Is Jesus' Word True Or Not?
- by Aaron Purvis
- Jul 7
- 6 min read
Opponents of the Bible frequently claim it contains contradictions and inconsistencies. Upon closer examination, however, it is clear that the skeptic’s reasoning on the topic is shallow at best. A more robust treatment exonerates the good Book.
Consider John 5.31.
In the passage, Jesus is lecturing his Jewish adversaries about his divine nature and authority. As if in a court of law, he wants them to perceive the evidence that proves he is God incarnate, their savior, and that they must honor him “just as they honor the Father” (Jn. 5.23).
While making his case, he says:
“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true” (Jn. 5.31).
A few chapters later, however, Jesus says:
“Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true” (Jn. 8.14).
Is this a contradiction, as skeptics brashly claim? Is Jesus’ “witness” “true” or “not true”? Let’s think critically about this matter.
How To Identify A Contradiction?
Not every combination of differing statements necessarily contradicts. To say that the sky appears blue does not contradict the statement that the grass appears green. Both are consistent statements, despite their differences. Indeed, it is their dissimilarity (i.e., the fact that they are talking about two different things — viz., the sky vs. the grass) that clears them of the charge of contradiction.
For that matter, sometimes two statements that appear contradictory on a surface level can be quite harmonious.
So, how do we identify a contradiction? Look for the following five elements.
First, there must be a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation.
Second, this combination must be opposed to one another.
Third, the combination must be referring to the same thing.
Fourth, they must be referring to the same time.
Fifth, they must be spoken with the same sense in mind.
If each of these elements can be established, then a contradiction has occurred. However, if any one of them is missing, then no inconsistency can be alleged.
In the case of John 5.31 and John 8.14, (1) we have a combination of statements; (2) they are opposed to one another — “my witness is not true” vs “my witness is true”; (3) they refer to the same thing — Jesus’ witness of himself; (4) and they discuss the same time period.
However, these statements disqualify as a contradiction, for the fifth element is missing. Jesus is using the word “true” in two different senses. The context will make this plain. His remarks are perfectly harmonious. Consider.
John 8.14 — Factually True Testimony
First, in John 8.14, Jesus uses the word “true” in the ordinary sense. His testimony is correct, consistent with the facts. He is neither mistaken nor lying when he testifies about his divine nature and authority.
The immediate context makes this the evident meaning of “true” in that passage, for he explains:
“Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going.”
He knows what he is talking about. What he says about himself is accurate. He speaks the truth (cf. Jn. 1.14; Jn. 8.31-32; 14.6; 18.37). He is not false in his self-testimony.
John 5.31 — Verified Testimony
However, in John 5.31, Jesus uses the word “true” in a technical or legal sense.
Ancient societies followed a common principle of adjudication. Leon Morris expressed it like this:
“Witness to anyone must always be borne by someone else” (Morris, p. 287).
Someone who bore witness of himself by himself was not sufficiently valid as evidence to establish the case in court. Deuteronomy 19.15 touches upon this concept:
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.”
Hence, self-testimony or singular testimony — while important — is inconclusive. There must be corroborative evidence before a matter can be accepted as true.
When Jesus said his self-testimony was “not true,” then, he didn’t mean it was false. That would put him in obvious contradiction with himself and malign his own character.
Rather, even though his self-testimony “is true” (John 8.14 — i.e., factually correct), in John 5.31 he means it was not verified — insufficient by itself to establish truth. More testimony is needed.
With that in mind, let’s put this remark into its broader context to perceive the bigger picture.
Jesus is saying this: If he were the only one testifying to his divine nature and authority, then his mere assertion would not be enough to validate the claim. His “witness” of himself alone is inadequate.
Fortunately, he wasn’t the only one to provide evidence of his claims. Plenty of others bore witness of him too.
“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of me…”
He then proceeds to list these sources of corroborative evidence.
John’s Testimony — John 5.32-36a
First, Jesus mentions the prophet John’s testimony (Jn. 5.32-36a), whom even the Jews accepted “for a time.”
Still, there were even “greater witnesses than John’s” (Jn. 5.36a).
Jesus’ Own Works — John 5.36b
Next, the works he performed — whether his miraculous signs (cf. Jn. 3.2; 2.11; 10.38; 20.30-31) or his flawless deeds and teaching (cf. Jn. 7.46; 3.31-35; 7.15-16) — were performed to prove his divine nature and his oneness with the heavenly Father.
The Heavenly Father — John 5.37-47
The heavenly Father also gave testimony about Jesus.
This is the very point he reiterates in John 8.16-18:
“And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
“True,” in this context, means certified by the corroboration of another — viz., the Father. Hence, if Jesus were alone, then his testimony would not be “true” (verified), even though it was “true” (correct). But since other credible witnesses have corroborated his factually "true" testimony, then his testimony is also credibly “true” (verified).
The Father delivered verbal testimony in multiple ways.
First, he testified through oral pronouncement. He made such pronouncements from the skies above on several occasions during Jesus’ ministry (cf. Mt. 3.17; 17.5; Jn. 12.28). But Jesus told the Jews that they had never “heard his voice” (Jn. 5.37). Their ears were too dull.
Second, the Father testified of Jesus through his written word — the Scriptures (Jn. 5.37-47).
The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies that detail the life of Jesus — where, when, how, and why he would be born; how he would live, teach, perform miracles, and heal illness supernaturally; how he would be betrayed, tormented, killed on a cross, resurrected from the grave, ascend to Heaven, where he would establish his kingdom and rule the world, after which he would raise the dead and judge the world in righteousness.
The Scriptures serve as powerful proof that Jesus is who he claimed to be — the divine Son of God and savior of the world.
Conclusion
Jesus always spoke the truth (Jn. 8.14). Never did he utter a single false word. But he also recognized that his claims about himself — however factually true — were “not true” in a corroborative sense — not validated (Jn. 5.31). More witnesses would be needed to substantiate his claims. So he gave the Jews more evidence to prove his claims once and for all.
(1) The prophet John testified that Jesus is the Son of God.
(2) The works Jesus performed also support his claims.
(3) The Father himself — both orally and through the Scriptures — also provides unassailable testimony in this regard.
If Jesus were alone in making these claims about himself, then his factually "true" testimony would be "not true" credibly (Jn. 5.31). But these additional pieces of testimony were more than enough to satisfy the requirement of having two or three witnesses to validate his claims. Hence, his claims are both factually “true” (Jn. 8.14) and credibly “true” (Jn. 8.16) — i.e., validated by multiple sources of credible evidence. He was “not alone” in making such grandiose assertions about himself.
Bias sometimes blinds us from reasoning rationally. The skeptic salivates when he thinks he can find Jesus slipping up in his words. But when examined more robustly — and fairly — the skeptic’s charges are found wanting.
The only question is this: Are we willing to confess that he is the Son of God? Will we share this testimony with our neighbors and friends? There is more than enough evidence to prove it.
