When Religious Leaders Don't Believe(John 7:45–52)

Series: “John: Life in Christ’s Name”Text: John 7:45–52

By: Shaun Marksbury Date: July 30, 2023

Venue: Living Water Baptist ChurchOccasion: AM Service

Introduction

We read news stories about pastors who are not who they claim to be. For instance, just a few days ago, the news broke about a retired pastor who confessed to murdering an 8-year-old girl. As unimaginable as that scenario is, the crime in question also took place fifty years ago. This means he’d been standing in front of people all that time, apparently lacking any fear of God. We hope for the full extent of the law to fall upon him, and I shudder to imagine what God has in store for him in the hereafter!

He’d claim to be a believer, I’m sure, but as James would say of him, “this man’s religion is worthless” (James 1:26). Surprisingly, other religious leaders are open about that fact. For instance, the news broke several years ago about a supposed pastor who is an open atheist. It’s a she (which is an issue all its own), and she presides over what identifies as a Christian congregation which is part of the United Church of Canada.

Can an atheist be a pastor, the story asks, and then it notes:

For the 100-strong congregation at West Hill, the answer is an unabashed yes. Stripped of God and the Bible, services here are light on religious doctrine and instead emphasise moral teachings. The service begins with a nod to the First Nations land on which the church stands and goes on to mention human rights in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Palestine. Global concern is coupled with community-building, with members invited to share significant moments of the past week.

That all seems very nice, but note how that begins: “Stripped of God and the Bible.” This story is shocking for seemingly different reasons, but there is an underlying unity in the two stories. Neither person honors God. The first “pastor” hypocritically claimed to believe while the second was, at least, honest about her disbelief, but they are both religious leaders who don’t believe.

We meet such people everywhere, including in this text. Here, we see the leaders gathered together in judgement over Jesus as their officers return to them empty-handed. The rulers here would be those of the priestly class, the Sadducees and the high priests. Gathered with these rulers would be the Pharisees, the religious elite of the day. Together, they comprise the conspiracy to condemn Jesus without a trial, contrary to their professed faith.

This account gives us insight into how unbelieving religious leaders operate as they betray our Lord. We’ll see that those who reject Christ reject truth (vv. 45–47), embrace ego (vv. 48–49), reject reason (vv. 50–52). Let’s consider the first of these:

Those who reject Christ reject truth (vv. 45–47)

The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?” The officers answered, “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.” The Pharisees then answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you?

These officers come from v. 32. The term “officers” here can attendants, and they were trained, likely scribes. They were temple servants, serving in an official capacity. The authority they wielded was ministerial, though it obviously crossed into the penal realm.

As an aside, and as we’ve noted before, civil authorities must consider whether their legislation and execution of the law is pleasing to God. Romans 13 describes all those in authority as “God’s servants” and “ministers.” Even today, the various offices in government are sometimes called “ministries.” We would do well to remember that all authority is under God and for service to the community. In this case, these officers use their knowledge of Moses to evaluate Jesus’s words for themselves before arresting Him.

In doing this, they show more concern than the rulers. Of course, servants, civil or religious, must answer if they decide to violate an order. So, in v. 45, we read that they “came to the chief priests and Pharisees,” who ask, “Why did you not bring Him?” This kind of questioning, in theory, provides a balance to the law, though the religious leaders here do not honor God with what they hear next.

The officers reply, “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.” The Legacy Standard Bible has a cleaner translation: “Never has a man spoken like this!” Jesus was a good teacher, of course — at the beginning of His ministry, we read, “He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all” (Luke 4:11). There’s more here than His rhetorical or oratory ability, though. Remember how the people responded to the Sermon on the Mount: “When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28–29). Mark 1:27 shows how far that authority went: “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” He spoke with a unique authority.

This terrified the rulers. As Mark 11:18 says, “The chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.” This is ultimately why they sent these officers to arrest Jesus.

To be clear, the officers wouldn’t have avoided arresting Jesus just because He taught well and sounded confident. Self-assurance isn’t proof of true teaching. Rather, because these men were trained as Levites and understood the truth, they saw that He wasn’t the revolutionary and deceiver the rulers tried to paint Him to be. His teachings were too self-evident for these men to carry out this arrest warrant.

So, the Pharisees answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you?” (v. 47). The translation here is tricky, as it isn’t certain whether they were expecting a negative or a positive response. So, it’s also possible to render it as the Legacy Standard Bible has, “Have you also been led astray?” Either way, they use the emphatic pronoun, almost as if they were saying, “Not you, too?”

We see in this that the rulers are unwilling to seriously consider whether they have misread the situation. These temple officials come back almost with a request to reexamine the teaching of Jesus, but the leaders are ready with condemnation for everyone around them. They respond with a rebuke, because they are already committed to rejecting the truth.

This means that they have also embraced their personal pride, as we see next.

Those who reject Christ embrace ego (vv. 48–49)

“No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.”

The leaders ask a rhetorical question here and expect a negative response. They clearly mean to shame the officers with it. As one commentary notes, it’s almost as if we’re reading, “ ‘He has none on his side,’ they say, ‘but low and ignorant men; the rulers, and every person of distinction, are opposed to him.’ ” They are putting the officers down for even considering whether the claims of Jesus have reliability when supposedly no one of importance believes them.

Before we come down on these leaders, this isn’t a horrible thought (on the surface). After all, they are the religious leaders. They should have the knowledge and wherewithal to evaluate the claims of some religious upstart. God sometimes works through such authority to prevent His people from being led astray.

This is true in the church. Ephesians 4:11–13 says, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” Our Lord gave us leaders to help instruct and guide the church, which is why one of the qualifications for an elder/pastor is that he be someone who is “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). God does call religious leaders to a high task, which is why they are held to a stricter judgment (James 3:1).

Yet, these religious leaders are rejecting the truth, not bowing to the Word of God. So, their question doesn’t come from a place of careful or fair analysis (which Nicodemus is about to point out to them). As another commentary notes, their question “reveals their pride. They thought they were too educated (v. 15) to be taken in by a deceiver.” They exalt themselves in their superior knowledge in asking such a question.

Ironically, the word for they use of rulers here is the same John uses of Nicodemus in John 3:1. In fact, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and perhaps even others are secret believers. They simply feared being put out of the synagogue (cf. John 12:42), so they haven’t been vocal.

The arrogant are often ignorant, but that doesn’t stop them from engaging in elitism. We see it in how they talk about the crowd in v. 49. They say, with a sneer, about “this crowd,” declaring that it “does not know the Law.”

They looked down on the people. As one commentary notes, “The Pharisees had a scorn for the amhaaretz [ʿam-haʾareṣ; עַם־הָאָרֶץ] or ‘people of the earth’ (cf. our ‘clod-hoppers’) as is seen in rabbinic literature.” One rabbi said that, even if someone…

… ‘learned the Scripture and the Mishnah [a large corpus of Jewish tradition] but has not served as a student of the Learned he is one of the people of the land. If he has learned the Scripture but not the Mishnah he is an uneducated man; if he has learned neither the Scripture nor the Mishnah the Scripture says of him: “I sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of men and seed of cattle [i.e. he is indistinguishable from an animal]” ’ (cf. SB 2. 486).

There were multiple levels of disrespect! Of course, unbelievers will sometimes accuse believers of not knowing the Bible. But these are supposed to be the teachers of Israel, and they treat their own congregation with contempt. Any human religious leader who sees himself above the people is already in error, regardless of how solid his teachings seem.

In fact, they go a step further. They call the people “accursed.” Perhaps they had in mind Deuteronomy 27:26, which says, “Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.” Yet, they speak as though all the people are damned to hell (except for themselves, the enlightened teachers!). These supposed shepherds curse their own flock!

We see that they are full of self-importance throughout these verses. As the Reformation Study Bible notes, “The strong prejudice of the chief priests and Pharisees is apparent in their condemnation of the temple guards (vv. 47, 48), of the crowd (v. 49), and even of Nicodemus, one of their number (v. 52).” They are willing to condemn everyone except themselves. This is a sure sign that ego is driving their opinions, not truth or reason, as we see next.

Those who reject Christ reject reason (vv. 50–52)

Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) *said to them, “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” They answered him, “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”

Their condemnations were apparently too much for Nicodemus. Again, he had already been examining the Lord’s claims. He was with the officers in spirit — “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.” He may have even already been a believer at this point, which may be why John points out the irony that Nicodemus was “being one of them.” As an aside, this is evidence for Christianity, that there were followers among Christ’s most ardent opponents.

However, Nicodemus realizes that he holds a tenuous position. Perhaps he sees the dogged hatred of his peers, and he knows their willingness to eject people from the synagogues. Rather than revealing himself at this moment, he chooses to highlight a procedural point.

So, in v. 51, he says, “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” This isn’t a direct quotation of any particular text, but more of a proverbial summation of the Law. The Law condemned the use of a single witness or a false report. For instance, it says, “You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness” (Exod. 23:1). It also says, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:15–16). Furthermore, it says, “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness” (Deut. 17:6). Later, it says, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deut. 19:15). So, the Law of Moses is consistent in its pursuit of a fair and equitable hearing.

Of course, Nicodemus might be summing up more than the first five books of Moses. For instance, in the wisdom literature, Scripture espouses the wisdom of hearing both sides to an issue (Prov. 18:13). Moreover, being a Pharisee, he would have also been thinking about rabbinical tradition. As one study notes, “Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedath says in the Midrash on Exodus Rabbah 21:3, ‘Unless a mortal hears the pleas that a man can put forward, he is not able to give judgment.’ ” We are each limited by our mortality to few experiences and insights, so it’s impossible to give a fair and right judgment before we hear both sides.

Nicodemus speaks with wisdom here. It is neither right nor logical for the leaders to condemn Jesus without giving Him a hearing. They cannot know the truth of His deeds until they hear Jesus’s words for themselves. Perhaps Nicodemus is holding onto hope that they will find Jesus’s words as compelling as he and the officers did, or perhaps not, but simple reason would dictate that they give Jesus a fair hearing.

Yet, we see that they even reject reason. They ask him, “You are not also from Galilee, are you?” They know the answer to that is a “no,” but they ask it anyway, perhaps sarcastically. Nicodemus didn’t say anything in Jesus’s defense other than a man deserves to defend himself in court; even this reasonable comment is too much for the Pharisees, and they respond with scorn!

Sometimes, when we share the gospel, unbelievers desire to debate, and reasonable discussion can produce fruit. Some even thank you for talking to them, even if they aren’t ready to come to faith. However, there are some who are so hostile to Jesus Christ that they scoff at even simple reason. We have prayerfully evaluate such moments and consider whether we wasting our time, casting pearls before swine, as it were (cf. Matt. 7:6; 10:14).

Even when someone casts off reason, though, there will be some justification in mind. In this case, the Pharisees tell Nicodemus, “Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.” Now, if we take that statement at face value, they are woefully wrong for religious leaders. As one study succinctly notes, “Actually, the prophets Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, and perhaps Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee or close to it.” It’s difficult to imagine that they were making such a glaring mistake, but again, they were casting off reason and truth, causing them to become untethered to reality.

It is possible, though, that they meant this in a more metaphorical sense. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they were speaking of the Christ in terms of His being a prophet. If so, then they indeed had a scriptural polemic or defense against Jesus being the Christ (albeit a weak one). Even though what they say is true, it assumes that Jesus wasn’t born somewhere else, like in Bethlehem. The Bible never says a prophet cannot be in Galilee, let alone the Christ!

So, either way, we see that the Pharisees are just not being reasonable. This is what we see with false pastors and teachers today. They move the goal post to try to justify some false teaching, even doing so in the name of Christ. For instance, recently, a pastor tried to argue that God allows homosexuality because it’s present in the animal kingdom. When someone pointed out that animals also eat their own feces, this pastor replied that we shouldn’t be comparing human beings to animals. That is a false teacher who serves as an example of how rejecting truth leads to the loss of ability in reason.

Conclusion

We will see Nicodemus again after the crucifixion in John 19:39. It’s interesting that, the man who once came to Jesus by night during the height of our Lord’s popularity, steps forward into the light at the lowest point of our Lord. He comes to a true faith.

We cannot always know where a person is spiritually, but as Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16). If they are rejecting the truth of Christ and reason, and yet, seem to be about promoting themselves and putting everyone else down around them, then we have enough fruit to examine the tree. They might even claim to be Christian, but we can see that the fruit is coming from somewhere else.

Perhaps you have known some pastors and teachers in the past who have since proven themselves to be false. If you struggle with that, understand that Jesus Christ is still true. Don’t place your hope in me or any other person; place your hope and trust in Christ alone. Only He is perfect and sinless, the only righteous Savior, and He will deliver every battle-weary soul.