It's been a long time coming but this is my first post related to theology (although even here it has a bit of a legal and philosophical twist). What prompted me to write this was an email conversation I had with a friend who aired some concerns to me about this and other issues after hearing a sermon on John 8:12-30.
This passage recounts a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in which Jesus claims (1) to be "the light of the world" and (2) that whoever follows him "will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." The Pharisees respond: "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true" ("true", I take it not in the sense that it corresponds with objective truth but "true" as in the sense of valid -- i.e. that we can rely on it as evidence of the claim you are making.) In other words they asked sez who?!
The lawyers among us will immediately recognise the force of the Pharisees' point. It rings of the legal maxim Testis nemo in sua causa esse potest -- No one can be a witness in his own cause. Unsubstantiated allegations are just that -- unsubstantiated allegations. You can't take the witness stand and repeat your allegation under oath and say that you've provided sufficient testimony to prove your claim. Imagine you want to go to court because you think your legal rights have been violated. You are alleging that John hit you. And then imagine that your sole "testimony" in support of this allegation is your say-so that John hit you. You take the witness stand and say under oath "John hit me" as evidence of your stated claim that John hit you. What have you actually done here? All you've done is repeat your allegation under oath. You've not done anything to substantiate your allegation. The court would be right to dismiss the case unless you could point to someone or something else other than your mere say-so which goes to substantiate your claim.
What's more, the law given by God to the Israelites would also appear to include this principle (cf Deut 17:6, 19:15). (In fact it may even appear to be even more restrictive to plaintiffs. Deut 19:15 does not just say that you can't be a witness in your own cause; it also appears to say -- assuming that I have interpreted it correctly -- that a single external witness is not enough to convict someone or find him liable.)
Anyway, what are we to make of the Pharisees' objection to Jesus here? Were they right to raise it? The implication from the sermon that prompted this discussion was that they weren't. The preacher essentially said three things (and I am summarising here): (1) As God, Jesus doesn't need a corroborating witness in his favour, (2) in any event Jesus has a corroborating witness: God the Father, (3) the fact that the Pharisees raised "a procedural objection" instead of responding to Jesus's offer of light and life "confirms that these are people who are gripped by darkness and death".
With this my friend had a problem and I do too, at least expressed in that form. She suggested that God never expects blind faith, provides us with "testimonies" and invites us to consider and respond to those "testimonies". I would wholeheartedly agree with her think that the preacher's original point is in need of some clarification and expansion.
If you look at John 8, taking into consideration the wider context of John's Gospel, I don't think it's fair to conclude that Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees is with the question itself. Taken at face value it's a fair enough question. When Jesus claims to be God it's fair for a person to ask "on what basis do you make this claim?" or "why should I believe you?". After all anyone can claim to be God and we would want to ask for some kind of evidence or "testimony" on which to evaluate that claim. We don't normally believe unsubstantiated assertions so why should it be any different with Jesus's claim to divinity? The problem with the Pharisees' asking of this question is not the question itself, but rather (1) their motive for asking and (2) their existing knowledge (perhaps we lawyers would say that it was constructive rather than actual knowledge). So first, the Pharisees weren't genuinely asking the question in a spirit of enquiry. They'd already made up their mind before they asked the question and merely accused Jesus. Their minds were closed. And secondly, there's the knowledge they had (or ought to have had -- that's what lawyer's mean by constructive knowledge; as long as you've got enough knowledge to "join the dots" so to speak you can't then plead ignorance) of the Scriptures. What's more, there's some delicious irony going on display here in the story. The Pharisees who were supposedly experts in the Scriptures were trying to argue from a single point of Scripture (the law of testimony) that Jesus's testimony about himself to be the light of the world was invalid when the whole Scriptures which the Pharisees claimed to know testified to this fact about Jesus.
The point of all this is that I would want to say to a seeker today that Jesus's answer here does not mean that God does not provide us with "testimony" in relation to himself. But Jesus's point in reply to the Pharisees also holds true.
In short I want to argue that ultimately God is (and cannot not be) a "witness in his own cause" but that in his love and mercy provides us with other corroborating testimonies. This requires some reflexion on our part on the nature of God and "testimony" as well as what God's "cause" here is in which the Pharisees were (or we are) accusing him of being a witness.
The point is that God's testimony is ultimately self-authenticating for God is truth. Any statement you or I make is not in and of itself the truth -- our statements are only "true" in so far as they correspond with "the truth". Compare this with God's statements which simply are true as a result of who God is. God cannot lie; his statements necessarily correspond with the truth. Unlike me and my statements, God does not need to show that his statements correspond with "the truth". In fact in an important sense he cannot because there is no concept of truth which exists independently from God, for God is truth. So God does not need to -- and cannot -- provide further testimony (i.e. testimony beyond -- or higher up the chain of reasoning than -- God himself) in relation to the truth of his statements, for the reason that there is no concept of truth apart from God. There is nothing beyond God (and his nature) to which God can point as further testimony in relation to himself. This is reflected in John 8:18 when Jesus says "I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me". So ultimately, yes, God is a witness in his own cause. He does not need to -- and in fact cannot -- point to any other "testimony" beyond himself and his nature. In this sense it is wrong for us to demand that God provide us with further testimony. God is the ultimate reality and there is nothing beyond God to which God (or Jesus in John 8) can point us to in order to believe him. The ultimate reason we are to believe God, love God, obey God, serve God etc is God himself. To the objection "But why should I obey God" there is no answer other than the nature of God himself. God cannot point to anything beyond (higher up the chain of reasoning than) himself as "testimony" for his "cause". God is (and cannot not be) a witness in his own cause.
But there is in fact, another kind of testimony. Even though God cannot point to anything beyond himself as testimony for his authority over us or the claims he makes (because there is nothing beyond God), in his mercy toward us God can and does point us to other "testimonies" between him and us. The Scriptures are a very obvious "testimony" to Jesus's divinity and these should have been enough for the Pharisees to believe in Jesus. Likewise for us today (even for people who unlike the Pharisees do not claim to know or believe them) they are a "testimony" to Jesus's divinity. And besides the Scriptures God has provided us with other lesser "testimonies". He has not left us in the dark and he does not expect us to exercise "blind faith".
But if we then take the Scriptures we could also ask the question "Why should I believe/ obey them?". That's a fair question which ultimately ends back at the person of God himself and here too there is nothing beyond God himself to which we can be pointed as "testimony". So ultimately we get back to the point that God is a "witness in his own cause". If we ask of God to tell us why we should obey the Scriptures he cannot point us to anything beyond himself and his nature. God's word is ultimately self-authenticating. We are to believe the Scriptures beacuse they are the Word of God (and because God's nature includes such things as his sovereignty and that he is truth). We cannot demand of God a testimony for the Scriptures' authoritative nature other than God himself. But even here God provides us with other "lower-level" testimonies of why we should believe, trust and act on his word. In his mercy God gives us many "testimonies".
So were the Pharisees right to ask the question they asked of Jesus? Yes and no. Are we right to ask this question? Yes and no. Jesus's answer is that ultimately there is no higher-level "testimony" of his divinity other than God himself and we are wrong to demand one. It is impossible for God to point us to anything beyond himself as a testimony for the simple reason that there is nothing "beyond" the Godhead to which God can point us as "testimony". So Jesus was of course right in John 8 to say that he needs no witness to his divinity as if his "claim" to divinity must fail unless he provided the Pharisees (or us!) with sufficient "testimony". Jesus simply is divine and there is nothing beyond the Godhead to which he can point as "testimony" of this. But (and this an important qualification) when it comes to inviting us to come and follow him, God in his great love and mercy gives us many "testimonies" between him and us -- "lower level" testimonies if you will -- which point us to him and which "corroborate" his claims.
This passage recounts a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees in which Jesus claims (1) to be "the light of the world" and (2) that whoever follows him "will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." The Pharisees respond: "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true" ("true", I take it not in the sense that it corresponds with objective truth but "true" as in the sense of valid -- i.e. that we can rely on it as evidence of the claim you are making.) In other words they asked sez who?!
The lawyers among us will immediately recognise the force of the Pharisees' point. It rings of the legal maxim Testis nemo in sua causa esse potest -- No one can be a witness in his own cause. Unsubstantiated allegations are just that -- unsubstantiated allegations. You can't take the witness stand and repeat your allegation under oath and say that you've provided sufficient testimony to prove your claim. Imagine you want to go to court because you think your legal rights have been violated. You are alleging that John hit you. And then imagine that your sole "testimony" in support of this allegation is your say-so that John hit you. You take the witness stand and say under oath "John hit me" as evidence of your stated claim that John hit you. What have you actually done here? All you've done is repeat your allegation under oath. You've not done anything to substantiate your allegation. The court would be right to dismiss the case unless you could point to someone or something else other than your mere say-so which goes to substantiate your claim.
What's more, the law given by God to the Israelites would also appear to include this principle (cf Deut 17:6, 19:15). (In fact it may even appear to be even more restrictive to plaintiffs. Deut 19:15 does not just say that you can't be a witness in your own cause; it also appears to say -- assuming that I have interpreted it correctly -- that a single external witness is not enough to convict someone or find him liable.)
Anyway, what are we to make of the Pharisees' objection to Jesus here? Were they right to raise it? The implication from the sermon that prompted this discussion was that they weren't. The preacher essentially said three things (and I am summarising here): (1) As God, Jesus doesn't need a corroborating witness in his favour, (2) in any event Jesus has a corroborating witness: God the Father, (3) the fact that the Pharisees raised "a procedural objection" instead of responding to Jesus's offer of light and life "confirms that these are people who are gripped by darkness and death".
With this my friend had a problem and I do too, at least expressed in that form. She suggested that God never expects blind faith, provides us with "testimonies" and invites us to consider and respond to those "testimonies". I would wholeheartedly agree with her think that the preacher's original point is in need of some clarification and expansion.
If you look at John 8, taking into consideration the wider context of John's Gospel, I don't think it's fair to conclude that Jesus's criticism of the Pharisees is with the question itself. Taken at face value it's a fair enough question. When Jesus claims to be God it's fair for a person to ask "on what basis do you make this claim?" or "why should I believe you?". After all anyone can claim to be God and we would want to ask for some kind of evidence or "testimony" on which to evaluate that claim. We don't normally believe unsubstantiated assertions so why should it be any different with Jesus's claim to divinity? The problem with the Pharisees' asking of this question is not the question itself, but rather (1) their motive for asking and (2) their existing knowledge (perhaps we lawyers would say that it was constructive rather than actual knowledge). So first, the Pharisees weren't genuinely asking the question in a spirit of enquiry. They'd already made up their mind before they asked the question and merely accused Jesus. Their minds were closed. And secondly, there's the knowledge they had (or ought to have had -- that's what lawyer's mean by constructive knowledge; as long as you've got enough knowledge to "join the dots" so to speak you can't then plead ignorance) of the Scriptures. What's more, there's some delicious irony going on display here in the story. The Pharisees who were supposedly experts in the Scriptures were trying to argue from a single point of Scripture (the law of testimony) that Jesus's testimony about himself to be the light of the world was invalid when the whole Scriptures which the Pharisees claimed to know testified to this fact about Jesus.
The point of all this is that I would want to say to a seeker today that Jesus's answer here does not mean that God does not provide us with "testimony" in relation to himself. But Jesus's point in reply to the Pharisees also holds true.
In short I want to argue that ultimately God is (and cannot not be) a "witness in his own cause" but that in his love and mercy provides us with other corroborating testimonies. This requires some reflexion on our part on the nature of God and "testimony" as well as what God's "cause" here is in which the Pharisees were (or we are) accusing him of being a witness.
The point is that God's testimony is ultimately self-authenticating for God is truth. Any statement you or I make is not in and of itself the truth -- our statements are only "true" in so far as they correspond with "the truth". Compare this with God's statements which simply are true as a result of who God is. God cannot lie; his statements necessarily correspond with the truth. Unlike me and my statements, God does not need to show that his statements correspond with "the truth". In fact in an important sense he cannot because there is no concept of truth which exists independently from God, for God is truth. So God does not need to -- and cannot -- provide further testimony (i.e. testimony beyond -- or higher up the chain of reasoning than -- God himself) in relation to the truth of his statements, for the reason that there is no concept of truth apart from God. There is nothing beyond God (and his nature) to which God can point as further testimony in relation to himself. This is reflected in John 8:18 when Jesus says "I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me". So ultimately, yes, God is a witness in his own cause. He does not need to -- and in fact cannot -- point to any other "testimony" beyond himself and his nature. In this sense it is wrong for us to demand that God provide us with further testimony. God is the ultimate reality and there is nothing beyond God to which God (or Jesus in John 8) can point us to in order to believe him. The ultimate reason we are to believe God, love God, obey God, serve God etc is God himself. To the objection "But why should I obey God" there is no answer other than the nature of God himself. God cannot point to anything beyond (higher up the chain of reasoning than) himself as "testimony" for his "cause". God is (and cannot not be) a witness in his own cause.
But there is in fact, another kind of testimony. Even though God cannot point to anything beyond himself as testimony for his authority over us or the claims he makes (because there is nothing beyond God), in his mercy toward us God can and does point us to other "testimonies" between him and us. The Scriptures are a very obvious "testimony" to Jesus's divinity and these should have been enough for the Pharisees to believe in Jesus. Likewise for us today (even for people who unlike the Pharisees do not claim to know or believe them) they are a "testimony" to Jesus's divinity. And besides the Scriptures God has provided us with other lesser "testimonies". He has not left us in the dark and he does not expect us to exercise "blind faith".
But if we then take the Scriptures we could also ask the question "Why should I believe/ obey them?". That's a fair question which ultimately ends back at the person of God himself and here too there is nothing beyond God himself to which we can be pointed as "testimony". So ultimately we get back to the point that God is a "witness in his own cause". If we ask of God to tell us why we should obey the Scriptures he cannot point us to anything beyond himself and his nature. God's word is ultimately self-authenticating. We are to believe the Scriptures beacuse they are the Word of God (and because God's nature includes such things as his sovereignty and that he is truth). We cannot demand of God a testimony for the Scriptures' authoritative nature other than God himself. But even here God provides us with other "lower-level" testimonies of why we should believe, trust and act on his word. In his mercy God gives us many "testimonies".
So were the Pharisees right to ask the question they asked of Jesus? Yes and no. Are we right to ask this question? Yes and no. Jesus's answer is that ultimately there is no higher-level "testimony" of his divinity other than God himself and we are wrong to demand one. It is impossible for God to point us to anything beyond himself as a testimony for the simple reason that there is nothing "beyond" the Godhead to which God can point us as "testimony". So Jesus was of course right in John 8 to say that he needs no witness to his divinity as if his "claim" to divinity must fail unless he provided the Pharisees (or us!) with sufficient "testimony". Jesus simply is divine and there is nothing beyond the Godhead to which he can point as "testimony" of this. But (and this an important qualification) when it comes to inviting us to come and follow him, God in his great love and mercy gives us many "testimonies" between him and us -- "lower level" testimonies if you will -- which point us to him and which "corroborate" his claims.
0 comments:
Post a Comment