Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have trouble understanding what John 2:24 and John 2:25 mean. Does anyone know what it means for Jesus to not "commit himself unto them"?

John 2:22-25 (KJV)
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 9 down vote accepted

There is some fun linguistic gymnastics going on there and two things are being played off of each other.

First, remember that Jesus was fully God and he was omniscient* and knew the hearts of men. He knew what people were thinking even when they didn't say it.

Now note that while your question is in 24, the play here starts in verse 23. Let's look at these two verses again:

John 2:24-25 (ESV)
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

When we believe in Christ and choose to follow Him, we entrust ourselves to him.

Even though our English translations usually use different wording for thse two verses, in the Greek original both "believed" in verse 23 and "commit" (KVJ) or "entrust" (ESV) in verse 24 are the same root word πιστεύω (pisteuō) that is widely translated as 'believe'.

In other words, Jesus knew that something was wrong in their hearts in spite of their profession of faith.

* Actually in his role as the Son there were things he chose not to know because there were rights that he voluntarily surrendered in order to fulfill his calling, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he knew mens hearts.

share|improve this answer
Heys thanks for the answer =D btw is there a bible reference which supports the claim stated in the asterisk ? –  Pacerier Sep 7 '11 at 14:54
@Pacerier: Sure :) You can see one thing the Son did not know was WHEN his own return to earth was going to be. In Mark 13:32 Jesus is speaking and says himself that he doesn't know. "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (ESV) –  Caleb Sep 7 '11 at 19:04
Thanks for the help ! –  Pacerier Sep 8 '11 at 4:24

The important thing here is context. Lets look at the broader passage in a slightly more clear translation:

John 2:18-25 (NIV)

18 Some of his people said to Jesus, "Show us a miracle to prove you have the right to do these things."

19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will build it again in three days."

20 They answered, "It took forty-six years to build this Temple! Do you really believe you can build it again in three days?"

21 (But the temple Jesus meant was his own body.22 After Jesus was raised from the dead, his followers remembered that Jesus had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the words Jesus had said.)

23 When Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Passover Feast, many people believed in him because they saw the miracles he did. 24 But Jesus did not believe in them because he knew them all. 25 He did not need anyone to tell him about people, because he knew what was in people's minds.

Jesus was asked to perform a miracle and told the folks there that they could destroy the temple and he would rebuild it in 3 days. John here, with the advantage of having seen the events that followed, gives us a parenthetical telling us the he meant his death and resurrection by this.

I think what the part of this passage you are questioning is saying is that these are the very people who will be calling for his death in just a few short years. He knows their hearts, and even if they appear to be listening and believing they will turn into an angry mob looking to crucify him.

Matthew Henry's commentary on the passage seems to support this:

Henry asserts that Christ, knowing that these were his enemies and the people who would later crucify him, did not trust them.

III. That yet Jesus did not commit himself unto them (v. 24): ouk episteuen heauton autois—He did not trust himself with them. It is the same word that is used for believing in him. So that to believe in Christ is to commit ourselves to him and to his guidance. Christ did not see cause to repose any confidence in these new converts at Jerusalem, where he had many enemies that sought to destroy him, either,

And later

IV. That the reason why he did not commit himself to them was because he knew them (v. 25), knew the wickedness of some and the weakness of others. The evangelist takes this occasion to assert Christ's omniscience.

share|improve this answer

The beauty of this is that relationship with Christ isn't based on our trustworthiness, devotion nor on our good intentions but completely in Christ's granting it to us by grace. It's not about me having to earn his trust. I could never be good enough for that. Nor was the apostle Paul (Romans 7:14-25, 1 Cor 4:4). It's all about Him granting me access to the Father's heart through what He did for me (2 Cor 5:19). That's what takes my breath away and ushers me into His embrace.

share|improve this answer
Welcome to SE Christianity Thank you for your post! –  caseyr547 Jun 26 '13 at 16:15

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.