Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
The rulers challenged the temple officers sent to arrest Jesus when they returned without Him, deeply moved and captivated by His compassion, miracles and powerful words, asking in scorn and hostility whether any ruler had believed on Him to humble Him before the people and turn attention to their own authority. The question appealed to the leaders' disbelief as proof He should not be followed, while dismissing the common people who received Him as ignorant of the law and cursed. That claim was untrue, for many magistrates, priests and rulers did in fact believe, including Nicodemus the Pharisee who had searched the Scriptures and openly demanded a fair hearing for Him, but fear of reproach kept them from confessing Him. The leaders rejected Him not for lack of evidence but from envy, prejudice and unwillingness to do God's will, stifling the conviction awakened by His wisdom and divine power. Their unbelief does not count against the truth, for number, rank and learning do not decide what is true, and truth is settled by what God has said, so each must search Scripture for himself rather than rely on leaders or follow the crowd.
Context and Meaning
The question belongs to the confrontation at the feast in Jerusalem, where the rulers were watching Jesus, seeking to silence Him and to humble Him before the people, turning a challenge about His authority away from His teaching and toward their own authority.
It was put in a ridiculing, scornful and hostile manner by the chief priests, rulers and Pharisees to the temple officers sent to arrest Jesus when they returned without Him. Those officers had been deeply moved, amazed and captivated by Him, having seen His sympathy and compassion at human woe, His tender encouragement in love to the weak and afflicted, His authoritative rebuke of Satan's power bidding His captives go free, His miracles, and His holy words of wisdom, love and knowledge, so that they reported that never man spake like this man and could not lay hands on Him. When asked why they had not brought Him, they told of His miracles and words, and were accused of being deceived also, with some ashamed at returning empty-handed.
The question appealed to the supposed fact that none of the leaders had believed in Him, using the leaders' unbelief as an argument to dismiss Him and to ridicule and dismiss the impressed officers, treating that disbelief as proof He should not be followed. That was not a fair assessment of Him, did not answer the evidence of His words and works, and does not establish that He was false or unworthy of belief, but revealed prejudice, envy, malice, hostility, refusal to receive the light, and an effort to turn people away from Him. It was paired with contempt for the common people who responded to Him, condemning and dismissing them as ignorant of the law and under a curse.
The claim that no ruler believed was undercut, for many magistrates, elders, priests and rulers did in fact believe in Him. Fear of public reproach kept them from acknowledging it, for Satan kept them back and they feared the people and the reproach of the people more than they feared God. This included Nicodemus, a Pharisee taught by Jesus who had accepted Him after searching the Scriptures and openly defended Him before the council by demanding on reasonable grounds that the law hear a man before judging him, though the council dismissed his plea.
Why Leaders Rejected Him
The leaders had themselves felt reverence and conviction as they heard the wisdom and divine power in His words, but they stifled and suppressed that conviction and refused to receive the light He offered rather than follow the Spirit toward greater light. Their refusal did not come from lack of evidence, for they felt the power and wisdom of what He said and saw clear evidence of His Messiahship. Yet they would not yield to it and become His disciples.
Their unbelief grew out of envy, malice, hostility and prejudice rather than any fair assessment of Him. It came from unwillingness to seek and do God's will, from seeking excuses to evade truth rather than receive it, so that they did not understand His teaching. Behind that resistance, Satan and his angels had blinded their eyes and darkened their understanding and stirred the chief men and rulers to take His life.
With deep irony, He was the maker and giver of the law who had proclaimed it at Sinai, yet Israel's leaders did not recognize or acknowledge Him. They resisted His humble, self-denying life because they wanted the honor the world gives. Their unbelief then made many who had seen His power ashamed of Him and unwilling to suffer with Him. The people's reverence for their leaders and trust in their judgment helped lead the nation to reject its Redeemer.
Testing Truth by Leaders
The question exposes a false test of truth, for the majority and the respected leaders may reject truth, and their refusal and unbelief counts nothing against it nor shows that it lacks truth. Neither number nor rank nor learning nor education among its believers establishes whether a claim is true. The leaders' unbelief did not prove Jesus false, even though His teachings carried convincing evidence and they themselves had felt reverence and conviction from them before suppressing it. The same appeal to apparent consensus and human status that was used against Christ was repeated against His apostles.
Truth is settled by what God has said and is tested by Scripture, not by apparent consensus or human status. People must therefore search Scripture for themselves rather than rely on their leaders, and to reject teaching without careful examination brings guilt. Revered teachers must not be allowed to replace personal examination of Scripture, for religious authority and reputation do not guarantee acceptance of truth. The leading priests and rulers did not reject Jesus for lack of evidence, for they felt the power and wisdom of His words yet turned from the evidence of His Messiahship through prejudice and unwillingness to become His disciples, and their influence then helped lead the nation to reject its Redeemer.
The verse lays bare why unpopular truth is refused, because great and learned and wise and good men do not accept it. Men cling to the popular current, unwilling to be in the minority and to yield up customs and traditions. It is wrong to make that inquiry about rulers and Pharisees, and wrong to risk salvation by going with the crowd and faring as the crowd fares.
That same appeal is still used to judge a message by whether learned people and religious leaders and large numbers accept it or join it. Judging the message by who joins the church obstructs mission and discourages personal examination of the evidence, including reaching people of ability and talent who, if converted, could become channels of light. In this way reliance on leaders led many to reject the Advent warning, though it was a warning that could have restored the churches. That warning was preached largely by laypeople and opposed by ministers, yet reliance on the ministers' opinions kept people from examining the prophetic evidence for themselves. The same spirit that moved the Jews to ask this question against Christ now moves professed Christians who reject the law of God and the seventh-day Sabbath against those who keep God's commandments, and the same opposition to Christ can be directed against those who accept truth and keep His commandments. Those who preach unpopular truth will receive no more favor from great men than Christ received from the Jews.
The setting also stands as a basis for earnest warning that perverted ideas can imperil God's cause and a person's influence. God works with those who follow Him and heed His counsel.
The rulers challenged the temple officers sent to arrest Jesus when they returned without Him, deeply moved and captivated by His compassion, miracles and powerful words, asking in scorn and hostility whether any ruler had believed on Him to humble Him before the people and turn attention to their own authority.
The question appealed to the leaders' disbelief as proof He should not be followed, while dismissing the common people who received Him as ignorant of the law and cursed.
That claim was untrue, for many magistrates, priests and rulers did in fact believe, including Nicodemus the Pharisee who had searched the Scriptures and openly demanded a fair hearing for Him, but fear of reproach kept them from confessing Him.
The leaders rejected Him not for lack of evidence but from envy, prejudice and unwillingness to do God's will, stifling the conviction awakened by His wisdom and divine power.
Their unbelief does not count against the truth, for number, rank and learning do not decide what is true, and truth is settled by what God has said, so each must search Scripture for himself rather than rely on leaders or follow the crowd.
Context and Meaning
The question belongs to the confrontation at the feast in Jerusalem, where the rulers were watching Jesus, seeking to silence Him and to humble Him before the people, turning a challenge about His authority away from His teaching and toward their own authority.
It was put in a ridiculing, scornful and hostile manner by the chief priests, rulers and Pharisees to the temple officers sent to arrest Jesus when they returned without Him. Those officers had been deeply moved, amazed and captivated by Him, having seen His sympathy and compassion at human woe, His tender encouragement in love to the weak and afflicted, His authoritative rebuke of Satan's power bidding His captives go free, His miracles, and His holy words of wisdom, love and knowledge, so that they reported that never man spake like this man and could not lay hands on Him. When asked why they had not brought Him, they told of His miracles and words, and were accused of being deceived also, with some ashamed at returning empty-handed.
The question appealed to the supposed fact that none of the leaders had believed in Him, using the leaders' unbelief as an argument to dismiss Him and to ridicule and dismiss the impressed officers, treating that disbelief as proof He should not be followed. That was not a fair assessment of Him, did not answer the evidence of His words and works, and does not establish that He was false or unworthy of belief, but revealed prejudice, envy, malice, hostility, refusal to receive the light, and an effort to turn people away from Him. It was paired with contempt for the common people who responded to Him, condemning and dismissing them as ignorant of the law and under a curse.
The claim that no ruler believed was undercut, for many magistrates, elders, priests and rulers did in fact believe in Him. Fear of public reproach kept them from acknowledging it, for Satan kept them back and they feared the people and the reproach of the people more than they feared God. This included Nicodemus, a Pharisee taught by Jesus who had accepted Him after searching the Scriptures and openly defended Him before the council by demanding on reasonable grounds that the law hear a man before judging him, though the council dismissed his plea.
Why Leaders Rejected Him
The leaders had themselves felt reverence and conviction as they heard the wisdom and divine power in His words, but they stifled and suppressed that conviction and refused to receive the light He offered rather than follow the Spirit toward greater light. Their refusal did not come from lack of evidence, for they felt the power and wisdom of what He said and saw clear evidence of His Messiahship. Yet they would not yield to it and become His disciples.
Their unbelief grew out of envy, malice, hostility and prejudice rather than any fair assessment of Him. It came from unwillingness to seek and do God's will, from seeking excuses to evade truth rather than receive it, so that they did not understand His teaching. Behind that resistance, Satan and his angels had blinded their eyes and darkened their understanding and stirred the chief men and rulers to take His life.
With deep irony, He was the maker and giver of the law who had proclaimed it at Sinai, yet Israel's leaders did not recognize or acknowledge Him. They resisted His humble, self-denying life because they wanted the honor the world gives. Their unbelief then made many who had seen His power ashamed of Him and unwilling to suffer with Him. The people's reverence for their leaders and trust in their judgment helped lead the nation to reject its Redeemer.
Testing Truth by Leaders
The question exposes a false test of truth, for the majority and the respected leaders may reject truth, and their refusal and unbelief counts nothing against it nor shows that it lacks truth. Neither number nor rank nor learning nor education among its believers establishes whether a claim is true. The leaders' unbelief did not prove Jesus false, even though His teachings carried convincing evidence and they themselves had felt reverence and conviction from them before suppressing it. The same appeal to apparent consensus and human status that was used against Christ was repeated against His apostles.
Truth is settled by what God has said and is tested by Scripture, not by apparent consensus or human status. People must therefore search Scripture for themselves rather than rely on their leaders, and to reject teaching without careful examination brings guilt. Revered teachers must not be allowed to replace personal examination of Scripture, for religious authority and reputation do not guarantee acceptance of truth. The leading priests and rulers did not reject Jesus for lack of evidence, for they felt the power and wisdom of His words yet turned from the evidence of His Messiahship through prejudice and unwillingness to become His disciples, and their influence then helped lead the nation to reject its Redeemer.
The verse lays bare why unpopular truth is refused, because great and learned and wise and good men do not accept it. Men cling to the popular current, unwilling to be in the minority and to yield up customs and traditions. It is wrong to make that inquiry about rulers and Pharisees, and wrong to risk salvation by going with the crowd and faring as the crowd fares.
That same appeal is still used to judge a message by whether learned people and religious leaders and large numbers accept it or join it. Judging the message by who joins the church obstructs mission and discourages personal examination of the evidence, including reaching people of ability and talent who, if converted, could become channels of light. In this way reliance on leaders led many to reject the Advent warning, though it was a warning that could have restored the churches. That warning was preached largely by laypeople and opposed by ministers, yet reliance on the ministers' opinions kept people from examining the prophetic evidence for themselves. The same spirit that moved the Jews to ask this question against Christ now moves professed Christians who reject the law of God and the seventh-day Sabbath against those who keep God's commandments, and the same opposition to Christ can be directed against those who accept truth and keep His commandments. Those who preach unpopular truth will receive no more favor from great men than Christ received from the Jews.
The setting also stands as a basis for earnest warning that perverted ideas can imperil God's cause and a person's influence. God works with those who follow Him and heed His counsel.