And when he was in Jerusalem, at the passover, at the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he wrought.
Jerusalem at Passover was the best setting anyone could ask for: the city, the feast, and the Messiah working signs before the crowds. Many did believe. Yet John at once tells us what the Lord thought of that belief. What faith does Jesus trust?
Nothing about the setting could have been better. That is what makes the outcome so sobering.
It was in the city of the solemn feasts. It was a feast of Jehovah — in fact the most basic of the sacred feasts. And the Messiah was there, the object of faith, working in power and showing His glory in fitting signs. As a result, many believed on His name. Here was man doing and feeling his best under the best possible circumstances. Yet Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them. This was from no lack of love or pity in Him; for who ever did or could love as He?
Being sure about Jesus and belonging to Him are not the same thing.
So this conviction was a natural work. It was sincere enough, but only intellectual. Reasoning led them to a correct conclusion, yet it made no real change in the men themselves. They were convinced; they were not converted. They formed their judgment on evidence strong enough, but not on any glory they had seen in Him. So it is not said of these, as of those in the first chapter, that they "received Him." Christ had not gained entrance at the door of their hearts.
The next verse says Jesus did not "entrust" Himself to them. That is the same word John uses here for "believed."
The belief that springs from the sight of facts, which cannot be denied, is not the God-given faith that saves. It is merely intellectual conviction, and when tested it easily collapses, as we see in chapter 6, verse 66... Knowing these men, Jesus did not commit Himself to them. The word translated commit is the same as the word translated believed in the previous verse. This helps us to see that true faith is not a mere mental conviction. It is the handing over of oneself in simple trust to the One in whom one believes.
Weighing proof and bowing to God's word are two different acts.
Man's faith here is no better. It is not the soul submitting to God's testimony. It is the mind judging on evidence that satisfies itself. It reaches the conclusion that Jesus must be the Messiah. It does not submit to God's testimony or receive it. For here the mind sits on the throne of judgment. It decides for or against by weighing up the reasons on each side. That takes the place of the soul setting its seal that God is true... Signs arrest the eye; they exercise the mind; they may touch and win the affections. But nothing short of God's word judges the man.
Other people in this Gospel believed without seeing a single miracle.
There is a clear contrast here with the people mentioned in Chapter 1. They held to the Lord Jesus because of what they saw in Him Himself. The moral beauty of His own Person, His truth and His grace drew their hearts. Later, others at Samaria told the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world" (John 4:41-42). He had done no miracles there, but His word went deep into their hearts. They believed Him; they did not just believe certain things about Him.
The man in the next chapter starts from the same evidence. The difference lies in need.
Nicodemus comes to Jesus stating the same principle that had produced conviction in those Jesus had no confidence in. To him the miracles proved that Jesus was a teacher sent from God... The belief of the others did not produce any need in their souls. Conviction like this may go as far as you like. It never troubles the soul, and nothing whatever comes of it. It costs nothing — we often see this.
One writer draws the conclusion: "the man Jesus can trust Himself to can only be a man new born" (Numerical Bible Notes).
- Best case. The setting was ideal and the belief was sincere — this is man at his finest, and it still fell short.
- Mind reached. Reasoning from the signs led them to a right conclusion, but left the men unchanged. Convinced, not converted.
- Word repeated. They "believed" in Him; He did not "believe" Himself to them. The same word shows the gap between agreeing with Him and handing yourself over to Him.
- Person missing. Faith resting on what the eye sees is not the faith Christ Himself draws — as at Samaria, where He did no miracle.
- Need created. Conviction that costs nothing leaves the soul untroubled. Only new birth makes a man Jesus can trust Himself to.
But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all [men],
In Jerusalem the crowds saw His miracles, and many believed in His name. Then the account turns: the One they believed in holds Himself back — so what kind of faith counts for nothing with Him?
One word ties verse 23 and verse 24 together, and it shows what real faith is.
Knowing these men Jesus did not commit Himself to them. The word translated commit is the same word translated believed in the previous verse. This helps us see that true faith is not just mental agreement. It is handing yourself over in simple trust to the One you believe in.
These people were not lying. Their verdict on Jesus was accurate. What they lacked was any change in themselves.
Their conclusion about Him was a just one; but it was a conclusion drawn by what was in man. It was completely worthless. It left man in his own nature, still under the same motives, influences, and passions as before. It did not take him out of the rule of Satan, who had power over the flesh and the world. The conclusion was right; but it was only a conclusion: the man remained what he was — unchanged.
Faith that rests on what the eye has seen turns out to be fragile. Commentators note that it is the same crowd, in effect, who later walk away.
The verses which close the second chapter show that miracles may produce a "belief" of a certain kind. Many in Jerusalem at that time would have agreed with the saying "Seeing is believing." Yet belief that springs from seeing facts you cannot deny is not the God-given faith that saves. It is only intellectual conviction, and when it is tested it collapses, as we see in chapter 6, verse 66.
Their faith stopped at what they saw. It never brought them to Him for anything.
They saw His works, and were persuaded that He was a messenger from God. Their faith, however, led them no further. They did not ask to meet Him. They wanted no dealings with Him. They were content with a faith that rested on the witness of miracles, with no exercise of conscience about any need of salvation. They little thought that He could read them right through, and did.
The reason He held back is knowledge. He needed no one to tell Him about people, and writers see in that a claim about who He is.
To such Christ did not commit Himself. This again manifests the glory of Christ. He is One Who "knew all men"; "He knew what was in man", and He did not need, as others do, anyone to tell Him about man. He is the Omniscient God.
His holding back was not coldness. He loved them, and He still saw what they were.
Here was man doing and feeling his best, in the most favourable circumstances of all. Yet Jesus did not trust Himself to them. It was certainly not for any lack of love or pity in Him, for who ever loved as He did, or could? And the reason, calmly given, is overwhelming: "because He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to bear witness about man, for He Himself knew what was in man." What a sentence; from Whom; and on what grounds!
What chapter two says about man explains why chapter three must follow.
The truth at the end of John chapter two is this: Jesus says to man, I cannot trust you. Chapter three turns it right around, and there He says, If you are going to be blessed, you must trust Me. That is an immense difference. Why did He not trust man? Because there was nothing in man to suit God.
No amount of evidence closes that gap. Only new life does.
A faith based on miracles may leave people unsaved, unblessed and unconverted. They carry a dreadful responsibility, no doubt, but they are not converted at all... There must be a new life, a new nature; and miracles and signs cannot impart this. We must be born again — born of the word and Spirit of God.
- Trust — one word covers both verses. Verse 23 says they believed; verse 24 says He did not entrust. Real faith hands itself over; it does not just agree.
- Trust withheld — He held back, but not for lack of love. He loved as no one else could, and He still saw everything, because He knew all men and needed no one to tell Him about man.
- Trust misplaced — faith built on miracles can reach a right conclusion about Christ and still leave the person unchanged. Under testing it collapses.
- Trust unsought — they never asked Him for a single thing. Faith that stops at the eye never reaches the conscience.
- Trust reversed — chapter two says God cannot trust man. Chapter three says man must trust God. New birth, not evidence, bridges the two.
and that he had not need that any should testify of man, for himself knew what was in man.
In Jerusalem, at the Passover feast, crowds saw the miracles and believed in His name. Yet the Lord held Himself back from them, and this verse gives the reason.
We form our opinion of people from what they say and do. The Lord needed no such evidence.
He was the Omniscient One, and nothing can be hidden from Him. Until Jesus came into the world no man ever knew what was in man. But when He was here, there was a Man in the world who did not need to wait until people revealed themselves by their actions. He knew what was in man. And the solemn part of it is that He who knew what was in man would not trust him.
The crowd believed because of what they saw. Was His judgment of them merely a sharp reading of character?
They did not really know the Lord, but He knew them, and knowing their motives, He did not trust them. This is certainly not merely human discernment. It is His omniscience as God, the Creator, who knows all men. He needed no witness from others about any particular man: He knew what was in man. This is true of none but God. The Gospel of John has many such expressions, to encourage our complete confidence in His divine knowledge.
There is a knowledge of evil that comes from having taken part in it. That is not the kind meant here.
Jesus did not know man, or the springs and energies of corrupt nature, through any fellowship with them, for He had no such fellowship. The prince of this world had nothing in Him. He was the holy one — "holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners." Yet, as this passage tells us, He knew what was in man. He knew it all. He knew it was deceitful above all things. He searched the hearts and tested the inner motives of the children of men.
Notice the tone of the verdict. There is no shouting — only a quiet statement of fact, and that is what makes it so heavy.
The dreadful truth comes out: the Lord did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men. How withering the words! He had no need that anyone should testify about man, for He knew what was in man. It is not denunciation, but the most solemn sentence, delivered in the calmest manner. It was no longer an open question whether God could trust man; He could not. The real question is whether man would trust God. Sadly, he would not.
His reserve was not coldness:
Certainly it was not from any lack of love or pity in Him, for who ever did or could love as He did?
The word "man" here covers the whole race. The next chapter gives a living example.
The simple meaning is that Jesus knew all, and had no need of testimony about man, for He Himself knew what was in man. It is the great, general truth, which the special case of Nicodemus so aptly illustrates. Man at his best was unfit for the kingdom of God, and therefore needed to be born afresh, or from the very beginning.
Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler among the Jews — as good a specimen of religious humanity as could be produced. That is precisely the point of putting him here:
The Spirit of God, so to speak, says: I will bring before you the very finest piece of humanity the world can produce, a man who would be supposed to have a claim to anything and everything, on the ground of his moral character and religious activity.
Such knowledge could have ended in exposure. One writer asks what His purpose in coming was.
Why then was He in the world? He did not come simply to expose man and leave him uncovered. No — He came to bring God to man, to set the grace and love of God before the eyes of men. He did this in every word that came from His lips, and in every work and miracle He did.
His knowledge does not stop with man.
He not only knows what is in man, He knows all that is in the heart of God. He knows the extent of our need, and He knows the greatness of God's grace to meet that need.
For a heart that trusts Him, full exposure is no threat:
No fair appearance, no mere profession, no pious exterior deceives Him. "All are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." Nor would the upright heart that truly knows His love want it to be otherwise. It brings great comfort and rest to such a heart that He knows and discerns everything perfectly.
- Knew. He needed no report about anyone; He did not wait for people to reveal themselves by their actions.
- Knew as God. This is not sharp human insight. It is omniscience, true of none but God, and it gives us complete confidence in Him.
- Knew without sharing. He read the corrupt heart while having no fellowship with it. He was holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners.
- Knew, and so withheld. Not a denunciation but the calmest of sentences. God could not trust man. The real question is whether man will trust God.
- Knew, and so offered new birth. Nicodemus is the case in point. Man at his best was unfit for the kingdom, so he must be born from the very beginning.