Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:27
They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. That sent him, and who was true and faithful to all he had said, whether in a way of promise, or threatening; such was their stupidity, that they did not know that he meant God the Father by him that sent him, so deriving his mission and doctrine from him; their hearts were made fat, and hardened, and their eyes were blinded. The Vulgate Latin version reads, “they did not know that he said, God was his Father”; and so Beza’s most ancient copy, and another exemplar of his.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They perceived not ( ). Second aorist active indicative of . “Preoccupied as they were with thoughts of an earthly deliverer” (Westcott) and prejudiced against recognizing Jesus as the one sent from God.
That he spake to them of the Father ( ). Indirect assertion, but with the present indicative () changed to the imperfect () as was sometimes done (2:25) after a secondary tense.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
They understood [] . Perceived, as Rev.
He spake. Imperfect. Was speaking would be much better.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “They understood not,” (ouk egnosan) “They did not know or comprehend,” did not realize, being of “their father the Devil,” Joh 8:44, and “blinded by the god of this world,” 2Co 4:3-4. Unregenerate, unrighteous, but self-righteous, Mat 5:20; Rom 10:1-4.
2) “That he spake to them of the Father.” (hoti ton patera autois elegen) “That he spoke directly to them of, from, and about the Father,” whom the world did not know, Joh 17:25, who had declared Jesus to be His Son, Mat 3:17; Mat 17:5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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. (229)
(229) “ A cheminer en crainte.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
27. Understood not the Father Perhaps, think these men, he now means some coadjutor in attaining Messianic power.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘They did not perceive that he spoke to them of the Father.’
John comments, ‘they did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father’. The problem was that they were so set in their own arguments and opinions that they did not stand back and consider what He was really saying. Having misinterpreted Him they would continue to misinterpret Him, such was the stubbornness of their minds. John deliberately draws attention to their failure to respond with understanding. He hopes his readers will not be the same. For like Jesus no doubt was, he was concerned at their failure to listen to, and understand, what Jesus was saying. But it is one of the characteristics of all ages that men listen, and then hear only what they want to hear, rather than listening with hearts open to learn the truth. ‘Eyes they have and see not, ears and hear not.’
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 8:27 . ! , , Chrysostom and Euth. Zigabenus calls them . 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 (Lcke); or to regard it as equivalent to obduracy (Tholuck, Brckner); or to explain as in which sense (Hofmann, l.c. p. 180); or with Luthardt, to press , 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 : “ that it is His vocation ” to proclaim to them; or, with Hengstenberg, to understand , 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 ( , etc.) He spoke to them of the Father. On , with the accus. in the sense of . , see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apolog . p. 23 A; Phaed . p. 79 C. Comp. on Joh 1:15 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
27. ] They did not identify with . However improbable this may be after , Joh 8:18 (De Wette), it is stated as a fact; and the Evangelist certainly would not have done so without some sure ground: ; Euthym [128] There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief , as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience.
[128] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 8:27 . His hearers did not identify “Him that sent me” with “the Father”: .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
understood not = did not get to know. App-132. See note on Joh 1:10.
spake = was speaking. Not “saying”, as in Joh 8:26.
Father. See note on Joh 1:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
27.] They did not identify with . However improbable this may be after , Joh 8:18 (De Wette), it is stated as a fact; and the Evangelist certainly would not have done so without some sure ground:- ; Euthym[128] There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief, as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience.
[128] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:27. , 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.- , 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:27
Joh 8:27
They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.-They did not recognize that their God was his Father. [Their minds were so full of earthly things that they did not care to heed spiritual things.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Joh 8:43, Joh 8:47, Isa 6:9, Isa 42:18-20, Isa 59:10, Rom 11:7-10, 2Co 4:3, 2Co 4:4
Reciprocal: Joh 10:6 – they understood not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Joh 8:27. They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father. This statement of the Evangelist is very remarkable; and, as it is so different from anything we might have expected, its importance as a guide and correction is the greater. In this section (beginning at Joh 8:21) He has not made mention of the Father. In the section which precedes, however (Joh 8:12-20), the word occurs several times. First Jesus speaks of the Father which sent me(Joh 8:16; Joh 8:18): in their answer the Jews show how they had understood His words, by saying, Where is thy Father? and in replying to their question Jesus also speaks, not of the Father, but of my Father. So far as these two sections are concerned, therefore, there is nothing to show that His hearers had understood Him to make distinct mention of the Father, in the absolute sense,a name which, probably, every Israelite would have received as belonging to God alone. (If we look back at earlier chapters, we shall find that the passages have been few in which the Father is spoken of. The fifth chapter must be left out of consideration, for the whole discourse is dominated by the thought of personal Sonship. The same may be said of chap. Joh 3:35. There remain only the words addressed to the woman of Samaria, chap. Joh 4:21, and the discourses in Galilee related in chap. 6) Hencethough we might have over-looked the fact but for the Evangelists timely wordswe cannot feel great surprise that these hearers had not yet perceived that Jesus was making mention of the Father. The words, I am from above, He that sent me, must have suggested to those who heard that He claimed a Divine mission; but men familiar with the mission of a prophet might concede so much without understanding that the last words of Jesus (the things which I heard from Him I speak unto the world) implied an infinitely higher and closer relation to Him whom they worshipped, whom Jesus revealed as the Father. In this Name and in the words just spoken is contained the whole economy of grace.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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 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.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
8:27 {11} They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
(11) Even the contempt of Christ results in his glory: and this thing his enemies will eventually feel to their great pain.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
John clarified for his readers that Jesus had been speaking about His Father when He mentioned the One who sent Him. John did not want his readers to suffer from the same confusion as those who originally listened to Jesus. Jesus had explained earlier that it was God the Father who had sent Him (Joh 5:16-30).