Two Witnesses: What Did Jesus Mean in John 8?

You two witnesses require two persons, so end of subject. Uh if that's all you had, uh it might make sense. But this shows the danger of trying to use a text for a purpose for which it was not intended. Clearly, this text is not really trying to teach about the trinity and and the doctrine of God as such. Uh but let's just look at what Jesus is saying and then we can see what's plausible in the light of the rest of scripture. So Jesus was talking to some Jewish leaders who didn't believe in him. They believed in God. They believed in the one God. They believe God's a spirit, but they believe Jesus is just a man.

And they rejected any claims of deity or that he was God, Lord, Messiah, Savior, anything like that. And so Jesus is trying to say, look, you know, I'm not just asking you to take my word for it. I mean, if I just, hey, I'm God. I'm the Messiah. I'm not expecting you to believe that. But, you know, the law requires two witnesses. Now, I would hasten to add the implication is two sources of truth. two two sources that are different, not not just the same. Um, and if you think of a court of law, let's just say um you find a mur a murdered body in a house.

And so one witness is I saw John Doe walk in that house at such such time and walk out such such time. So that would be one witness even though he might not have seen the actual murder, he could be a very strong witness. Well, let's say the police go in there and they do fingerprints and they find the fingerprints of John Doe. Well, that would be another witness, not the same witness. Now, the same witness would be that first witness is telling his wife and the wife could have testified, "Yeah, my husband told me he saw that guy." Well, that's not an independent witness.

That wouldn't really count. She's just repeating what the first witness said. But the fingerprint evidence would be a separate witness. Now, it's not a separate person, but it's a separate witness. So was the law probably the law was thinking they didn't have a lot of they didn't have modern forensic evidence. So the law was probably considered yes two two human beings but even there there there's a qualification because the the purpose is two sources of authority or two sources of evidence. So what Jesus was saying you know okay I'll go along with you. I you you you can't believe what I'm saying but really I have two sources of authority.

the father in heaven which you recognize it. You don't see connected to me. He's spoken with a voice from heaven to say who I am. And then I know who I am. I'm filled with the spirit. I know God speaks to me. So you got two witnesses. You got the father who you recognize apart from me. Well, he's already testified of me. And you got me. I testify. So I got two witnesses. So I really think that's what's going on. It's not talking about two persons. It's talking about two sources of authority that from the point of view of the audience would not be the same.

there would not be overlapping. They would not they would be the first to say there's no connection. So if Jesus says well your own God has testified of me in the scriptures and in my baptism the voice from heaven. So your your own the God that you worship has given multiple statements not from me but from him. And then I in my own life and not just my words. I've healed the sick. I've forgiven sin. I've raised the dead. I've calmed the storm. So I'm bearing witness of who I am. So, that's two different sources that you would not recognize as the same. Now, if you think I'm stretching the word witness too much there, let's go to First John 5'8, which the same author, by the way, that talked about the two witnesses.

Here's what he said in 1 John 5'8. And there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three agree as one. So, we might regard this as three witnesses to the life of Jesus and the ministry of Jesus. We might also regard these as three witnesses that work together for the new birth because the new birth involves spirit, water, and blood. Well, think about it. Three witnesses, spirit, water, and blood. According to the argument you gave me, that had to be three persons. So, Holy Spirit is a person, the water is a person, and the blood is a person.

Three different persons, right? So, I can prove that water is human. I can prove that blood is human. I can prove there are three persons because there are three witnesses. No, in the context there are three sources of truth that work together. Jesus came by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. He also came by the the baptism with the voice from heaven that's separate from the spirit. Um and then he by his crucifixion the blood uh and so so but they all agree that Jesus is the Messiah. So there are not three persons. Another example which um John that that Paul refers to in the book of Romans but it goes back to to um Psalm 19.

The heavens declare the glory of God. The firmament shows his handiwork. Day unto day utter speech and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth. Their words to the end of the world. And so it's talking about heaven a and the firmament the declares the glory of God. And so it's saying the created order creation itself the various elements. And then in in um if you go and read I didn't read it all but verse 5 talks about the sun coming out like um a bridegroom coming out of his chamber.

So in Psalm 19 it's trying to say creation itself bears witness of the glory of God. So heaven bears witness, the sun bears witness. And then Paul in the book of Romans says, "Yes, everybody's had a witness of the gospel in one form or another because and then he quotes from Psalm." Are we going to say heaven is a person or are we going to say the son is a person? No. They are witnesses of the glory of God and in some sense witnesses of the gospel, but they're not separate persons. They're all part of the created order of the creation of God. So I don't think that we can go back and add the whole doctrine of the trinity into that one word witness when the New Testament itself doesn't.

And um we can also look at the teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 which tells women to wear their hair long, men to cut their hair short. And Paul is trying to justify this argument. So he says that he goes to the created order. This is how God go God created male and female different distinct. So it makes sense that there should be a visible distinction. Then he says, "Doesn't even nature teach you that it's a shame for a woman to cut her hair, but it's a shame for a man to have long hair, but it's a glory for a woman to have long hair." And then he says, "If you want to argue about it, we don't have any other custom, nor do the churches of God." So we all agree.

So he didn't actually say witnesses, but in essence, following the the precedent of two or three witnesses, let every word be established. He said, "Well, you have creation, God. intention of distinguishing male and female. You have nature teaching you even to this day that there should be a distinction between male and female. And the churches all agree on this. So he was citing three different witnesses, but they're not three different persons. So I I think the the better way to look at it is is two sources of truth. And and to summarize this all, I think it's helpful in the same gospel uh John 10:30 again, Paul, excuse me, Jesus is talking to unbelieving Jewish religious leaders.

And he makes this interesting statement. I and the father are one. So I think the logic is I this man that you see that you're arguing with, you don't see any connection with God. The father, you believe God is the father. You believe God is in heaven. He hears prayers. He's omnipresent. He's he's spirit. You don't see any connection between the two of these. But I and the father are not two as you suppose. I and the father are one and the same. So that would directly counter this misinterpretation of John 8. The Jews took up stones to kill him. And so Jesus kind of ironically said, "Well, for which one of my good works are you killing me?" And they said, "Not for your good works, but because you being a man make yourself God." So they actually understood his claim.

Now they were Jews of the first century. All they knew and believed was Deuteronomy 6:4. Here Israel, the Lord of God is one. They did not know there would be a doctrine of the trinity. They certainly didn't believe a doctrine of two persons. But my point is more subtle than that. Those categories would not have entered their mind. They would have not said, "Oh, here's an available option, a trinity of three divine co-equal, co-eternal persons." That whole way of thinking had not even been discussed in philosophy or other religions. Other religions believed in many gods, but there was no concept of three co-equal persons in the godhead.

That was totally foreign. Wouldn't be invented for a couple of centuries. So, it's not logical to say, "Oh, you you're claiming to be the second person of the Trinity." Well, we can't believe that. But they were saying, "No, you claim to be the one God. We can't believe that." So they said, "Not for being not for your good works because but for blasphemy. You're blaspheing God because you as a man make yourself God." It would be blasphemy for human to say, "I'm God." Of course, they understood his claim, but they got it backwards because he was not a man trying to make himself God. He was God who had made himself man.

But the point I'm bringing here is Jesus used that premise. Oh, so you think that we're two, but we're not. We're one. So I would answer to my critics, you read John 8 and you think they're two persons. Well, let Jesus explain in John 10. You think it's two, but actually it's not. I and my father are one.