Jesus did not trust in men

“Many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he did; but Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no-one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man” (John ch2 vv23-25).

The key to understanding these verses is to appreciate that “believe in” and “trust to” are translating exactly the same word (apart from the fact that the first one in in the plural).

In other words, there is a carefully balanced asymmetry at the heart of this passage;
Men trusted Jesus (they learned about him).
Jesus did not trust men (because he did not need to learn about them).

I find this passage fascinating and thought-provoking, especially that mysterious “because”, but I’ve never seen any discussion of the main problem..

Clearly the trust is not mutual, not symmetrical. And that’s because the knowledge is not mutual, so let’s look at the question of knowledge first.

The Biblical God knows men perfectly, in detail. Apart from the fact that God knows everything, we are assured by Jesus that “even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew ch10 v30).

The human mind cannot easily take in the point that God can grasp the whole and the details at the same time, because the human mind itself CANNOT grasp the whole and the details at the same time. We can focus on the forest or an individual tree, not both. So we endow God’s mind with the limitations of the human mind. If we do conceive the idea of a Supreme Being, we tend to make him remote, and give him assistants to look after the details. Like the “intercessors” who fill the Catholic world, bringing our needs to the attention of a God who is too detached to see them for himself.

But the Biblical God does not need intercessors or lesser deities. He really does know us in person.

On the other hand, men cannot know God in the same direct sense. That is partly because our minds are simply not big enough to take in the wholeness of God. It would be like trying to fill a pint pot with a gallon of water. God is defined, theologically, as “incomprehensible”. The word “comprehend” means “enclose, include, or embrace”. We cannot enclose the fullness of God in our minds, so we cannot comprehend him.

(In the first chapter of John, incidentally, the darkness cannot “swallow up” the light. Any translator who writes “The light shone in the darkness and the darkness did not understand it” is not thinking things through. Shame on you, NIV.)

Faith is our substitute for knowledge. Since we cannot know God fully, we must trust in him instead. This becomes more possible because of Jesus; “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew ch11 v27). Indeed, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John ch14 v9).

That explains what is said in the opening words of the quotation. Men could not know Jesus in the direct sense. They needed to learn about Jesus from the signs that he did, bearing witness to him, and having learned about him they trusted in his name.

The statement about Jesus can be understood in a positive sense, and also in a more negative sense.

In a positive sense, as the exact reverse of what John said about men.
Jesus DOES know men and what is in their hearts, just as his Father knows men.
Therefore he hoes NOT need anyone or anything to bear witness of them.
Therefore he does not need to “trust in men” as a substitute for knowledge.
He knows them instead of merely “trusting”.

A more negative sense is possible.
Jesus did not trust in men because he knew them TOO darn well.
Men learned enough about Jesus to find him trustable.
Jesus KNEW men, and was therefore well aware that men are not trustable. He was surrounded by enemies and unreliable friends, people who would stone him or betray him or run away at the last minute.

I’m still not sure whether John meant the positive or the negative sense. Perhaps we get the most out of this passage if we assume that he meant both.

Jesus relates to men here as God relates to men, one of many indicators that “God was in Christ”.

Respectfully, using human logic on a Deity seems carrying anthromorphology to the extreme.

Why would he; they killed him...for political reasons...he was never supposed to be nailed to a cross.

a reply to: olaru12
Not anthropomorphic. The other way round. The Biblical God is a communicating God, and therefore necessarily one with a self-conscious mind. Men are said to have been made "in the image of God", meaning that our self-conscious minds and conscious wills are lower-level versions of his own.

a reply to: alexandrae
Exactly. The point being that he knew they would, in advance.

Greetings,

All this speculation over a false god. If you really want to know what the REAL Prophet Immanuel (aka Jesus) said and did , go to the Billie Meier website.

a reply to: GeorgeH
I'm not interested in taking my ideas from websites.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I’m still not sure whether John meant the positive or the negative sense. Perhaps we get the most out of this passage if we assume that he meant both.

That's a good way to look at it.
Another scripture that I find interesting is John 20:27-28.
Thomas hadn't seen the resurrected Jesus yet (as the others had), so he doubted.

“Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

One possible interpretation (for me, anyway) was that Jesus expects doubters, so He interacted with Thomas one-on-one.
Could that scripture be illustrating that Jesus deals with people on a personal basis? Once Thomas saw Jesus's wounds, he was convinced. Jesus spoke to Thomas personally, and proved who He was.

Great thread, btw!

a reply to: ColeYounger
Thank you, your reading of the Thomas passage looks good to me.

Men are inconstant. We cannot be trusted. As you say, God knows us, every detail of us, and He also knows that even the most constant of us cannot be perfect and perfectly constant even though we try. Our imperfection is about the only thing in man that can be trusted, and God and through God, Christ, knows this about us and knows us.

So He cannot trust us even as He knows us.

On the converse, we learn that God is constant, and Jesus as the son and part of the Father, is also constant. We can trust that and trust Him once we come to know Him.

originally posted by: alexandrae
Why would he; they killed him...for political reasons...he was never supposed to be nailed to a cross.

He is the LAMB of GOD slain from the foundation of the world, he took our place on the cross, we are the sinners and he was pure and truly without sin so paid for our sin's with his blood (but only for the truly repentant).



And if you want evidence here is more.

In ancient times the priests in the temple would take a pure white lamb and sacrifice it then sprinkle it's blood upon the alter.

In the temple at that time was the Ark of the Covenant a golden chest with a ceremonial throne called the MERCY SEAT as a lid.

Not everyone believes but I for one do.

About 500 years before the Crucifixion the prophet Jeremiah moved the Ark and the sacred (Dedicated to God) items from the temple into a place of hiding and no the Knights Templar never found it as it is NOT for them or the Masons or any other cult it is still in God's keeping to this day and will be revealed in the final times and maybe already has been.




The ark is the highest early alter, kept apart in a place called the Holy of Holy's only the high priest was allowed to see it and tend it.

The Authority's in Israel tried to hide it, they buried the entrance to the chamber after trying to obtain it but after the Rabbi's they had sent in all died from a brain haemorrhage just a few feet into the chamber they had to ask Mr Wyatt to recover the body's, he was faultless in God's sight and a man of faith so God allowed and used him to show the world the Ark and the blood of Christ upon it proving he died for us.

The Turin Shroud is also Genuine and the image was left on the grave cloth by the resurrection of Christ on the third day.

Though some do not believe this and even the Church treats this text with a hands off approach due to it's description of how Christ had golden hair and blue eye's it is actually quite true to ancient texts such as the book of Enoch which describe also Noah in like manner and how Enoch almost rejected Noah his son because of his appearance.


And for reference the book of Enoch a book of the old testament which is NOT in the bible but is definitely an ancient text.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Using youtube to spread the Holy word seems totally appropriate for American culture and especially ATS.

God help us!!

At least I have something in common with Jesus !

a reply to: DISRAELI

we tend to make him remote, and give him assistants to look after the details. Like the “intercessors” who fill the Catholic world, bringing our needs to the attention of a God who is too detached to see them for himself.

But then there is Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

And Genesis 28:12
"He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."

And John 1:51
"He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”

When I was young I was taught that if I went into a bar or poolhall or theatre then my guardian angel would stay outside and I'd be cut off and on my own. I never found the Bible verse to support that teaching. Maybe I just didn't look hard enough.

a reply to: pthena
The angels in the Matthew reference are not guardian angels. The believers' "angels" are the angels sent by the believers. That is, their representatives in heaven. "Your angels are in the presence of God" has exactly the same meaning as "you are seated in the heavenly places" (Ephesians ch2 v6). All this was explained in the third post of my thread on The Lord's Angel. Similarly, "you must have seen Peter's angel", in the story of his escape from prison, was the supposition that the figure standing in front of the maid was his doppelganger or representative. With those two references being accounted for, the whole concept of "guardian angels" falls to the ground.

The angels ascending and descending are not being used as intermediaries in the Catholic sense. They are just visual symbols of the fact that God runs everything.

a reply to: DISRAELI

the whole concept of "guardian angels" falls to the ground.

That would explain it. As far as a Biblical concept.
But it is maybe a fine old Zoroastrian tradition.

a reply to: pthena
Yes, very possibly the Jews and hence the church picked it up from the Zoroastrians.

a reply to: GeorgeH

Jesus came to earth with no karma. He traveled, learned, became a master, and taught, by example. Jesus taught his disciples that they could do what he did. He instructed them to teach and strictly instructed them not to pass judgement. It was the Romans who blended the teachings with Paganism.

Thank you for the thought provoking post.

There are two topics that take up my thoughts:

At first I was glad when I saw this:

But the Biblical God does not need intercessors or lesser deities. He really does know us in person.

Then, this:

“No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matthew ch11 v27)

So, am I to understand that we don't need intercession, to me meaning, I can go straight to God...however, to know God, I must go through Jesus?

And, am I capable of discerning the hand of Jesus in my life? I think I can, but how does one know?

a reply to: BlissSeeker
We could call Jesus the visible face of God; "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known" (John ch1 v18). Given the relationship between Ftaher and Son, that is still fairly direct.
We have to reccognise the place of Jesus in our lives in the same way as we recognise everything else about God. By faith. That is, by trust.