John 8:27

Joh 8:27. Οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, they understood not) By means of this epicrisis [explanatory addition] John intimates his astonishment at the unbelief and blindness of the Jews; as at ch. Joh 12:37, “But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him.”—τὸν τατέρα, the Father) the Father had sent Him, Joh 8:26: and had they known the Father, they would have known who Jesus was, Joh 8:25.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_8:27. Ὢ τῆς ἀγνοίας! οὐ διέλιπεν αὐτοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ διαλεγόμενος, καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκον, Chrysostom and Euth. Zigabenus calls them φρενοβλαβεῖς. But the surprising, nay more, the very improbable element (De Wette) which has been found in this non-understanding, disappears when it is remembered that at Joh_8:21 a new section of the discourse commenced, and that we are not obliged to suppose that precisely the same hearers were present in both cases (Joh_8:16-17). The less, therefore, is it allowable to convert non-understanding into the idea of non-recognition (Lücke); or to regard it as equivalent to obduracy (Tholuck, Brückner); or to explain ὅτι as in which sense (Hofmann, l.c. p. 180); or with Luthardt, to press αὐτοῖς, and to give as the meaning of the simple words: that in bearing witness to Himself He bears witness to them that the God who sends Him is the Father; or with Ebrard, to find in ἔλεγεν: that it is His vocation to proclaim to them; or, with Hengstenberg, to understand ἔγνωσαν, etc., of the true knowledge, namely, of the deity of Christ. For such interpretations as these there is no foundation in the passage; it simply denotes: they knew not (comp. Joh_8:28) that in these words (ὁ πέμψας με, etc.) He spoke to them of the Father. On λέγειν, with the accus. in the sense of λαλ. περί, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apolog. p. 23 A; Phaed. p. 79 C. Comp. on Joh_1:15.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 8:27 . His hearers did not identify “Him that sent me” with “the Father”: Οὐκ ἔγνωσαν … ἔλεγεν .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ver. 27. Criticism declares the want of understanding of the Jews which is mentioned in Joh 8:27 impossible. Can those of whom John speaks, then, be, as Meyer thinks, new hearers who had not been present at the previous discourses? Or must we understand with Lucke : They were not willing to acknowledge that it was the Father who really made Him speak in this way; or with Weiss: They did not understand that He had the mission to reveal the Father by declaring what He inwardly heard from Him. These are manifest tortures inflicted on the text. The ἔλεγεν cannot be taken here in the same sense as in Joh 6:71 : to speak of. It must be observed that in this whole discourse from Joh 8:21, Jesus had spoken of Him who sent Him, without once pronouncing the name either of God or of the Father. Now among the multitude there might be found hearers who were unable to imagine so close a relation between a human creature and the infinite God as that of which Jesus was bearing witness, and who consequently asked themselves whether He did not mean to speak of some one of the persons who were to precede the Messiah and with whom Jesus sustained a secret relation, as the Messiah was to do with Elijah. Think of the strange misunderstandings attributed by the Synoptics to the apostles themselves! After eighteen centuries of Christianity, many things in the discourses of Jesus appear evident to us, which, through their novelty and the opposition which they encountered from inveterate prejudices, must have appeared strange in the extreme to the greater part of His hearers. No doubt, if the heart had been better disposed, the mind would have been more open.

To this want of intelligence in His present hearers, Jesus opposes the announcement of the day when the full light will come among them respecting His mission, after the great national crime which they are on the point of committing.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Even the contempt of Christ maketh for his glory: which thing his enemies shall feel at length to their great smart.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

27. They did not know that he spoke to them about the Father. Hence we see how stupid those men are whose understandings are possessed by Satan. Nothing could be more plain than that they were summoned to the judgment-seat of God. But what then? They are altogether blind. This happens daily to other enemies of the Gospel; and such blindness ought to instruct us to walk with fear.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(27) They understood not that he spake (better, was speaking) to them of the Father.—We have seen in Note on Joh_8:21 that a new discourse commences there, and that the hearers are not necessarily the same as those who had asked the question and heard the answer of Joh_8:19. Still the speakers then, and those spoken of now, are “the Jews” (comp. Joh_8:13; Joh_8:22); and they are probably in part identical with those of whom our Lord tells us there, that they knew neither Him nor the Father. Of these men St. John tells us now that they did not know that the Sender and the Father are one. The statement of their want of perception, which strikes us as so marvellous, is made just because it was marvellous. St. John remembers it many years afterwards, and remembers that on account of it Jesus proceeded to declare more fully that every act He did was done in the Father, and that every word He spoke was taught by the Father, and that in every event of His life the Father was present.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

27. They understood not that he spake] Better, they perceived not that He was speaking. This statement of the Evangelist has seemed to some so unaccountable after Joh_8:18, that they have attempted to make his words mean something else. But the meaning of the words is quite unambiguous, and is not incredible. We have seen that there is an interval, possibly of days, between Joh_8:20 and Joh_8:21. The audience may have changed very considerably; but if not, experience shews that the ignorance and stupidity of unbelief are sometimes almost unbounded. Still we may admit that the dulness exhibited here is extraordinary; and it is precisely because it is so extraordinary that St John records it.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As he spake these words,.... Concerning his being lifted up, or his crucifixion, and the knowledge the Jews should then have of him; of the excellency and divinity of his doctrine, of his mission from the Father, and of the Father's presence with him, and of his always doing the things that are pleasing in his sight; which were spoken by him with majesty and authority, and came with power:

many believed on him: as the Son of God, and true Messiah: faith came by hearing; Christ's hearers were of different sorts; some understood him not, and disbelieved, and rejected him; others had their eyes, and their hearts opened, and received him, and his words.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Ver. 27. They understood not] Though he cited them to God’s dreadful tribunal, and threatened them with his judgment. The devil had strangely stupefied them; like the smith’s dog, whom neither the hammer above him nor the sparks of fire falling round about him can awake; like birds in a belfry or fishes in the sea, not frightened at any ringing or roaring made there.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They understood not - They knew not, or they were unwilling to receive him as a messenger from God. They doubtless understood that he meant to speak of God, but they were unwilling to acknowledge that he really came from God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Now they, &c. Some of the more ignorant among the Jews understood not Christ when he clearly enough signified that he was equal to God, and of one and the same nature; but at other times they that heard him, perceived it very well; and so, in this place, they were for stoning him to death. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The Jews (as we are told) used to call God The Father, in a way of eminency: they understood that he spake to them of his Father; but they would not understand when he spake to them of his Father, or the Father, he meant God the Father of all; their minds were blinded, that they could not see, and their hearts hardened, that they could not understand.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

27. Understood not… the Father—Perhaps, think these men, he now means some coadjutor in attaining Messianic power.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They understood (perceived) not that he spake to them of the Father. This difficult parenthesis of the evangelist calls attention to the fact that, during the immediately preceding discourse and controversy, Jesus had dropped his references to the Father, and had used the periphrasis, "he that sent me," probably suggesting to this strangely excited populace, fed with weird fancies and wild expectations, that the mysterious Being with whom they were conversing was but the Delegate of One mightier than he, who was hidden in the secret place of God"s providence until the hour of his own manifestation should appear to have struck. They might have remembered the utter deference which the great prophet John had displayed before a Messiah whom as yet they knew not. They may have heard that even John himself, at a later date, sent from the prison two of his disciples to propound the query, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" in other words, "Art thou the final Manifestation of all that I have predicted and believed? or is another to make his appearance with fire and axe and available force to compel obedience and to secure universal homage?" It is more than probable that the evangelist, being personally alive to the cross currents of passion, enthusiasm, and hostility which were at work in the hearts of the populace, saw by the very blankness and confusion on their faces, and the "asides" of the multitude, that they had not perceived that Jesus was throughout in these references speaking of the Father of all the supreme Source of all power, the Lord of hosts. Even when he had said, "Ye have not known me, nor my Father," they had not risen to such a conception of the Lord"s meaning as to suppose that the supreme Father himself was being suggested to them and cited as the corroborative Witness, as the supernatural Aid and Divine Presence which was giving validity to all that Christ has said about himself. Their ignorance and lack of perception need not astonish us when we reflect upon the obscurity and non-receptivity of the apostles themselves, and the like obtuseness of theologians and cultivated men of the world in every age from that day to this. The remark is, moreover, added doubtless to interpret the following verses, in which the ideas of ver. 26 are repeated, with the difference that, whereas he had already spoken of him that sent him, and who had authorized his words and judgments, Jesus now gives to him the beloved name of "the Father."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They understood not - That by him that sent him he meant God the Father. Therefore in ver. 28, 29 he speaks plainly of the Father, and again claims the Divine name, I AM.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

27. οὐκ ἔγνωσαν. They perceived not that He was speaking. This statement of the Evangelist has seemed to some so unaccountable after Joh 8:18, that they have attempted to make his words mean something else. But the meaning of the words is quite unambiguous, and is not incredible. Even Apostles were sometimes strangely wanting. We have seen that there is an interval, possibly of days, between Joh 8:20 and Joh 8:21. The audience may have changed very considerably: but if not, experience shews that the ignorance and stupidity of unbelief are sometimes almost unbounded. Still we may admit that the dulness exhibited here is extraordinary; and it is precisely because it is so extraordinary that S. John records it.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

27.] They did not identify ὁ πέμψας με with ὁ πατήρ μου. However improbable this may be after ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ, ver. 18 (De Wette), it is stated as a fact; and the Evangelist certainly would not have done so without some sure ground:—εἰκὸς αὐτοὺς διαπορεῖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντας Τίς ἐστιν ὁ πέμψας αὐτόν; Euthym. There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief, as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

27. οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν. This is one of the evangelist’s comments on his narrative (see Introd., p. xxxiv), and it seems to confirm what has been said on v. 25 about the Jews’ misunderstanding of the words of mystery which Jesus had uttered.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They understood [εγνωσαν] . Perceived, as Rev.

He spake. Imperfect. Was speaking would be much better.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.