Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 2:24
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men,]
24. did not commit ] The same verb as ‘many believed ’ in Joh 2:23. ‘Many trusted in His name; but Jesus did not trust Himself unto them.’ The antithesis is probably intentional.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Did not commit himself – The word translated commit here is the same which in Joh 2:23 is translated believed. It means to put trust or confidence in. Jesus did not put trust or reliance in them. He did not leave himself in their hands. He acted cautiously and prudently. The proper time for him to die had not come, and he secured his own safety. The reason why he did not commit himself to them is that he knew all men. He knew the inconstancy and fickleness of the multitude. He knew how easily they might be turned against him by the Jewish leaders, and how unsafe he would be if they should be moved to sedition and tumult.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 2:24-25
Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men.
Superficial faith
I. THE DANGER OF A SUPERFICIAL FAITH. It was only such a faith that these people had who believed in Christ on the ground of His miracles. It did not satisfy Christ. It had no deep root and had not led to loyal acceptance of His doctrine. Compare it with that of Nicodemus. Both felt that Christ was a teacher sent from God; but in the one case the feeling stopped there; in the other it stimulated patient inquiry. Consequently, while Christ did not commit Himself to the one, He did to the other. There are believers and believers; there is a serious possibility of being a sincere believer, but with a faith so shallow as not to be owned by Christ.
II. THE UNPROFITABLENESS OF A SUPERFICIAL FAITH. Christ had no faith in their faith. Shallow faith secures none of the privileges of discipleship; it does not appropriate Christ, and therefore does not enjoy His love and friendship. Christ reciprocates the faith of His true disciples only.
III. THE PERFECT ACQUAINTANCE WHICH CHRIST HAS WITH THE STATE OF PROFESSED BELIEVERS.
1. This bears on the nature of Christ ascribing to Him an attribute of Deity.
2. This bears on ourselves, telling us how thoroughly we are known. We may deceive ourselves, but we cannot deceive Him. This should lead to carefulness and honesty. (W. Steele, M. A.)
The omniscience of Christ
Nature in all her realms lies open to His eye. Mankind in all its races are in His view. Every mans circumstances and thoughts are known to Him. This knowledge is
I. INTUITIVE Ours is dependent on human testimony; His utterly independent of it. Who told Him Zaccheus name, or of the domestic history of the woman of Samaria, or of the treachery of Judas? And so now from heaven He addressed Saul of Tarsus by name and told the Asian churches that He knew their works. Still All things are naked and open unto His eyes.
II. UNIVERSE. With instant discrimination He knew friend from foe, the enthusiasts which fed on His miracles, and that which was love to Himself. Where is there a man? Christ knows Him, one of a thousand millions. What is He doing in crowded mart or solitary cell? Christ knows all about it.
III. INTIMATE. He reads thoughts, feelings, affections, desires. Deception has no covering from Him; hypocrisy no mask He cannot pierce. Judas may deceive the twelve, he cannot deceive the Lord. There is no secrecy in sin. Conclusion: Take comfort from Christs omniscience.
1. Are we in sorrows? Think of Hagar.
2. Do we give ourselves to prayer? Think of Nathanael.
3. Are we of doubtful mind? Think of Thomas. (G. T. Coster.)
Christs distrust of man
I. WE MAY MEASURE IT IN PART BY THE TEMPTATION IT RESISTED. It was more wonderful than even His mighty works. Around Christ was a nation full of Messianic hopes. All He had to do was by falling in with the notional ideas to gather those hopes around Himself. Who could have resisted such a temptation but He who knew the falsity of the hearts which entertained those hopes.
II. IT DEPENDED UPON THOROUGH AND ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE. With most people distrust is the offspring, as in turn it becomes the parent of ignorance. When men have never fairly tried their fellows or studied their behaviour under circumstances which reveal character, they naturally hesitate to commit great interests to their keeping. Christ knew men because He knew man.
III. ITS BEARINGS ON THE REDEMPTIVE WORK OF CHRIST WERE MOST IMPORTANT.
1. It safeguarded Him from surprise and precipitancy.
2. It rendered His death absolutely voluntary. (A. F. Muir, M. A.)
Christs knowledge of man
Christ knows the very roots of the trees; we know the character of the trees only from the fruits. (Calvin.)
The miracles at the Passover
I. THE WORKS WHICH THE SAVIOUR PERFORMED.
1. Where they were performed.
2. When on the feast day, a most favourable time.
II. THE HONOUR WHICH THE SAVIOUR RECEIVED. No greater honour can be given to a man than to trust him.
1. By what means the peoples faith was produced. Miracles.
2. The number who were convinced of the truth of Christs claims was considerable.
III. THE CAUTION WHICH THE SAVIOUR EXERCISED.
1. How it was shown.
2. The reason assigned.
3. The truth announced–Needed not, etc.
(Miracles of our Lord.)
Christs knowledge of man
I. HE KNOWS ALL ABOUT THE DISEASE WHICH AFFLICTS US. Our faith in a physicians knowledge has often much to do with our recovery. Christ knows thoroughly His own workmanship, and all about that sin which is marring it.
II. CHRIST THROUGH HIS KNOWLEDGE IS ABLE TO WORK HIS CURE. To perform this cure requires a perfect knowledge of the disease and power over it. Christ has both these.
III. CHRIST KNOWS THE CHRISTIAN IN A SPECIAL WAY. I know My sheep. He calls us by name. As in the human so in the Divine family dispositions and temperaments are recognized. One can be lead by a thread, another will break an ox chain. Christ saw the faith of the Syrophoenician. He knew what was in boasting Peter and in Judas.
1. He knows the temptation of each Christian, and will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able.
2. In the light of this we are able to understand better our trials. Christ as the Physician does not hesitate to use the lancet when necessary. He bleeds the plethoric that he may bring forth more fruit. (T. L. Cuyler, D. D.)
Christs knowledge of man
He knows what was in man
I. AS HE CAME AT FIRST FROM THE CREATORS HAND. God made man upright; and that uprightness is known to Him on whom our help has been laid. The Son partook of the Divine council in which the human constitution was planned.
II. WHEN HE HAD FALLEN. Knowing the character of the perfect work, the Saviour knows also the amount of damage that it has sustained. He knows, also, the gravity of mans sin, as an event affecting all the plans of God, and the government of all intelligent beings. Some trees are of such a constitution that if the uppermost bud is once nipped off, the tree is finally ruined. It can never develop itself into its proper shape and dimensions. Such an uppermost bud was humanity on the whole material creation. Deprived of its head, the world could not shoot up into the beauty and completeness which its Maker intended it should attain.
III. WHAT WOULD RESTORE HIM, AND WAS ABLE TO APPLY THE CURE. Knowing the worth of man as God had made him, our Physician would not abandon the wreck; but knowing how complete the wreck was, He bowed His heavens and came down to save. He united Himself to us, that if He should rise so must we. I rejoice in the omniscience of the Holy One, both on account of the good that He knew in man, and the evil. A counsellor who understood less fully what our nature was, and our constitution fitted us to become might have advised abandonment. It often becomes a question whether a stranded ship should be left to her fate or brought off and repaired. Sometimes an erroneous judgment is acted on. On one side, an effort is made to save the wreck, when it would have been better to abandon it, and construct another. Again, she is sometimes weakly abandoned, when it would have been profitable to have saved her. And so a helper who understood less of our original nature and capability might have proposed to cast us off as hopelessly damaged, supposing that, by allowing the wreck to be wholly washed away, a new and higher degree of intelligence might have been called into existence. Although Christ knew all the evil that was in man by sin, He did not disdain to undertake the rescue. By assuming the nature of the fallen, and meeting the law in their stead, He received the curse into Himself and exhausted it.
IV. SOME LESSONS:
1. Speaking of the unconverted–He knows what is in them and yet He does not cast out the unclean.
2. Speaking of His own disciples–He knows what is in them, and with that knowledge, it is because He is God and not man, that He does not shake them off.
3. He knows what is in man, and therefore can make His word and providence suitable. (W. Arnot, D. D.)
Inward knowledge of man necessary for good authorship
Dickens, writing about a clever story by a popular author, says, It is extremely good indeed; but all the strongest things of which it is capable missed. It shows just how far that kind of power can go. It is more like a note of an idea than anything else. It seems to be as if it were written by somebody who lived next door to other people, rather than inside of them.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 24. He knew all men] Instead of all men, EGH, and about thirty others, read , every man, or all things; and this I am inclined to believe is the true reading. Jesus knew all things; and why? Because he made all things, Joh 1:3, and because he was the all-wise God, Joh 1:1; and he knew all men, because he alone searches the heart, and tries the reins. He knows who are sincere, and who are hypocritical: he knows those in whom he can confide, and those to whom he can neither trust himself nor his gifts. Reader, he also knows thee: thy cares, fears, perplexities, temptations, afflictions, desires, and hopes; thy helps and hinderances; the progress thou hast made in the Divine life, or thy declension from it. If he know thee to be hypocritical or iniquitous, he looks upon thee with abhorrence: if he know thee to be of a meek and broken spirit, he looks on thee with pity, complacency, and delight. Take courage-thou canst say, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I do love thee, and mourn because I love and serve thee so little: then expect him to come in unto thee, and make his abode with thee: while thy eye and heart are simple, he will love thee, and thy whole soul shall be full of light. To him be glory and dominion for ever!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Christ did not take all these seeming believers into his bosom, nor call them after him, nor maintain any familiar fellowship and communion with them; but made haste again into Galilee, till his time was come, knowing that in so public a place of danger they were not to be trusted; for being God blessed for ever, he had knowledge of the hearts of all men.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. did not commit“entrust,”or let Himself down familiarly to them, as to His genuine disciples.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them,…. The sense according to some of the ancients is, that he did not commit the whole of the Gospel to them; he did not make known to them all his mind and will; this he only did to the twelve apostles, his special disciples and friends; nor was the time come, that he would make known, or have made known, the things concerning his person, office, obedience, sufferings, death, and resurrection from the dead: but rather the meaning is, that he did not trust himself with these persons, who believed in him, on the basis of his miracles; he did not take them into the number of his associates; he did not admit them to intimacy with him; nor did he freely converse with them, or make any long stay among them; but soon withdrew himself from hence, and went into other parts of Judea, and into Galilee:
because he knew all men: good and bad: all openly profane sinners, and all their actions; not only their more public ones, but those that are done in the dark, and which are the most secretly devised, and levelled against the saints; and he so knew them, as to bring them into judgment: and all good men, true believers; he knows their persons, as they are his Father’s choice, his gift of them to him, his own purchase, and as called by his grace; and so as to distinguish them at the last day, and give up the full account of every one of them to his Father: he knows the worst of them, the sin that dwells in them, their daily infirmities, their secret personal sins; their family sins, both of omission and commission; and their church sins, or which are committed in the house of God; and takes notice of them, so as to resent them, and chastise them for them; he knows the best of them, their graces, their faith, hope, love, patience, humility, self-denial, c he knows their good works, and all their weaknesses and their wants: and he knows all nominal professors, on what basis they take up their profession, and what trust they place in it; he can distinguish between grace and mere profession, and discern the secret lusts which such indulge, and the springs and progress of their apostasy: he knew all these men, that upon seeing his miracles, professed at this time to believe in him; he knew the hypocrisy and dissimulation of some of them; and he knew the notions they had of a temporal Messiah, and the temporal views they had in believing in him; and their design to set him up as a temporal prince, as some afterwards would have done: knew the flashy affections of others, who were like John’s hearers, that were pleased for a while; he knew what sort of faith it was they believed in him with, that it would not hold long, nor they continue with him; for he knew not only all persons, but , “all things”, as some copies read here; see Joh 21:17.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But Jesus did not trust himself to them ( ). “But Jesus himself kept on refusing (negative imperfect) to trust himself to them.” The double use of here is shown by Ac 8:13 where Simon Magus “believed” () and was baptized, but was unsaved. He merely believed that he wanted what Philip had.
For that he knew all men ( ). Causal use of and the accusative case of the articular infinitive (because of the knowing) with the object of the infinitive (, all men) and the accusative of general reference (, as to himself).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
But Jesus [ ] . The aujtov, which does not appear in translation, has the force of on His part, marking the contrast with those just mentioned.
Did not commit [ ] . Rev., trust. There is a kind of word – play between this and ejpisteusan, believed, in the preceding verse. Wyc. reproduces it : “Jesus himself believed not himself to them.” He did not trust His person to them. Tynd., put not himself in their hands. “He had no faith in their faith” (Godet).
Because He knew [ ] . Literally, on account of the fact of His knowing. John describes the Lord ‘s knowledge by two words which it is important to distinguish. Ginwskein, as here, implies acquired knowledge; knowledge which is the result of discernment and which may be enlarged. This knowledge may be drawn from external facts (v. 6; Joh 6:15) or from spiritual sympathy (x. 14, 27; Joh 17:25). EiJudenai (i. 26) implies absolute knowledge : the knowledge of intuition and of satisfied conviction. Hence it is used of Christ ‘s knowledge of divine things (iii. 11; Joh 5:32; Joh 7:29), Of the facts Of His own being (vi. 6; Joh 8:14; Joh 13:1), and of external facts (vi. 61, 64; Joh 13:11). In Joh 21:17 the two words appear together. Peter says to Jesus, appealing to His absolute knowledge, “Thou knowest [] all things :” appealing to his discernment, “Thou knowest or perceivest [] that I love Thee.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them,” (autos de lesous ouk episteuesn auton autois) “Then Jesus himself did not commit himself to them,” did not place Himself in their hands; did not trust them.
2) “Because he knew all men,” (dia to auton ginoskein pantas) “Because he himself knew all,” all persons; He positively knew their thoughts, their character, their wishes, the meaning of their faith, how fickle it was in some of them, 1Sa 16:7; Rev 2:23; He knew all men, including Judas Iscariot, the traitor, Joh 6:64; 1Ch 28:9; Jer 17:9-10; Mat 9:4; Joh 16:30; Act 1:24.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. But Christ did not rely on them. Those who explain the meaning to be, that Christ was on his guard against them, because he knew that they were not upright and faithful, do not appear to me to express sufficiently well the meaning of the Evangelist. Still less do I agree with what Augustine says about recent converts. The Evangelist rather means, in my opinion, that Christ did not reckon them to be genuine disciples, but despised them as volatile and unsteady. It is a passage which ought to be carefully observed, that not all who profess to be Christ’s followers are such in his estimation. But we ought also to add the reason which immediately follows:
Because he knew them all. Nothing is more dangerous than hypocrisy, for this reason among others, that it is an exceedingly common fault. There is scarcely any man who is not pleased with himself; and while we deceive ourselves by empty flatteries, we imagine that God is blind like ourselves. But here we are reminded how widely his judgment differs from ours; for he sees clearly those things which we cannot perceive, because they are concealed by some disguise; and he estimates according to their hidden source, that is, according to the most secret feeling of the heart, those things which dazzle our eyes by false luster. This is what Solomon says, that
God weighs in his balance the hearts of men, while they flatter themselves in their ways, (Pro 21:2.)
Let us remember, therefore, that none are the true disciples of Christ but those whom He approves, because in such a matter He alone is competent to decide and to judge.
A question now arises: when the Evangelist says that Christ knew them all, does he mean those only of whom he had lately spoken, or does the expression refer to the whole human race? Some extend it to the universal nature of man, and think that the whole world is here condemned for wicked and perfidious hypocrisy. And, certainly, it is a true statement, that Christ can find in men no reason why he should deign to place them in the number of his followers; but I do not see that this agrees with the context, and therefore I limit it to those who had been formerly mentioned.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(24) But beneath this shallow surface there is the unbroken ledge of rock. They are easily moved just because they are not deeply moved. The eye which looked at, looked into, others (comp. Joh. 1:47 et seq.), saw to the very depth of their hearts too, and knew all. It saw in that depth that the true inner man did not believe, did not commit itself to Him; it found not the spiritual receptivity, and there could not therefore be the spiritual revelation. He, on His part, did not commit Himself unto them. (Comp. Joh. 8:31, Note.) Our version gives the correct sense, but it should be noted that believed in Joh. 2:23, and commit here, represent the same Greek word.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 2:24. Jesus did not commit himself unto them, Did not discover himself to be the Messiah. He did not trust to those who believed merely on account of his miracles.Because he knew all men. He had perfect knowledge of their dispositions, and was assured, on the present occasion, that the belief of many was not yet grown up to a full conviction; and foresaw that they would quickly fall off, when they found that he was rejected by the great men, and did not erect a secular empire. From the caution which Jesus used, we may learn, not rashly to put ourselves and our usefulness into the power of others; but to study a wise and happy medium between that universal prejudice and suspicion, which, while it wrongs the best and most worthy characters, would deprive us of all the pleasures of an intimate friendship; and an undistinguishing easiness and openness of temper, which might make us the property of every hypocritical pretender to kindness and respect.
Inferences drawn from the marriage in Cana, Joh 2:1-11. Was this then the first public miracle, O Saviour, that thou wroughtest? And could there be a greater miracle than this, that, having been thirty years upon earth, thou didst no miracle till now? That thy Divinity did hide itself thus long in flesh? That so long thou wouldst lie obscure in a corner of Galilee, unknown to that world which thou camest to redeem? That so long thou wouldst strain the patient expectation of those, who ever since the appearance of thy star waited for the revelation of a Messiah? We, silly creatures, if we have but a grain of virtue, are ready to set it out to the best appearance. Thou who receivedst not the Spirit by measure, wouldst content thyself with a willing obscurity, and concealedst that power which made the worldunder the roof of a human breast, in a cottage of Nazareth! O Saviour, no one of thy miracles is more worthy of astonishment than thy not doing of miracles!
Thy first public miracle graceth a marriage. It is an antient and laudable institution. That the rites of matrimony should not want a solemn celebration, the Son of the Virgin, and the mother of that Son are both at the wedding. He that made the first marriage in Paradise, bestows his first miracle upon a Galilean marriage. He that was the author of matrimony, and sanctifies it, doth, by his holy presence, honour the resemblance of his eternal union with his church of the faithful. How boldly may be contemned all the impure adversaries of wedlock, when the Son of God pleases thus to honour it!
Happy is that wedding, where Christ is a guest! O Saviour, there is no holy marriage whereat thou art not; however invisible, yet truly present by thy Spirit and gracious benediction. Thou who hast betrothed thy believing people to thyself in truth and righteousness, do thou consummate that happy marriage of ours in the highest heavens.
It was no rich or sumptuous bridal to which Christ, and his mother, and his disciples, vouchsafed to come. We find him not at the magnificent feasts or triumphs of the great. The proud pomp of the world did not agree with the state of a servant: this Galilean bridegroom, before the expiration of his festival, wants drink for the accommodation of his guests.
The blessed Virgin feels a charitable compassion; and, from a friendly desire to maintain the decency of a hospitable entertainment, inquires into the wants of her host, pities them, and seeks anxiously to redress them. How well does it become the eyes of piety and Christian love to look into the necessities of others!
To whom should we complain of any want, but to the Maker and Giver of all things? When they wanted wine, The mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine. The blessed Virgin certainly, in some degree, knew to whom she sued. It would have been hard if some of the neighbour-guests, when duly solicited, had not been able to furnish the bridegroom with so much wine as might suffice for the remainder of the feast: but Mary evidently thought it best not to lade at the shallow channel, but rather to go to the fountain-head, where she might dip and fill the firkins at once with ease. It may be she saw that the train of Christ might help forward that defect; and therefore she justly solicits Jesus for a supply. Whether we want bread, or water, or wine, necessaries or comforts, whither should we run, O Saviour, but to that infinite munificence of thine, which neither denieth nor upbraideth? We cannot want if we cleave to thee: we cannot abound but from thee: give us what thou wilt, so thou give us contentment with what thou givest.
But what is this we hear?A sharp answer to the suit of a mother.Woman, what have I to do with thee? He, whose sweet mildness and mercy never sent away any supplicant discontented,doth he only frown upon her who bare him?He that commands us to honour father and mother, doth he disdain her, whose flesh he assumed? God forbid! But love and duty do not exempt parents from due admonition: she solicited Christ as a mother; he answers her as a woman: if she was the mother of his flesh, his Deity was eternal. She might not so remember herself to be a mother, that she should forget she was a woman; nor so look upon him as a son, that she should not regard him as a God: he was so obedient to her as a mother, that withal she might obey him as her God. Neither is it for us, in the holy affairs of God, to know any faces; yea, if we have known Christ heretofore according to the flesh, henceforth know we him so no more; much less do we substitute a woman as a mediator between God and man.
Yet even in this rough answer, as it may seem, doth the blessed Virgin descry cause of hope. If his hour was not yet come, it was therefore coming: when the expectation of the guests and the necessity of the occasion have made fit room for the miracle, it shall come forth and challenge their wonder. Faithfully therefore and observantly does she turn her speech from Jesus to the attendants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
However, she that had said of herself, Be it unto me according to thy word, now humbly says to others, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. This is the way to have miracles wrought for us, and in us,obedience to his word. The power of Christ did not depend on the officiousness of these servants: he could have wrought wonders equally without their contribution; but their perverse refusal of his commands might have rendered them incapable of the favour of a miraculous exertion.
This scanty house was yet furnished with many and large vessels for outward purification, as if iniquity had dwelt upon the skin. Alas! it is the soul which needs scouring; and nothing can wash that, but the Blood which they desperately wished upon themselves and their children, for guilt, not for expiation. Purge thou us, O Lord, with hyssop, and we shall be clean; wash us, and we shall be whiter than snow.
The waiters could not but think so unseasonable a command, as we read in Joh 2:7.Fill the water-pots with water, to be very strange. “It is wine that we want; why do we go to fetch water? If there be no other remedy, we could have sought this supply unbidden:” and yet so far has the command prevailed, that instead of talking of carrying flaggons of wine to the table, they go to fetch water in their vessels from their cisterns. There is no pleading of improbabilities against the command of an Almighty power.
How liberal are the provisions of Christ! If he had but turned the water in one of those vessels into wine, it had been a just proof of his power. But the abundance magnifies at once both his power and mercy. The munificent hand of God regards not our wants only, but our honest affluence; it is our sin and our shame if we turn his favours into wantonness.
There must be first a filling, ere there can be a drawing out. Thus in our vessels, the first care must be of our receipt, the next of our expence: God would have us to be first cisterns, and then channels. Our Saviour would not be his own taster, but he sends the first draught to the governor of the feast. He knew his own power, they did not; neither would he bear witness of himself, but draw it out of the mouths of others. They who knew not the original of that wine, yet praised the taste, Joh 2:10. Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, &c. but thou hast kept the good wine until now. The same bounty which expressed itself in the quantity of the wine, shews itself no less in the excellence: nothing can fall from that Divine hand which is not exquisite: that liberality would not provide mean accommodation for its guests. It was fit that the miraculous effects of Christ, which came from his immediate hand, should be more perfect than the natural. O blessed Saviour, how delicate is that new wine which we shall one day drink with thee in thy Father’s kingdom! Yes, gracious Lord, thou shalt turn this water of our earthly afflictions into that wine of gladness, wherewith our souls shall be richly replenished for ever and ever! Make haste, my beloved; and be thou like to a roe, or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices.
REFLECTIONS.1st, The first miracle of Jesus was wrought at a marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee. It was probably a marriage of some near relation of his mother Mary’s, who seemed not to be there merely as a guest, but as one of the family. Christ was invited, and refused not the invitation given him on this occasion, but went with his disciples to grace the bridal feast with his presence and company, and put an honour upon the institution. Note; (1.) Our marriages can only then be expected to issue happily, when Jesus with his benediction crowns the indissoluble union. (2.) Religion teaches none to be unsocial or uncivil, but commands us to rejoice with those that rejoice. We are told,
1. The concern expressed by the mother of Jesus to her Son on account of the deficiency of the wine at this entertainment. The number of the guests, perhaps more than were expected, consumed the small quantity which these persons, who were probably in mean circumstances, had provided, and they might not be able to afford more. It seems she expected that he would soon begin to display his glorious power, and intimated that the present necessity afforded an opportunity for his miraculous assistance. Note; A genuine Christian interests himself in the distresses of his friends; and, when he can do no more to relieve them, fails not to commend their case to the kind Saviour’s notice.
2. Our Lord gives her a reprimand for interfering in matters which did not belong to her. Though he was her son after the flesh, yet in the exercise of his miraculous powers he acted as the Son of God, and owed her no obedience. What a direct condemnation of the horrid idolatry of that church, which prays to the mother to command her Son! Besides, he adds, My hour is not yet come: the time for the public manifestation of his glory, by his openly performing miracles, was not yet come.
3. Though his mother silently submitted to his pleasure, she entertained hopes that he would grant her request, and take the matter into his consideration; and therefore privately bade the servants obey whatever orders he should give them. Note; (1.) We must not be discouraged in our faith, if our prayers are not immediately answered. (2.) Christ’s commands are implicitly to be obeyed, without reasoning or hesitation.
4. Christ performs the miracle; and with circumstances which eminently displayed his glory. Six water-pots of stone were placed there, containing about two or three firkins each (see the annotations.). These water-pots Christ bids the servants fill with water to the brim, that there might be no suspicion of fraud in the miracle. They obeyed, and instantly the strange conversion was wrought. He orders them hereupon to draw out and carry this liquor to the governor of the feast, the person who was master of the ceremonies, or sat in the most honourable place on that occasion. No sooner had he tasted the wine which had been water, than he was struck with the delicious flavour, and, unacquainted whence it came, he observed to the bridegroom with surprize his unusual method of procedure. Others usually produced their best wine first, and afterwards, when men had well drank, that which was worse; but he had kept the good wine to the last, as the grace-cup, to conclude the entertainment. Note; (1.) God’s creatures, and wine among the rest, are given for the good of man, and may be used with moderation; only we must be very careful that we do not, by intemperance, abuse our mercies and turn our blessings into curses by excess. (2.) Feasts need a governor to restrain the irregularities of those, who else perhaps, to their shame, would have no government over themselves. (3.) Whatever consolations believers here enjoy, the greatest are reserved for them at last, when, at the marriage-supper of the Lamb, they shall drink the new wine in the kingdom of God.
5. At the conclusion of this miracle the evangelist observes, that this was the first which Jesus performed after his entrance on his ministry; wherein he manifested forth his glory in such displays of his power and grace, wrought by his authoritative word, as exalted his own great name, and proved his own eternal Godhead and glory; and his disciples believed on him, confirmed in their assurance of the truth of that high character which he assumed. Note; The more we become acquainted with Christ in his word, the more shall we be convinced that this is he who should come, and shall be engaged to rest our souls on him for life and salvation.
2nd, Capernaum was the place where Christ usually resided, Mat 4:13. Hither he came with his mother, brethren, and disciples, who, struck with what they had seen, attended him to observe the further manifestations of his divine power and glory which he should make. His abode at this time at Capernaum was not many days, the Passover being at hand, which called him up to Jerusalem. Where we find him,
1. Purging the temple of those intruders who had defiled that holy place. Under pretence of accommodating with sacrifices, and change of money, those who came up to worship, a market was kept in the temple by the connivance of the priests, who probably made some considerable advantage by permitting such a profanation. But Christ, beholding with indignation such corruptions in the house of God, immediately began to vindicate the honour of that sacred inclosure, and, having made a scourge of cords, he drove out the traders with their beasts, overturned the tables of the money-changers, and bade those who sold doves to take them away; remonstrating with them on the wickedness of their conduct, Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. Note; (1.) The love of filthy lucre is generally at the root of the corruptions which creep into the church of God. (2.) If God is our Father, we cannot but be grieved to see him dishonoured, and should zealously appear in his cause. (3.) They who are bold and faithful for God, will often see that one can chase a thousand; and that, if we dare stand up in his name, the consciences of sinners will cover them with confusion.
2. The disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. And this still more confirmed their faith, as they observed the scripture prophesies accomplished in him.
3. Being questioned by the Jews concerning the authority on which he acted, and required to give a sign in proof of the mission to which he pretended, He answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Since they refused to be convinced by other miracles, he refers them to the last sign which should be wrought, even his resurrection from the dead by his own divine power, after they had destroyed the temple of his body. As he had now cleansed his house from their profanations, so would he raise his own body which they should slay, and not suffer it to see corruption. They understood him as if he meant the material temple where he then was, which had now been forty-fix years building and beautifying (see the annotations): and they looked upon it as the most absurd of pretensions, for a mere man, as they presumed him to be, to assert that he could do that in three days, which had employed thousands of workmen so many years. Thus they ridiculed his assertion, though it appears they understood not his meaning. Note; (1.) It is just with God to give those up to their vain imaginations, who have no love of the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. (2.) The grossest mistakes have been entertained by understanding literally what the scriptures have spoken figuratively, as in the doctrine of transubstantiation, drawn from the words of Christ, This is my body. (3.) The body of Jesus was the true temple, in which the fulness of the Godhead dwelt; and of him the temple at Jerusalem was but the type and figure. (4.) As the temple was the medium of worship, and they who prayed turned their faces thitherward, so is it through Christ Jesus alone that we can have access to and acceptance with God.
4. His disciples, though they, no more than the Jews, understood his meaning at that time, yet afterwards, when the events verified the prediction, and the Spirit poured out from on high opened their minds to understand the scriptures, reflected on this prophesy, and seeing the accomplishment of it in his resurrection, were the more deeply confirmed in their faith of the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. Note; The truths of scripture which we learn in younger years, though not understood at that time, yet are frequently of singular use when, at any future period, our souls are converted, and the eyes of our minds are opened, through the grace of God.
3rdly, During the seven days of the feast Christ preached openly the doctrines of his kingdom, and wrought mighty miracles in confirmation of the truths that he taught. In consequence of which,
1. Many believed in his name; at least, for the time, they were so struck with his miracles as to give their assent to his doctrine, and own him as the Messiah. But,
2. Jesus did not commit himself unto them, did not trust himself with them, or repose any confidence upon them; because he knew all men; the wickedness of some who would play the hypocrite in order to betray him; and the weakness of others, who in a time of danger might, through timidity, be tempted to desert him, or, through mistake and indiscretion, raise some disturbance through their vain imaginations that his kingdom was temporal, and his throne to be established by arms. And, being thus all-wise, he needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man, was acquainted with his inmost thoughts, yea, knew them before they were formed. Note; (1.) We should be cautious in whom we confide, and try before we trust. (2.) Christ knows the secrets of all hearts; he sees the devices of his subtle enemies, and the faults of his pretended friends; and he will bring every sinner to judgment, and every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 2:24-25 . , . . .] But He on His part , though they on their part, on account of His miracles, believed on Him.
. ] an intentional antithesis to the preceding . . Observe the emphatic : it must not be taken as meaning “He kept back His doctrine from them” (Chrysostom, Kuinoel, and many), or “ His work ” (Ebrard); but He did not trust Himself, i.e. His own person , to them; He refrained from any closer personal intercourse with them. Without any such reserve on His part, rather with confident self-surrender, had He given Himself to His intimate Galilean friends. Towards the Jews in Jerusalem, on whom, from His knowledge of the human heart, He could not bestow this self-devotion, because there were wanting in them the inward moral conditions necessary thereto, His bearing was more strange and distant. Observe the imperfects and .
. .] because He Himself (as in the following ) knew all men , universal. Respecting none did His personal knowledge fail Him with regard to the state of his moral feeling.
, . . .] negative expression of the same thought in the popular form of a still further reason.
] not instead of the infinitive construction (Mat 3:14 al. ), but the object of the need is conceived of in the form of a purpose which the person needing guidance entertains. Comp. Joh 16:30 ; 1Jn 2:27 .
.] does not apply to Jesus Himself (“concerning Him as man,” Ewald), but concerning any man with whom He had at any time to do. See Bernhardy, p. 315; Winer, p. 109 [E. T. p. 143].
] of Himself, i.e . , Nonnus. See Herm. ad Viger . p. 733; Krger, Anab . ii. 3. 7; comp. Clementine Homil . iii. 13 : .
.] the inward, though not outwardly indicated capacity, character, disposition, and so on; , Origen. Comp. Nonnus: . To this supernatural and immediate discernment , as possessed by Jesus, special prominence is often given by John. Comp. Joh 1:49-50 , Joh 4:19 ; Joh 4:29 , Joh 6:61 ; Joh 6:64 , Joh 11:4 ; Joh 11:15 , Joh 13:11 , Joh 16:19 , Joh 21:17 . It is the life expression of His divine essence (Psa 7:10 ; Psa 139:2 ; Act 15:8 ), like the working of miracles.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men ,
Ver. 24. Did not commit himself unto them ] Who yet would needs obtrude upon him. None are so impudent as hypocrites; they deceive themselves, they would do others; God, too. I read not (saith one) in Scripture of a hypocrite’s conversion; and what wonder? for whereas, after sin, conversion is left as a means to cure all other sinners; what means to recover him, who hath converted conversion itseff into sin?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24, 25. ] The repetition of . has been regarded (Lcke, De Wette) as a sort of play on the word. But I should rather set it down to the simplicity of John’s style.
The meaning is, He did not trust himself to them , i.e. treat them as true and earnest disciples: they entered into no spiritual relation with Him, and He in consequence into none with them. The fact of this being narrated shews that it made an impression on the Evangelist, and led him perhaps first to the conclusion which he here expresses, and which higher knowledge enabled him afterwards to place, as he here does, on its right ground: His knowing what was in man . Nothing less than divine knowledge is here set forth; the words are even stronger than if . and . had been used. Then some reference might have been imagined to the persons here mentioned; but now, the singular is, and must be on all hands, purely generic , as in E. V.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
But Jesus: i.e. But Jesus [for His part].
commit = trust. Same word as “believed “in Joh 2:23, but not the same tense. Here it denotes a continual action or habit. Greek pisteuo. App-150. See note on Joh 1:7.
because. Greek. dia. App-104. Joh 2:2.
He = He Himself.
knew. Greek. ginosko. App-182. See note on Joh 1:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24, 25.] The repetition of . has been regarded (Lcke, De Wette) as a sort of play on the word. But I should rather set it down to the simplicity of Johns style.
The meaning is, He did not trust himself to them,-i.e. treat them as true and earnest disciples: they entered into no spiritual relation with Him, and He in consequence into none with them. The fact of this being narrated shews that it made an impression on the Evangelist, and led him perhaps first to the conclusion which he here expresses, and which higher knowledge enabled him afterwards to place, as he here does, on its right ground:-His knowing what was in man. Nothing less than divine knowledge is here set forth; the words are even stronger than if . and . had been used. Then some reference might have been imagined to the persons here mentioned; but now, the singular is, and must be on all hands, purely generic,-as in E. V.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 2:24. ) Himself.- , He did not commit Himself) He did not descend to too great familiarity with them (Septuag., Job 29:24, , , If I laughed on them, they believed it not): He did not reveal to them the things which it was not yet the full time for revealing. [In fact, He left the city, when the passover feast was either not yet, or scarcely, finished, for this reason, because those men were already meditating with themselves the plots, which broke out more openly, ch. Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18, The Jews sought to slay Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day: and also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God; Joh 7:1, He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him: for it was not then as yet the time for His submitting Himself to encounter their hatred. Without doubt it was, as having a secret surmise of these things, that Nicodemus had the interview with Him by night.-Harm., p. 163.]-The antithesis to is , many believed, Joh 2:23.-) Himself, of Himself, knew all men.-, knew) Often John so uses the word , to know, of Jesus having cognizance of all things, without information given Him by man: ch. Joh 4:1, The Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made-more disciples than John; Joh 5:6, When Jesus knew that he (the impotent man) had now been a long time in that case, etc.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 2:24
Joh 2:24
But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,-Jesus knew their hearts and that their faith was weak and unstable and so while he encouraged their belief, he did not trust himself to them. His infinite wisdom enabled him to know the hearts, the thoughts, and desires of all. There are many degrees of faith. It begins weak and unsteady, and by continued exercise it grows strong and steadfast. At this period Jesus trusted himself to the power of no man. He knew the uncertainty of men. Many, under the first impulse of the wonders wrought, would believe in him, but turn against him when trials and troubles came as they always do. Many in the days of the Savior were carried away by momentary excitement as now that fell away afterward.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
did: Joh 6:15, Mat 10:16, Mat 10:17
because: Joh 1:42, Joh 1:46, Joh 1:47, Joh 5:42, Joh 6:64, Joh 16:30, Joh 21:17, 1Sa 16:7, 1Ch 28:9, 1Ch 29:17, Jer 17:9, Mat 9:4, Mar 2:8, Act 1:24, Heb 4:13, Rev 2:23
Reciprocal: Deu 31:21 – I know Jos 22:22 – he knoweth Jdg 3:1 – prove 1Sa 24:22 – David and Job 10:6 – General Job 11:11 – he knoweth Job 42:2 – no Psa 139:2 – understandest Pro 15:11 – the hearts Pro 21:2 – the Lord Eze 11:5 – for Mat 12:25 – Jesus Mat 16:8 – when Mar 8:17 – knew Mar 12:15 – knowing Mar 14:15 – he will Luk 20:23 – he Joh 4:16 – Go Joh 6:61 – General Joh 7:31 – believed Joh 16:19 – Jesus Act 15:8 – which 2Co 11:11 – God 1Th 2:4 – but God 1Jo 3:20 – and
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
Commit is from PISTEUO, and as used in this verse, it means to put trust in another. Jesus did not put any confidence in mankind in general, and the reason is stated in the next verse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 2:24-25. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them on account of his discerning all men, and because he needed not that any should bear witness concerning a man; for he himself discerned what was in the man. The effect produced upon Jesus Himself by this imperfection of faith is described in very remarkable language. Many believed in His name, and so took the first step towards that surrender of the heart to Him which in Joh 2:11 we read of as made by His disciples. Had they thus fully trusted themselves to Him, then would He have trusted Himself to them. This is one of the illustrations of the teaching, so characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, with regard to the union and communion of Jesus with His people; if they abide in Him, He abides in them. That these believers have not reached such maturity of faith Jesus Himself discerns. No witness from another is needed by Him, for the thoughts of every man with whom He speaks are naked and opened unto Him. The words of John do not in their literal sense go beyond this; but, in declaring that Jesus read the heart of all who came to Him, they imply that other truth with which the rendering in our Bibles has made us familiar: He knew what was in man.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 24, 25. But Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men, 25, and because he had no need that any one should testify of man; for he knew of himself what was in man.
Jesus is no more dazzled by this apparent success, than He had been discouraged by the reverse which He had undergone in the temple. He discerns the insufficient nature of this faith. There is a sort of play upon words in the relation between , He did not believe, did not trust Himself, and , they believed, Joh 2:23. While they considering only the external facts, the miracles, believed, He ( ) not stopping with appearances, did not believe; He did not have faith in their faith. It is because He did not recognize in it the work of God. Consequently, He did not any more treat them as believers. How was this attitude of distrust manifested? It is difficult to state precisely. Probably the point in John’s thought was rather a certain reserve of a moral nature, than positive external acts, such as reticence respecting His doctrine or the solitude in which He shut Himself up. Luthardt, As they did not give themselves morally to Him, He did not give Himself morally to them. It is a profound observer initiated into the impressions of Jesus’ mind,this man who has laid hold of and set forth this delicate feature of His conduct. If he was himself one of the disciples whose call is related in chap. 1, he must indeed have felt the difference between the conduct of Jesus towards these persons, and the manner in which He had deported Himself towards himself and his fellow-disciples. Let one picture to himself such a feature invented in the second century! Nothing in the text obliges us to identify this superior knowledge of Jesus with divine omniscience. The evangelist undoubtedly knew for himself that clear and penetrating look () which read in the depth of the heart as in an open book. This superior knowledge of Jesus is the highest degree of the gift of the discerning of spirits (1Co 12:10; 1Jn 4:1). The clause: and because …. etc., generalizes the statement of Joh 2:24.
It signifies that, in any case, Jesus did not need to have recourse to information, in order to know what He had to think of such or such a man. This faculty of discernment was inherent in His person (He Himself) and, consequently, permanent (imperfect, knew). , in order that, is here no more than elsewhere the simple periphrasis for the infinitive (in opposition to Weiss). The idea of purpose, which remains always attached to this word, is explained by the tendency, which is inherent in the need of knowledge, to satisfy itself. The article before , the man, may be explained either in the generic sense: man in general, or, what is perhaps more correct, in an altogether individual sense: the man with whom He had to do in each given case (Meyer). But even in this last explanation, the generic sense can be applied to , in the man, in the following clause. The for would mean that He knew thus each representative of the type, because He knew thoroughly the type itself. However, it is more simple to give to this expression: in the man, the same individual sense as in the preceding clause, and to explain the for by the word: Himself. He had no need of information; for of Himself He knew…
On the foundation of this general situation, there is brought out separately, as a particular picture, the scene of the conversation with Nicodemus. Is this incident quoted as an example of that Jewish faith which is nothing but a form of unbelief Joh 2:23 (comp. Joh 2:2), as Baur thinks, or, on the contrary, as an exception to the attitude full of reserve which was assumed by Jesus and described Joh 2:24-25 (Ewald)? The opinion of Baur strikes against the fact that Nicodemus later became a believer (chaps. 7 and 19), so that the example would have been very badly chosen. On the other hand, the text gives no more indication that the following occurrence is related as a deviation from the line of conduct traced in Joh 2:24; and Joh 2:2 even makes Nicodemus belong in the class of persons described in Joh 2:23-25.Lucke sees in this narrative only an example of the supernatural knowledge of Jesus, but this idea does not correspond sufficiently with the very grave contents of the conversation. In Reuss’ view, Nicodemus is a type, created by the evangelist, of that literary and learned Judaism whose knowledge is nothing, and which has everything to learn from Jesus. But Nicodemus reappears twice afterwards, playing a part in the history of Jesus (chs. 7 and 19); he was not, therefore, created only in order to give Jesus here the opportunity to convince him of ignorance. If the author inserted this incident in his narrative, it is because he saw in it the most memorable example of the revelation which Jesus had given, in the first period of His ministry, of His person and His work; comp. Weissand Keil.
The part of this conversation in our Gospel may be compared with that of the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew: these two passages have an inauguratory character. As for Nicodemus, he is at once an example and an exception: an example, since miracles were the occasion of his faith; an exception, since the manner in which Jesus treats him proves that He hopes for the happy development of this faith. The faith characterized Joh 2:23-25, as Luthardt observes, is not real faith; but none the more is it unbelief. From this point there may be falling back or advance.
How did the evangelist get the knowledge of this conversation? May Jesus or Nicodemus have related it to him? The first alternative (Meyer) has somewhat of improbability. In the second, it is asked whether Nicodemus understood well enough to retain it so thoroughly. Why could not John himself have been present at the interview, even though it took place at night? Comp. Joh 2:11.
But this question is subordinate to another. Is not this conversation itself, as we have it before us, a free composition of the author in which he has united different elements of the ordinary teaching of his master, or even, as Keim says, put into His mouth a highly spiritual summary of his own semi- Gnostic dogmatics? Finally, without going so far, can it not be supposed, at least, that the subjectivity of the author has, without his having a suspicion of it himself, influenced this account more or less, especially towards the end of the conversation? This is what we shall have to examine. For this purpose, what shall be our touch-stone? If the direct, natural application of the words of Jesus to Nicodemus the Pharisee is sustained even to the end, we shall recognize by this sign the authenticity of the account. If, on the contrary, the discourse loses itself, as it advances, in vague generalities, without appropriateness and without direct relation to the given situation, we shall find in this fact the indication of a more or less artificial composition.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
2:24 {6} But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men],
(6) It is not good giving credit to those who trust only because of miracles.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ response to people, in contrast, was not to put His trust (Gr. pisteuo) in them. He knew people to be essentially untrustworthy. He knew that the initial enthusiasm and faith based on miracles that some people manifested would evaporate. Another view is that these were genuine believers who "were not ready for fuller disclosures from the One they had just trusted." [Note: Zane C. Hodges, "Untrustworthy Believers-John 2:23-25," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):148.] Some who initially believed on Jesus turned against Him later (Joh 6:15; Joh 6:60; Joh 6:66). He did not place His destiny in the hands of any others, though some of the Jews in Jerusalem were willing to place their lives in His hands (cf. Joh 10:14-15). Moreover He did not commit Himself to anyone, in the sense that Jesus was not dependent on human approval. [Note: Morris, p. 181.]
John may have meant that Jesus knew the nature of human beings (cf. 1Sa 16:7; Psalms 139; Jer 17:10; Act 1:24), not that He knew the thoughts of every person He encountered. The Great Physician could read people better than any human doctor can diagnose symptoms. [Note: Tenney, "John," p. 46.] Besides, Jesus was a prophet, and prophets often demonstrated supernatural insight. On the other hand, John could have meant that Jesus, as only God can, knew the hearts of all people (1Sa 16:7; 1Ki 8:39). The following two chapters particularly illustrate the truth of both of these statements: Jesus had great human insight as well as divine insight.