Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:17
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
17. It is also written in your law ] Literally, But in the law also, your law, it is written. ‘Your’ is very emphatic; ‘the Law about which you profess to be so jealous.’ Comp. ‘Thou art called a Jew, and restest on the Law’ (Rom 2:17).
the testimony of two men is true ] Better, the witness of two, &c. Not so much a quotation as a reference to Deu 19:15; Deu 17:6. Note that the Law speaks of ‘two or three witnesses: ’ here we have ‘two men.’ The change is not accidental, but introduces an argument fortiori: if the testimony of two men is true, how much more the testimony of two Divine Witnesses. Comp. ‘If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He hath testified of His Son’ (1Jn 5:9).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In your law – Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15. Compare Mat 18:16. This related to cases in which the life of an individual was involved. Jesus says that if, in such a case, the testimony of two men were sufficient to establish a fact, his own testimony and that of his Father ought to be esteemed ample evidence in the case of religious doctrine.
Two men – If two men could confirm a case, the evidence of Jesus and of God ought not to be deemed insufficient.
Is true – In Deuteronomy, established. This means the same thing. It is confirmed; is worthy of belief.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
It is written, Deu 17:6; 19:15. God so ordered it by his Divine law, that every thing should be established by the testimony of two witnesses.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13-19. bearest record of thyself;thy record is not trueHow does He meet this specious cavil?Not by disputing the wholesome human maxim that “self-praise isno praise,” but by affirming that He was an exception to therule, or rather, that it had no application to Him.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
It is also written in your law,…. The law of Moses, which was given unto them, and they boasted of; the passage referred to is in De 19:15; see also De 17:6; where though what follows is not to be found in so many words, yet the sense is there expressed:
that the testimony of two men is true: concerning which the Jewish writers say y,
“they used not to determine any judiciary matter by the mouth of one witness, neither pecuniary causes, nor causes of life and death, as it is said, De 17:6. It is asked z in their oral law, if the testimony of two men stand, why does the Scripture particularly mention three? (for no other reason) but to compare or equal three with two, that as three convict two of a falsehood, two may also convict three.”
On which one of their commentators a has this observation, taking notice of De 19:18, which speaks of a single witness;
“Mar (a doctor) says, wherever it is said a “witness”, it is to be understood of two, unless the Scripture particularly specifies one.”
In the case of a wife suspected of adultery, and in the business of striking off the neck of the heifer in case of murder, they admitted of one witness b.
y Maimon. Hilchot Eduth. c. 5. sect. 1. z Misn. Maccot. c. 1. sect. 7. a Bartenora in ib. b Maimon. Hilchot Eduth, ib. sect. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Yea and in your law ( ). Same use of — as in verse 16. They claimed possession of the law (7:49) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in verse 13. He will use similar language (your law) in 10:34 in an argumentum ad hominem as here in controversy with the Jews. In 15:24 to the apostles Jesus even says “in their law” in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see Deut 17:6; Deut 19:15. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (5:37).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
In your law [ ] . Literally, in the law, that which is yours. Yours has an emphatic force : of which you claim a monopoly. See Joh 7:49.
It is written [] . The perfect tense : it has been written, and stands written. The common form of citation elsewhere, but used by John of the Old Testament scriptures only here. His usual form is gegrammenon ejstin, the participle with the finite verb, literally, it is having been written.
The witness of two men. See Deu 19:15.
The Father – beareth witness of me. Thus there are two witnesses, and the letter of the law is fulfilled.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “It is also written in your law,” (kai en to nomo de to humetero gegraptai) “Then what is more it has been written in your law,” as a basis for acceptable evidence in matters of determining truth in controversy, a matter in which they boasted and trusted with pride, Deu 17:6.
2) “That the testimony of two men is true.” (hoti duo anthropon he marturia alethes estin) “That the witness of two men is (exists as) true,” genuine, trustworthy, adequate, or legal, Deu 19:15; 2Co 13:1.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
17. Even in your law it is written. The argument might, at first sight, appear to be weak, because no man is received as a witness in his own cause. But we ought to remember what I have already said, that the Son of God (217) ought to be excluded from the ordinary number of other men, (218) because he neither is a private individual, nor transacts his own private business. As to his distinguishing himself from his Father, by doing so he accommodates himself to the capacity of his hearers, and that on account of his office, because he was at that time a servant of the Father, from whom, therefore, he asserts that all his doctrine has proceeded.
(217) “ Le Fils de Dieu.”
(218) “ Du nombre commun des autres hommes.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) It is also written in your law.He now proceeds to show again that the technical requirement of the Law was satisfied by His witness. The term your law is material, as addressed to those who were professed expounders of it and accused Him of being a transgressor of it. (Comp. the parallel reference to the Law in Joh. 10:34; Joh. 15:25.) To assert that Jesus placed Himself in a position of antagonism to the Mosaic law, is to forget the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 5:17); and to assert that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel differs in this respect from the character as portrayed by the earlier Evangelists, is to forget the teaching of the last verse of John 5, and, indeed, to miss the whole force of these very passages. He does not, indeed, say our law, as it was for them what it could not be for Him; but He mentions it to show in each case that He fulfilled it.
That the testimony of two men is true.See Deu. 17:6; Deu. 19:15, and comp. Notes on Mat. 18:16 and Mar. 14:55-56. The words are here quoted freely, and two men is substituted for two or three witnesses, which we find in both the passages in Deuteronomy. This prepares the way for the full thought of the witness, in the next verse. The requirement of the Law would be satisfied with the evidence of two men: He has the witness of two Persons, but each is divine.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17, 18. Jesus, after having asserted his superiority to the requirement of other witness, now graciously condescends to furnish it that of the Father.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Yes, and in your Law it is written that the witness of two men is true, I am he who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me.”
He then goes on to point out that the law of Moses says that the testimony of two men is true (Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15). Well, let them then consider this, He can give them two witnesses, Himself as the sent One, and His Father as the One Who sent Him, for He Himself bears testimony through His own works and words, and by the Spirit.
‘Your Law.’ That is, the Law (the Torah) which they loved and on which they continually laid such emphasis and which was the very basis of their lives, the Law which they had multiplied by a multiplicity of regulations. There is the specific suggestion in the ‘your’ that they have altered God’s Law and replaced it with a Law of their own, making it far more onerous. It was no longer God’s Law, but their Law. Yet even their own Law acknowledged that the witness of two men was true.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
An appeal to the Law of the Jews:
v. 17. It is also written in your Law that the testimony of two men is.
v. 18. I am one that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me.
v. 19. Then said they unto Him, Where is Thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know Me nor My Father; if ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also.
v. 20. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as He taught in the Temple; and no man laid hands on Him, for His hour was not yet come. The Jews questioned the validity of Christ’s testimony concerning Himself. But Jesus would have them consider that their own Law, upon which they were always harping, came to His assistance. If the testimony of two witnesses to a certain matter agreed, the Law held the testimony to be valid, Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15. Now the Lord applies the passage to Himself. He Himself is His own first witness, and His second witness is the Father, of whom Jesus repeats that He has sent Him. Christ’s own consciousness and the power of God proclaiming itself in and through Him fully sufficed for the demands of the Law respecting exact testimony. But the Jews were still skeptical. They maintain that it is all very well for Him to allege that His Father is His second witness, and to hint at His super natural existence, but the question is: Where is He? The Jews wanted some special manifestation and proof that God acknowledged Jesus as His Son, See chap. 12:28. Jesus does not give them a direct answer. They ought to have known whom He meant when He spoke of His Father and been reminded of the many miracles which established His relation to God beyond a doubt. Theirs was a willful, malignant ignorance. The knowledge and acceptance of God and His whereabouts depends upon the knowledge and acceptance of Jesus. They professed to know this man Jesus who was bearing witness before them, but had they really known Him, they would necessarily have known the Father with whom He was inseparably connected. Belief in and knowledge of Jesus implies knowledge of and belief in the Father. When unbelievers speak of God, of the dispensations of Providence, etc. , they do not understand and realize of what they are speaking. The words are hollow, meaningless phrases in their mouths. Only the true believers, that are united with Christ by the bonds of true faith, can have a true knowledge and idea of God. In Christ the Father is revealed. This saying of the Lord, which again seemed boastful to the Jews, so angered them that they were ready to apprehend Him, as He sat there in the Court of the Women, in the section where the treasury chests were placed. But no one could touch Him, since the hour which was set in the counsel of God was not yet come. Though all the enemies of Christ combine in a deliberate effort to harm the Gospel and to hinder its proclamation, they are powerless before His almighty will.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 8:17-18 . After the first reason in answer to the Pharisaic rejection of His self-witness (namely, that He gave it in the consciousness of His divine mission, Joh 8:14 ), and after administering a reproof to His antagonists, in connection therewith, for their judging (Joh 8:15-16 ), there follows a second reason, namely, that His witness to Himself is no violation of the Jewish law, but has more than the amount of truth thereby required .
] atque etiam , as above in Joh 8:16 .
.] emphatically, from the point of view of His opponents (comp. Joh 10:34 , Joh 15:25 ), who took their stand thereon, and regarded Jesus as a , and even in Joh 8:13 had had in view a well-known prescription of the law. The words of Christ are therefore no doubt anti-Judaic, but not in themselves antinomian (Schweizer, Baur, Reuss), or belonging to a later Christian point of view (De Wette, B. Crusius, Tholuck); nor must they be taken to mean: for Christ and believers the law exists no longer (Messner, Lehre der Apostel . p. 345); though, no doubt, they expressed His consciousness of being exalted above the Jewish law as it then was, and in the strange and hostile form in which it met Him. Accordingly, Keim [12] is mistaken in saying: “In this way neither could Jesus speak nor John write not even Paul .” See Joh 5:45-47 , Joh 7:19 ; Joh 7:22 f., Joh 5:39 , Joh 10:35 , Joh 19:36 .
The passage itself from the law is quoted with considerable freedom (Deu 17:6 ; Deu 19:15 ), being uttered with intentional emphasis, as Jesus draws a conclusion a minori ad majus . If the law demands two human witnesses, in my witness there is still more; for the witnesses whose declaration is contained therein are (1) my own individuality; and (2) the Father who has sent me; as His representative and interpreter, therefore, I testify, so that my witness is also His . That which took place, as to substance, in the living and inseparable unity of the divine-human consciousness, to wit, His witnessing, and God’s witnessing, Jesus discriminates here only formally , for the sake of being able to apply the passage of the law in question, from which He argues ; but not incorrectly (Schenkel): hence, also, there is no need for supplying in thought to : “ As a human knower of myself, as an honest man ” (Paulus), and the like; or even, “ as the Son of God ” (Olshausen, who also brings in the Holy Ghost).
[12] See his Geschichtlich. Christ. p. 14, Exo 3 . Note, on the contrary, that it is John himself who stands higher than Paul. But not even the Johannean Jesus has broken with the law, or treated it as antiquated. See especially vv. 45 47. His relation to the law is also that of .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
Ver. 17. It is also written in your law ] He calleth it their law, because he was above law; and needed not (but for their weaknass) to have confirmed thus his doctrine by Scripture; as being to be believed upon his bare word, .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17. ] The seems to give this sense to the clause: ‘So that if you will have the mere letter of the law, and judge my testimony by it, I will even thus satisfy you:’ . thus implying, ‘The law which you have made so completely your own by your kind of adherence to it.’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 8:17 . . He returns from “judging” to “witnessing,” and He maintains that His witness (Joh 8:18 ) satisfies the Mosaic law (Deu 17:6 ; Deu 19:15 ) because what He witnesses of Himself is confirmed by the Father that sent Him. The nature of this witness was given fully at Joh 5:37-47 . Field maintains the A.V [63] “I am one that beareth witness,” against the R.V [64] “I am He that beareth witness”; being equivalent to “There is I” or “It is I”. Misled perhaps by the Lord’s use of (Joh 8:17 ), the Pharisees ask (Joh 8:19 ): ; “Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt” (Augustine), therefore they ask where He is that they may ascertain what He has to say regarding Jesus; as if they said: “It is all very well alleging that you have a second witness in your Father; but where is He?” The idea of Cyril that it was a coarse allusion to His birth is out of the question, and Cyril himself does not press it. Jesus replies: [or ]. They ought to have known who He meant by His Father and where He was; and their hopeless ignorance Jesus can only deplore. They professed to know Jesus, but had they known Him they would necessarily have known the Father in whom He lived and whom He represented. Their ignorance of the Father proves their ignorance of Jesus. . On ., see Joh 8:12 . Euthymius, as usual, hits the nail on the head: “ ” . , . “But no one apprehended Him, because not yet was His hour come.” His immunity was all the more remarkable on account of the proximity to the chamber where the Sanhedrim held its sittings, in the southeast corner of the Court of the Priests. See Edersheim’s Life of Christ , ii. 165, note.
[63] Authorised Version.
[64] Revised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
It is . . . written = It has been (and standeth) written.
also . . . law = law also, your law.
your your own. Greek. humeteros. Emphatic Compare Joh 7:49.
testimony. Gr, marturia. See note on “record”, Joh 8:13.
two. See Deu 19:16.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17.] The seems to give this sense to the clause:-So that if you will have the mere letter of the law, and judge my testimony by it, I will even thus satisfy you: . thus implying, The law which you have made so completely your own by your kind of adherence to it.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:17. ) also.- ) in your law, to which ye refer, Joh 8:5, Now Moses in the law commanded us, that, etc.- , of two men) how much more that of God and of the Son of God? Since these witnesses are said to be two, the argument [proof] is one of the same nature. See as regards these two, Zec 6:13, at the end, He shall build the temple of the Lord; and He shall bear His glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a Priest upon His throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.-, true) irrefragable.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:17
Joh 8:17
Yea and in your law it is written, that the witness of two men is true.-One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established. (Deu 19:15). This law was carried into the New Testament. (Mat 18:16; 2Co 13:1). [The Jews- accepted this law as from God. Note, that Jesus did not say our law, but your law. Strange, but nevertheless true, he never classes himself with the Jews.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
also: Joh 10:34, Joh 15:25, Gal 3:24, Gal 4:21
that: Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15, 1Ki 21:10, Mat 18:16, 2Co 13:1, Heb 10:28, 1Jo 5:9, Rev 11:3
Reciprocal: Num 35:30 – General Joh 5:32 – is another Joh 8:26 – but 1Ti 5:19 – two
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Jesus often referred to the Old Testament for proof of his statements, because the Jews professed to have great respect for that document. (See the comments on chapter 5:39.) In our present verse they are reminded of an established rule concerning the force of testimony that their law contained. That rule is written in various places, and one outstanding passage is Deu 19:15.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 8:17. But in your own law also it is written that the witness of two men is true. In the very law which they magnified, on which they take their stand, as they accuse Him of breaking the law, and declare that all who follow him are ignorant of the law (chap. Joh 7:49, etc.), this principle is laid down (Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15). An emphasis is made to rest on men to prepare for the next verse. The words your own law have been understood as a proof that Jesus feels that He is not a Jew but without reason. The words flow from the fact that it is His purpose to show that the principle upon which He proceeded was founded in the law which they themselves so highly honoured, and the rules of which they were not entitled to neglect. They thus at once magnify the law and are an argumentum ad hominem.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 17, 18. And besides it is written in your law that the testimony of two men is worthy of belief. 18. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me.
Jesus enters, at least in form, into the thought of His adversaries (as in Joh 7:16; Joh 7:28). The Mosaic law required two witnesses, for testimony to be valid (Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15). Jesus shows that in the judgments which He pronounces on the world (Joh 8:16), as well as in the testimonies which He bears to Himself (Joh 8:18), He satisfies this rule; for the Father joins His testimony to His own. Where the eye of the flesh can see only one witness, there are really two. This testimony of the Father is generally referred to the miracles, according to Joh 8:36. But the connection with Joh 8:16 leads us to a much more profound explanation. Jesus describes here a fact of His inner life, as in Joh 5:30. The knowledge which He has of Himself and of His mission (Joh 8:12) differs essentially from the psychological phenomenon which is called in philosophy the fact of consciousness; it is in the light of God that He contemplates and knows Himself. Herein is the reason why His testimony bears, in the view of every one who has a sense for perceiving God, the stamp of this divine authority.
In the expression: your law, the adversaries of the authenticity have found a proof of the Gentile origin of the author (Baur). Reuss formerly explained it by the spirit of our Gospel, which has as its end in view nothing less than a lowering and almost a degradation of the old dispensation. We have been able to judge from the close of chap. 5 as to what is the value of these assertions. Weiss, Keil, Reuss himself (now) see in this your an accommodation: This law on which you rest at this moment for condemning me. I think rather, notwithstanding what Weiss and Keil say, that Jesus, in expressing Himself thus, is inspired by the feeling of the exceptional position which He is claiming in all this section. As He nowhere says, our Father (not even in the address of the Lord’s Prayer), but: your Father, Mat 5:16; Mat 5:45; Mat 5:48; Mat 6:8; Mat 6:15; Mat 6:32, etc.), or, when He wished to express the divine fatherhood at once with reference to Himself and to us: My Father and your Father (Joh 20:17), because God is not His Father in the sense in which He is ours, so no more can He say: our law, uniting under one and the same epithet His own relation and that of the Jews to the Mosaic institution.
Who does not feel that He could not, without derogation, have said in Joh 7:19 : Has not Moses given us the law? Jesus was conscious of being infinitely elevated above the entire Jewish system. His submission to the law was undoubtedly complete, but it was free; for His moral life was not dependent on the relation to an external ordinance. The word men is not found in the Hebrew text; this term, whatever Weiss may say, must have been added intentionally; it was suggested by the contrast between the human witnesses whom the law demanded, and the divine witness whom Jesus here introduces (the Father who sent me). In this judicial form Jesus expresses at the foundation the same thought as when He spoke in Joh 8:16 of the inner certainty of His own testimony. The idea of this entire passage is the following: You demand a guaranty of that which I am saying of myself and of you; behold it: It is in God that I know myself and that I assert myself, as it is in Him that I know you and judge you. And it is in virtue of this divine light which shines within Him and by means of which He also knows others, that He is present as the light of the world (Joh 8:12). A fact so spiritual could hardly be understoood by every one; hence the following:
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT
Joh 8:17-20. And it has been written in your law, That the testimony of two people is true. [Deu 19:15] I am the one testifying concerning Myself, and the One who sent Me testifies concerning Me. Here is the experimental consolation of every true Christian, the Holy Spirit witnessing along with his own spirit that he is born of God, and that his heart is clean, thus bringing all Christian testimony into harmony with the Divine law, by which every affirmation is made valid. Then they said to Him, Where is Thy Father? Jesus responded, You do not know Me nor the Father; if you had known Me, you would also have known the Father. He spoke these words, teaching in the treasury in the temple, and no one arrested Him, because His hour had not yet come. There were many magnificent buildings on the Temple Campus, all indiscriminately denominated the temple. We have here quite a significant statement of our Savior, while looking those preachers and official laymen in the face, and notifying them that they did not know God, involving the conclusion that they were sinners on their way to perdition. Doubtless they were as honest as the clergy, and ecclesiastical rulers of the present day. What an awful inference is deducible! Lord, help us all to examine ourselves, and see whether we truly know God!
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 17
In your law; referring, probably, to Deuteronomy 19:15.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Therefore Jesus was not really testifying alone. There was a second witness that the law demanded, namely, the Father.
Jesus’ reference to "your law" is unusual since in one sense it was His law. However, Jesus was in the process of setting aside the Law of Moses. The revelation that He brought superseded it, so in another sense it belonged to the Pharisees but not to Him (cf. Joh 7:19; Joh 7:51).
"No human witness can authenticate a divine relationship. Jesus therefore appeals to the Father and Himself, and there is no other to whom He can appeal." [Note: Morris, p. 393.]