to come, which may we all attain by the grace and love for humankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and forever and ever. Amen.