Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:25
Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even [the same] that I said unto you from the beginning.
25. Then said they ] They said therefore.
Who art thou? ] It is incredible that the Jews can have failed to understand. Christ had just declared that He was from above, and not of this world. Even if the words ‘I am’ were ambiguous in themselves, in this context they are plain enough. As in Joh 8:19, they pretend not to understand, and contemptuously ask, Thou, who art Thou? The pronoun is scornfully emphatic. Comp. Act 19:15. Possibly both in Joh 8:19 and here they wish to draw from Him something more definite, more capable of being stated in a formal charge against Him.
Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning ] This is a passage of well-known difficulty, and the meaning will probably always remain uncertain. (1) It is doubtful whether it is a question or not. (2) Of the six or seven Greek words all excepting the word meaning ‘unto you’ can have more than one meaning. (3) There is a doubt whether we have six or seven Greek words. To discuss all the possible renderings would go beyond the scope of this volume. What I from the beginning am also speaking to you of is perhaps as likely as any translation to be right. And it matters little whether it be made interrogative or not. Either, ‘Do you ask that of which I have been speaking to you from the first?’, in which case it is not unlike Christ’s reply to Philip (Joh 14:9); or, ‘I am that of which I have been speaking to you all along.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who art thou? – As Jesus did not expressly say in the previous verse that he was the Messiah, they professed still not to understand him. In great contempt, therefore, they asked him who he was. As if they had said, Who art thou that undertakest to threaten us in this manner! When we remember that they regarded him as a mere pretender from Galilee; that he was poor and without friends; and that he was persecuted by those in authority, we cannot but admire the patience with which all this was borne, and the coolness with which he answered them.
Even the same … – What he had professed to them was that he was the light of the world; that he was the bread that came down from heaven; that he was sent by his Father, etc. From all this they might easily gather that he claimed to be the Messiah. He assumed no new character; he made no change in his professions; he is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and as he had once professed to be the light of the world, so, in the face of contempt, persecution, and death, he adhered to the profession.
The beginning – From his first discourse with them, or uniformly.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 8:25-27
Then said they unto Him, Who art Thou?
Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
By thus expressing Himself, Jesus evidently declared Himself to be the expected One. He avoided, however, the term Messiah, as subject to too much misunderstanding among the Jews. It was, however, just this term which His hearers desired to extort from Him, and it was with this object that they asked the question: Who art Thou? In other words: Have at least the courage to speak out plainly. In fact, an express declaration on this point might have furnished them matter for a capital accusation. The answer of Jesus is: Absolutely what I also declared unto you–neither more nor less than My words imply. He appeals to His own testimony as the adequate expression of His nature. They have only to fathom the series of statements He has made concerning Himself, and they will find therein a complete analysis of His mission and essence. The application of this reply of Jesus was that, to discover His true nature and the position He filled towards Israel and the world, it was sufficient to weigh the testimony which He had for some time borne to Himself. Neither more nor less was to be expected from Him than He Himself stated. In this manner He would be successively recognized as the true Temple (chap. 2); the Living Water (chap. 4); the true Son of God (chap. 5); the Bread of heaven (chap. 6); etc. And thus His name of Christ would be spelt out in some sort, letter by letter, in the heart of the believer, would there take the form of a spontaneous discovery, which would be infinitely more advantageous than if learnt by rote under external teaching. In fact, the confession Thou art the Christ, to be a saving one, must be as with St. Peter (chap. 6:66-69), the fruit of the experience of faith (Mat 16:17). Jesus never sought or accepted an adherence arising from any other principle. This reply is one of the most characteristic traits of our Lords wisdom, and perfectly explains why He so frequently forbade the twelve to say that He was the Christ. (F. Godet, D. D.)
Christs teaching is
I. CONSISTENT (Joh 8:25). Probably it was desired that He should make a proclamation of Himself inconsistent with His former utterances; if so it was disappointed. All His utterances meet in Him as rays meet in the sun. This is remarkable if we consider
1. The various and trying circumstances under which He spoke. It was often under intense suffering and great provocation, and often in answer to men who did their utmost to make Him contradict Himself.
2. The diversity in the minds and circumstances of those who reported His speeches. How different in faculties, taste, culture, habits, and angles of observation were His four biographers; and yet their reports agree.
II. PROGRESSIVE (Joh 8:26). Christ suited His teaching to the capacities and characters of His hearers. In His mind there was an infinite treasury of truth; but His administration of it was gradual. Indeed no finite intelligence could take in all that was in the mind of Christ; it would take Eternity to unfold all His wonderful thoughts. This progressiveness
1. Supplies a motive to stimulate human inquiry. Christ will teach you according to your capacity. The more you learn of Him, the more He will teach you.
2. Shows His suitability as a Teacher for mankind. Men have naturally a craving for knowledge; and the more they know, the more intense their craving becomes. They therefore want a teacher of boundless resources.
III. DIVINE. He that sent Me, etc. (Joh 8:26). He taught not human things, but the things of God–absolute realities–concerning the Divine nature, government, claims, etc.
IV. NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD (Joh 8:27). In this they represent an enormous class in every age, who understand not Christ, but misinterpret Him. Conclusion–Have we put to Christ in earnest the question, Who art Thou? and have we received in docility, faith, and love back into our own hearts an answer from Him? (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 25. Who art thou?] This marks the indignation of the Pharisees-as if they had said: Who art thou that takest upon thee to deal out threatenings in this manner against us?
Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.] Rather, Just what I have already told you, i.e. that I am the light of the world – the Christ-the Saviour of mankind. There are a variety of renderings for this verse among the critics. Some consider (which makes the principal difficulty in the text) as the answer of our Lord. Who art thou? I am , the chief, the supreme; and have therefore a right to judge, and to execute judgment. But if our Lord had intended to convey this meaning, he would doubtless have said , or , and not , in the accusative case. This mode of reading appears to have been followed by the Vulgate, some copies of the Itala, and some of the fathers; but this construction can never be reconciled to the Greek text. Others take as an adverb, in which sense it is repeatedly used by the best Greek writers; and, connecting the 25th with the 26th verse, they translate thus: I have indeed, as I ASSURE ye, many things to say of you, and to condemn in you. See Wakefield. Raphelius takes up the words nearly in the same way, and defends his mode of exposition with much critical learning; and to him I refer the reader. I have given it that meaning which I thought the most simple and plain, should any departure from our own version be thought necessary: both convey a good and consistent sense.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
What good Christian will not learn to contemn the slights and reproaches of sinful men, when he readeth of a company of miscreants thus using their Lord and Master, saying to him,
Who art thou? It is no wonder if the world, which knew him not, doth not know us. The latter part of the verse, as it lies in the Greek, is exceedingly difficult; word for word it is, The beginning, because also I speak unto you. Some think that our Saviour calleth himself
The beginning. Others think the noun is in this place put for an adverb: of which we have many instances in Scripture, though none as to this noun. But I shall leave those who desire satisfaction as to what is said by critics about this verse, to what Mr. Pool hath collected in his Synopsis Criticorum, and only consider it as our interpreters understood it; in which form it seemeth to be a mere slighting of them, as much as if he had said, I have often enough, even from the beginning, told you who I am; I can say no more to you upon that head than I have said. I am the same, and no other, than I at first told you I was.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25. Who art thou?hoping thusto extort an explicit answer; but they are disappointed.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then said they unto him, who art thou?…. That talks at this rate, and threatens with death, in case of unbelief; this they said with an haughty air, and in a scornful manner:
and Jesus saith unto them, even [the same] that I said unto you from the beginning; meaning, either of this discourse, as that he was the light of the world, and which he continued to assert; or of his being had before the sanhedrim, when he affirmed that God was his Father, and by many strong arguments proved his divine sonship; or of his ministry, when by miracles, as well as doctrines, he made it to appear that he was he that was to come, the true Messiah; or who spake from the beginning to Moses, saying, I am that I am, hath sent thee, and to the church, and Jewish fathers in the wilderness; and who is that word that was from the beginning with God; and who is called the beginning, the first cause of all things, and of the creation of God; and some think this is intended here.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Who art thou? ( ;). Proleptic use of before , “Thou, who art thou?” Cf. 1:19. He had virtually claimed to be the Messiah and on a par with God as in 5:15. They wish to pin him down and to charge him with blasphemy.
Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning ( ). A difficult sentence. It is not clear whether it is an affirmation or a question. The Latin and Syriac versions treat it as affirmative. Westcott and Hort follow Meyer and take it as interrogative. The Greek fathers take it as an exclamation. It seems clear that the adverbial accusative cannot mean “from the beginning” like ‘ (15:27) or (16:4). The LXX has for “at the beginning” or “at the first” (Ge 43:20). There are examples in Greek, chiefly negative, where means “at all,” “essentially,” “primarily.” Vincent and Bernard so take it here, “Primarily what I am telling you.” Jesus avoids the term Messiah with its political connotations. He stands by his high claims already made.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning [ ] . A very difficult passage, on which the commentators are almost hopelessly divided. There are two main classes of interpretations, according to one of which it is to be read interrogatively, and according to the other, affirmatively. The two principal representatives of the former class are Meyer, who renders “Do you ask that which all along [ ] I am even saying to you?” and Westcott, “How is it that I even speak to you at all [ ] ” ? So also Milligan and Moulton. This latter rendering requires the change of o ti, the relative, that which, into the conjunction oti, that.
The second class of interpreters, who construe the passage affirmatively, vary in their explanations of thn archn, which they render severally, altogether, essentially, first of all, in the beginning. There is also a third class, who take thn archn as a noun, and explain according to Revelation 21 6, “I am the beginning, that which I am even saying unto you.” This view is represented mostly by the older commentators, Augustine, Bede, Lampe, and later by Wordsworth.
I adopt the view of Alford, who renders essentially, explaining by generally, or traced up to its principle [] . Shading off from this are Godet, absolutely; Winer, throughout; Thayer, wholly or precisely. I render, I am essentially that which I even speak to you. If we accept the explanation of I am, in ver. 24, as a declaration of Jesus ‘ absolute divine being, that thought prepares the way for this interpretation of His answer to the question, Who art thou? His words are the revelation of Himself. “He appeals to His own testimony as the adequate expression of His nature. They have only to fathom the series of statements He has made concerning Himself, and they will find therein a complete analysis of His mission and essence” (Godet). 32
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then said they unto him,” (elegon oun auto su tis ei) “Then inquired they to him, just who are you?” It was an insolent repetition of the question. The same belligerent Christ-hating Pharisees who had doggedly sought to entrap Him in some devious manner to justify their putting Him to death, as a capital criminal, Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18; Joh 7:1; Joh 7:19-20; Joh 7:25; Joh 8:37. They still wanted to know who He was, not accepting: 1) His testimony, 2) the Prophets, 3) John the Baptist’s, 4) the Father’s, or 5) His miracles.
2) “And Jesus saith unto them,” (eipen autois ho lesous) “Jesus replied to them, to the cynical Pharisees, Joh 8:13, in a direct, clear, and simple manner. He had but one reply.
3) “Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.” (ten archen ho ti kai lalo humin) “it is the same that I said to you at the beginning, isn’t it?” that I am from the Father who is in heaven, from above, Joh 1:1-4; Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16-17; Joh 6:38; Joh 8:12; Joh 8:18. Jesus never had to change His story or identity because He was both sinless in being and in deed, Heb 7:25-26.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25. From the beginning. They who translate the words τὴν ἀρχὴν, as if they had been in the nominative case, I am the beginning, (227) and as if Christ were here asserting his eternal Divinity, are greatly mistaken. There is no ambiguity of this sort in the Greek, but still the Greek commentators also differ as to the meaning. All of them, indeed, are agreed that a preposition must be understood; but many give to it the force of an adverb, as if Christ had said, “This ought first ( τὴν ἀρχὴν) to be observed.” Some too — among whom is Chrysostom — render it continuously thus: The beginning, who also speak to you, I have many things to say and judge of you This meaning has been put into verse by Nonnus. (228) But a different reading is more generally adopted, and appears to be the true one. I interpret τὴν ἀρχὴν, from the beginning; so that the meaning, in my opinion, is this: “I did not arise suddenly, but as I was formerly promised, so now I come forth publicly.” He adds,
Because I also speak to you; by which he means that he testifies plainly enough who he is, provided that they had ears. This word, ὄτι because, is not employed merely to assign a reason, as if Christ intended to prove that he was from the beginning, because he now speaks; but he asserts that there is such an agreement between his doctrine and the eternity which he has spoken of, that it ought to be reckoned an undoubted confirmation of it. It may be explained thus: “ According to the beginning, that is, what I have formerly said, I now, as it were, confirm anew;” or, “And truly what I now also speak, is in accordance with the conditions made in all ages, so as to be a strong confirmation of it.”
In short, this reply consists of two clauses; for, under the word beginning, he includes an uninterrupted succession of ages, during which God had made a covenant with their fathers. When he says that he also speaks, he joins his doctrine with the ancient predictions, and shows that it depends on them. Hence it follows that the Jews had no other reason for their ignorance, than that they did not believe either the Prophets or the Gospel; for it is the same Christ that is exhibited in all of them. They pretended to be disciples of the Prophets, and to look to the eternal covenant of God; but still they rejected Christ, who had been promised from the beginning, and presented himself before them.
(227) Ceux qui traduisent, “ Je suis le commencement.”
(228) He refers to Nonnus, a Greek writer, who rendered into hexameter verse the Gospel by John. The passage stands thus:
Ti>v su< pe>leiv kai< Cristo<v ajni>acen, o tti par uJmi~n Ex ajrch~v ajo>rizon e]cwn nh>riqma dika>zein Kai< lale>ein
Who art thou ? and Christ cried aloud, What (I say) to you from the beginning, having an innumerable multitude of things to say and judge So far as relates to τὴν ἀρχὴν, Nonnus appears to agree with Calvin; for he renders it ἐξ ἀρχη̈ς, from the beginning. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) Then said they unto him, Who art thou?They ask the question in the tone of scorn which they have already expressed in Joh. 8:22. The pronoun is the emphatic word: Thou, who art thou? and the phrase was in frequent use to express contempt. He had said, I am; but they do not understand the words to be a divine name. Long before this time the name formed from these words, and which is now usually, but wrongly, read Jehovah, had been regarded as too sacred to be uttered. They appear to take the sentence as though it was incomplete, I am . . .; Well, who art thou? We have again, as in Joh. 8:19, to note the attempt to draw from Him some definite statement which may be made the ground of a technical charge; but this He again avoids.
And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.Almost every word of this answer is in the Greek capable of more than one meaning, and the true interpretation of the whole sentence cannot be decided with certainty. To discuss it with any fulness would be to encumber the page with details which would be unintelligible to the general reader; to discuss it with anything but fulness would be unsatisfactory to the student. There is little room for addition to the investigations which are now accessible. The full notes of Meyer and Stier and Tholuck may be read in English; and Dr. Moultons addition to his Translation of Winers Grammar (eighth edition, 1877, pp. 581-2), gives in a few words nearly all that can be said on the grammatical difficulty. After a careful consideration of the whole matter, it is believed, though not without hesitation, that the rendering, which is least liable to objection on any ground, is that which regards the answer as itself a questionWhat I from the beginning am also speaking to you? You ask who I am. This has formed the substance of My teaching from the beginning, and is the substance of My teaching still. (Comp. Joh. 8:58.) Can it be that you ask this?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. Who art thou? Since you declare I am, and require our faith, declare who you are. How gladly would they have had him declare,
I am your leader to universal supremacy. The same that I said Tholuck’s rendering of this much disputed passage seems to us the true one: What I told you already in the beginning, that am I. He refuses to add the word Messiah, hero, liberator. Just what all his discourses to them have described him to be, just that he is; and with that, were their hearts unperverted, they would be most joyously satisfied.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘They therefore said to him, “Who are you?” ’
His statement has brought them up short. They now recognised that He seemed to be claiming even more than they had at first realised (the crescendo is building up). ‘Who are you?’ they asked. There is a stress on the ‘you’. Was the statement one of awed curiosity, or of angry cynicism? Possibly a little of both, for among the questioners would be some who were willing to give His words consideration (see Joh 8:31).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘Jesus said to them, “Even that which I have told you right from the beginning”.’
(We could in fact translate these words either as ‘even what I have told you from the beginning’ or as ‘why do I talk to you at all?’. Either is possible but the former seems more likely, for there would be some whose interest was genuine).
He had now been with them for some time, and by this stage He considered that they should have been aware of the truth about Him, but He patiently points back to what He had already said. He has been consistent in His claims from the start. If only they had listened they would have known Who He was.
‘From the beginning.’ He was drawing their attention to His past words. He wanted them to know that He had consistently said the same thing and that nothing had changed. But the writer possibly has in mind Joh 1:1 and sees behind it a deeper inference. It is not only what He has said from the beginning of His ministry that is important, but what He has been saying from the beginning of time.
Jesus was not, however, deceived by them. He knew that many of them were still arguing because they hoped that He would fall into a trap. Up to this point His words, while clear, had not taken Him beyond the pale, but He knew that they were hoping for something that was incontrovertible with which to condemn Him They were like many of us are when we argue. They were not genuinely weighing up His arguments in the light of the facts, but were simply refusing to give Him credence and waiting for Him to trip up. They were simply not prepared to consider that they might need light. They considered that they had the light.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 8:25-26. Even the same that I said unto you, &c. On supposition that this is the proper translation of the passage, our Lord’s meaning was, “I am that which I said to you at the beginning of this discourse, namely, the Light of the world.” But Raphelius, who is followed by Doddridge and many others, proposes to point the sentence in such a manner, as to give the following translation: Truly because I am speaking to you, I have many things to say and judge concerning you. It is well known, that the term in the Greek frequently signifies indeed, or truly. According to this translation, the meaning is, “Because I have long exercised my ministry among you, and you have not profited by it as you ought, I have many reproofs to give you, and a severe sentence of condemnation to pass upon you. Nevertheless, I shall wave them all at present, and tell you only one thing, that you may think upon it seriously, namely, that he who sent me is Truth and goodness itself; and that I speak to the world nothing but what I have received from him, however dark or disagreeable these things may be to persons of your dispositions.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 8:25 . The Jews understand the well enough, but refuse to recognise it, and therefore ask pertly and contemptuously: ; tu quis es? being emphasized for the purpose of expressing disdain; comp. Act 19:15 . Jesus replies with a counter-question of surprise at so great obduracy on their part; but then at once after Joh 8:26 discontinues any further utterance regarding them, His opponents. His counter-question is: , ? What I from the very beginning also say to you ? namely, do you ask that? Who I am (to wit, the Messiah, Joh 8:24 ; Joh 8:29 ), that is the very thing which, from the very beginning, since I have been among you, and have spoken to you, has formed the matter of my discourse; [14] and can you still ask about that, as though you had not yet heard it from me? They ought to have known long ago, and to have recognised , what they just now asked with their wicked question . This view is not complicated, as Winer objects, but corresponds simply to the words and to the situation. On as used frequently in an adverbial sense, both among the Greeks and by the LXX., with and without the article, to denote time, ab initio, from the very beginning , see Schweighaser, Lex. Herod . I. p. 104 f.; Lennep ad Phalar . p. 82 ff. It precedes the relative, because it is the point which makes the obduracy of the Jews so very perceptible; comp. Joh 4:18 ; Buttmann, Neut. Gram . p. 333 d. [E. T. p. 389].
, ] interrogatively, in relation to a question with immediately preceding, as is frequently the case even in the Classics, so that some such words as thou askest must be supplied in thought. See Khner, II. 837, note 1; Bernhardy, p. 443; Krger, 51. 17. 3.
] also , expresses the corresponding relation (Baeumlein, Partik . p. 152), in this case, of speech to being: what from the very beginning, as I am it, so also, I say it to you.
] speak , not: say . Comp. on Joh 8:26 ; Joh 8:43 ; and see on Rom 3:19 . Nor does He use , because it is a continuous speaking; the sound of it is, in fact, still ringing in their ears from. Joh 8:23-24 .
The passage is also taken interrogatively by Matthaei, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Lcke. The latter [15] renders: Why, indeed, do I still speak to you at all ? With this view, it is true, is quite compatible; for it is confessedly often used in the Classics for ab initio , in the sense of omnino (Raphel, Herod. in loc.; Hermann, ad Viger . p. 723; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . I. p. 237; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Oec . ii. 12), though only in negative propositions, or such whose signification really amounts to a negation, [16] which latter, however, might be the case here (as in Plat. Demod . p. 381 D; Philo, de Abr . p. 366 C); it is also allowable to take , in the sense of why (see on Mar 9:11 ; Buttmann, neut. Gram . p. 218 [E. T. p. 253]). But the thought itself has so little meaning in it, and is so little natural, expressing, besides, a reflection , which is at the bottom so empty, and, at the same time, through , so expanded and destitute of feeling, that we should scarcely expect it at the lips of the Johannean Jesus, especially in circumstances so lively and significant as the present. Further thus understood, the saying would have no connection whatever with what follows, and the logical connection assumed by Lcke would require the insertion of some such words as . The words would thus likewise stand in no relation to the question , whereas John’s general manner would lead us to expect an answer which had reference in some significant way or other to the question which had been put. The following are non-interrogative views : (1) “ What I have already said to you at the beginning, that am I! ” So Tholuck after Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Clericus, Heumann, and several others; also B. Crusius. Jesus would thus be announcing that He had already, from the very beginning in His discourses, made known His higher personality. The Praes. , as expressing that which still continues to be in the present, would not be opposed to this view; but it does not harmonize with the arrangement of the words; and logically, at all events, ought to stand before (comp. Syriac). (2) “ From the very first ( before all things ), I am what I also speak to you .” So De Wette; comp. Luther (“I am your preacher; if you first believe that, you will then learn what I am, and not otherwise”), Melancthon, Aretius, and several; also Maier, who, however, takes incorrectly as thoroughly ( nothing else ). [17] On this view Jesus, instead of answering directly: “I am the Messiah,” would have said that He was to be known above all things from His discourses. [18] But does not mean “ above all things ,” not even in Xen. Cyr. i. 2, 3, where we read: , at the very outset not such, i.e . not such at all, omnino non tales; just as little too in Herod. i. 9, where also, as frequently in Herodotus, it denotes omnino; comp. Wolf, Dem . Lept . p. 278. And how entirely without any reference would be the words ante omnia (surely some sort of posterius would need to be supplied in thought). Brckner has rightly, therefore, rejected the “ above all things ” in De Wette’s rendering, though regarding it as the only correct one, and keeping to the interpretation “ from the very first ” in its temporal sense. One cannot, however, see what is really intended by the words “ from the very first , I am, etc.,” especially as placed in such an emphatic position at the commencement of the clause. For Jesus had neither occasion nor ground for giving the assurance that He had been from the beginning of His appearance, and still was , such as He had declared Himself to be in His discourses, and therefore had not since become different. (3) “ Undoubtedly (nothing else) am I what I also say to you .” So Kuinoel; a view which assigns an incorrect meaning to , and confounds with ; objections which affect also the similar interpretation of Ebrard: “ I am altogether that which I also say to you (that I am He).” (4) “ At the very outset I declared of myself what I also explain to you, or what I also now say .” So Starck, Not. sel . p. 106; Bretschneider. But the supplying of from the following (comp. Dissen, Dem. de Cor. p. 359) would only be suggested if we read , . (5) Fritzsche ( Lit. Bl. z. allg. Kirchenz . 1843, p. 513, and de conform. Lachmann , p. 53), whom Hengstenberg follows, takes the view: “ Sum a rerum primordiis (Joh 1:1 ) ea natura, quam me esse vobis etiam profiteor .” Jesus would thus have designated Himself as the primal Logos . Quite unintelligibly for His hearers, who had no occasion for taking in the absolute sense, as though reminded of the angel of the Lord in Mal 3 and Zec 11 , nor for understanding , . . . as Fritzsche does; at all events, as far as the latter is concerned, ought to have been used instead of . (6) Some connect with , etc., Joh 8:26 , and after place merely a comma. So already Codd., Nonnus, Scaliger, Clarius, Knatchbull, Raphel, Bengel, and, more recently, Olshausen, Hofmann, Schriftbew . I. p. 65, II. p. 178, and Baeumlein. In taking the words thus, , is either written , because , with Scaliger and Raphel (so also Bengel: “ principio, quum etiam loquor vobis [Dativus commodi: ‘ ut credatis et salvemini ’] multa habeo de vobis loqui , etc.” [19] ), or is taken as a pronoun, id quod . In the latter way, Olshausen explains it, following Clarius: “ In the first place, as I also plainly say to you, I have much to blame and punish in you; I am therefore your serious admonisher .” Baeumlein, however, renders: “ I have undoubtedly as I also do much to speak and to judge concerning you .” But on this view of the words Jesus would have given no answer at all to the question ; according to Olshausen, would have to be transformed into , in the first place; and the middle clause, according to Olshausen and Baeumlein, would give a quite superfluous sense; while, according to the view of Bengel and Hofmann, it would be forced and unnatural. (7) Exegetically impossible is the interpretation of Augustine: “ Principium (the very beginning of all things) me credite, quia ( ) et loquor vobis , i.e. quia humilis propter vos factus ad ista verba descendi; ” comp. Gothic, Ambrose, Bede, Ruperti, and several others. Calvin rightly rejects this interpretation, but himself gives one that is impossible. (8) Obscure, and an importation, is Luthardt’s view ( , that : “ from the beginning am I, that I may also speak to you ”), that Jesus describes the act of His speaking, the existence of His word, as His presence for the Jews; that from His first appearance onwards, He who was then present as the Word of God on the earth had been always used to give Himself a presence for men in the Word. If, according to this view, as it would seem, denotes: “ from the beginning it is my manner, that ,” this cannot possibly be in the simple , which has to be supplied in thought; besides, how much is forced into the mere !
[14] According to John, at His very first appearance in the temple, Joh 2:19 .
[15] So, without doubt, Chrysostom also, who gives as the meaning: , . Comp. Cyril and Theophylact, also Euth. Zigabenus. Matthaei explains the words in exact accordance with Lcke: “ Cur vero omnino vobiscum loquor? cur frustra vobiscum disputo ?” See ed. min. I. p. 575. With this also is in substantial agreement the view of Ewald, who, however, regards the words rather as the expression of righteous indignation than as a question: “ That I should, indeed, speak to you at all! ” It would be more correct to say: “ That I should at all even (still) speak to you !” But how greatly is the at all thus in the way! “ , too, would then need a supplement, which is not furnished by the text. Besides, the following words, especially if introduced without an or (indicating that Jesus had collected Himself again, and suppressed His indignation), would not be appropriate. In the Theol. QuartalsChr. 1855, p. 592 ff., Nirschl renders: “To what purpose shall I speak further to you of the origin, i.e. of God, and my own derivation from Him?” But on this view Christ ought, at the very least, to have said .
[16] See especially Lennep, l.c. and p. 94; Brckner on the passage.
[17] Comp. Winer, p. 432 [E. T. p. 581], who gives as the meaning: “ I am entirely that which I represent myself as being in my discourses .” So also Godet: “Absolument ce que je vous dis; ni plus ni moins que ce que renferme ma parole.” But . is used in the sense of completely, entirely , only in connection with negations (usually, too, without the article): not at all, not in the least ; “cum negatione praefracte negando servit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. l.c.
[18]
[19] Comp. Hofmann: “At first, namely for the present, because this is the time, when He speaks to them, He has much to speak and to judge about them in words.” is alleged, to be used in opposition to a , i.e. to a time when that which He now speaks will be proved by deeds , ver. 28. In this way meaning and connection are imported into the passage, and yet the (with an appeal to Hartung, Partik. I. p. 129) is completely neglected, or rather transferred from the relative to the principal clause. How the passages adduced by Hartung may be explained without any transference, see in Klotz, ad Devar . p. 635 ff. In particular, there is no ground for supposing the existence of a trajection of the in the N. T. Hofmann explains, as though John had written: , , , etc.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
Ver. 25. Even the same that I said, &c. ] To wit, “the way, the truth, and the life.” Some render it thus: Prorsus id quod loguor vobiscum, I am the very same Word that I speak with you.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] Their question follows on , Joh 8:23 , and the dubious elliptical expression of the last verse. It is intended to bring out a plain answer on which their enmity might fasten.
Our Lord’s reply has been found difficult, principally from the ambiguity of and . No sense can however be given by which will at all harmonize with the context, notwithstanding Luthardt’s defence of it. Lcke’s interpretation (edn. 3) after Euthym [125] , “ Why do I speak with you at all? ” is not only ungrammatical, but most alien from the whole character of our Lord’s discourses. I assume then that is to be read. Then comes another question: what does mean? It has been usually rendered ‘ say ,’ or ‘ tell;’ ‘even the same that I said unto you from the beginning ,’ E. V. But as De Wette has observed, will not bear this. It is never ‘ to say ’ simply, but ‘ to discourse ,’ or ‘ to hold converse ,’ ‘ to speak .’ Again, what is ? not to be taken substantively (as Aug [126] , Ambr [127] , Vulg. principium ), so as to mean ‘ The beginning , as I, &c.’ (so recently, Bp. Wordsw.): but adverbially, with all Greek interpreters (see reff.). And adverbially it may mean (1) ‘ in the beginning ,’ ‘ from the beginning ,’ but not ‘ firstly: ’ (2) ‘ generally ,’ ‘ at all ,’ ‘ omnino ,’ usually with a negative clause, but sometimes with an affirmative. Thus Soph. Antig. 92, : Herod. i. 9, : iv. 25, : Plato, Lysis, p. 265, ; See many more examples in Hermann on Viger, p. 722. The common rendering takes the first of these meanings; but the above remarks on will set that rendering aside; and together with the assumption of = , the meaning, ‘ in the beginning ,’ or ‘ at first ,’ or ‘ from the beginning ,’ falls to the ground. We have then the second meaning of , generally, or ‘traced up to its principle,’ for such is the account to be given of this meaning of the word.
[125] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
[126] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
[127] Ambrose, Bp. of Milan , A.D. 374 397
The rendering of , ‘ even ,’ and placing it before ., as done in E. V., is ungrammatical. It must be taken with , being inseparable from it by its position between the relative and the verb: as in the clause, .
This being premised, the sentence must be rendered (literally) thus: Essentially, that which I also discourse unto you : or In very deed, that same which I speak unto you . He is the His discourses are the revelation of Himself . And there is especial propriety in this: When Moses asked the name of God, “ I am that which I AM,” was the mysterious answer; the hidden essence of the yet unrevealed One could only be expressed by self-comprehension; but when God manifest in the flesh is asked the same question, it is ‘I am that which I SPEAK:’ what He reveals Himself to be, that He is (see on next verse). The above sense is maintained by De Wette, and strikingly expanded and illustrated by Stier, iv. 378 ff., edn. 2. The meaning maintained by Meyer, “ Do ye ask, what I have been long telling you? ” is ingenious, but seems to be by implication refuted by what has been said above. He gives a good rsume of the interpretations.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 8:25 . This only adds bewilderment to their mind, and they, not “pertly and contemptuously” (Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann), but with some shade of impatience, ask: ; “Who art Thou?” To this Jesus replies: . These words are rendered in A.V [65] “Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning”; and in R.V [66] “Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning”. The Greek Fathers understood as equivalent to , a meaning it frequently bears; and they interpret the clause as an exclamation, “That I should even speak to you at all!” [ , , . , , Euthymius.] With this Field compares Achilles Tatius, vi. 20, ; Art thou not content that I even condescend to speak to thee? In support of this rendering Holtzmann quotes from Clem., Hom. vi. 11, , ; He even supposes that this is an echo of John, so that we have here an indication of the earliest interpretation of the words. This meaning does no violence to the words, but it is slightly at discord with the spirit of the next clause and of Jesus generally (although cf. Mar 9:19 ). Another rendering, advocated at great length by Raphel ( Annot. , i. 637), puts a comma after and another after , and connects with ; “omnino, quia et loquor vobis, multa habeo de vobis loqui”. Raphel’s note is chiefly valuable for the collection of instances of the use of . A third interpretation is that suggested by the A.V [67] , and which finds a remarkable analogue in Plautus, Captivi , III. iv. 91, “Quis igitur ille est? Quem dudum dixi a principio tibi” (Elsner). But this would require , not . There remains a fourth possible interpretation, that of Melanchthon, who renders “plane illud ipsum verbum sum quod loquor vobiscum”. So Luther (see Meyer); and Winer translates “(I am) altogether that which in my words I represent myself as being”. To this Meyer and Moulton (see his note on Winer) object that only means “omnino” “prorsus” when the sentence is negative. Elsner, however, admitting that the use is rare, gives several examples where it is used “sine addita negativa”. The words, then, may be taken as meaning “I am nothing else than what I am saying to you: I am a Voice; my Person is my teaching”.
[65] Authorised Version.
[66] Revised Version.
[67] Authorised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Even the same that . . . beginning = He Whom I say also to you at the beginning [of this colloquy, verses: Joh 8:12-20]. Compare Septuagint, Gen 43:18, Gen 43:20 = at the beginning [of our coming down] = at the first.
from the beginning. There is no “from” in the Gr See note on Joh 8:44.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] Their question follows on , Joh 8:23, and the dubious elliptical expression of the last verse. It is intended to bring out a plain answer on which their enmity might fasten.
Our Lords reply has been found difficult, principally from the ambiguity of and . No sense can however be given by which will at all harmonize with the context, notwithstanding Luthardts defence of it. Lckes interpretation (edn. 3) after Euthym[125], Why do I speak with you at all? is not only ungrammatical, but most alien from the whole character of our Lords discourses. I assume then that is to be read. Then comes another question: what does mean? It has been usually rendered say, or tell; even the same that I said unto you from the beginning, E. V. But as De Wette has observed, will not bear this. It is never to say simply, but to discourse, or to hold converse, to speak. Again, what is ? not to be taken substantively (as Aug[126], Ambr[127], Vulg. principium), so as to mean The beginning, as I, &c. (so recently, Bp. Wordsw.): but adverbially, with all Greek interpreters (see reff.). And adverbially it may mean (1) in the beginning, from the beginning, but not firstly: (2) generally, at all, omnino, usually with a negative clause, but sometimes with an affirmative. Thus Soph. Antig. 92, : Herod. i. 9, : iv. 25, : Plato, Lysis, p. 265, ; See many more examples in Hermann on Viger, p. 722. The common rendering takes the first of these meanings;-but the above remarks on will set that rendering aside;-and together with the assumption of = , the meaning, in the beginning, or at first, or from the beginning, falls to the ground. We have then the second meaning of , generally, or traced up to its principle,-for such is the account to be given of this meaning of the word.
[125] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
[126] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
[127] Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, A.D. 374-397
The rendering of , even, and placing it before ., as done in E. V., is ungrammatical. It must be taken with , being inseparable from it by its position between the relative and the verb: as in the clause, .
This being premised, the sentence must be rendered (literally) thus: Essentially, that which I also discourse unto you: or In very deed, that same which I speak unto you. He is the -His discourses are the revelation of Himself. And there is especial propriety in this:-When Moses asked the name of God, I am that which I AM, was the mysterious answer; the hidden essence of the yet unrevealed One could only be expressed by self-comprehension; but when God manifest in the flesh is asked the same question, it is I am that which I SPEAK: what He reveals Himself to be, that He is (see on next verse). The above sense is maintained by De Wette, and strikingly expanded and illustrated by Stier, iv. 378 ff., edn. 2. The meaning maintained by Meyer, Do ye ask, what I have been long telling you? is ingenious, but seems to be by implication refuted by what has been said above. He gives a good rsume of the interpretations.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:25, etc. ; who art Thou?) They are referring to that expression of His, , I am He [Joh 8:24]. They ask the question, but in such a perverse frame of mind, that they have no real intention to believe on Him, when He tells them.-, He said) It is not said, He replied. The Lord addresses Himself less directly to meet the Jews interrogatory; but He addresses Himself to the fact itself plainly, and in such a way as to make a further progress in His own discourse. A similar question and reply occur at ch. Joh 10:24, etc., If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered-I told you, and ye believed not; the works that I do in My Fathers name, they bear witness of Me.- , , , , ) All these words form one complete paragraph, of which both the Protasis and the Apodosis are each double-membered, so as that they most aptly correspond with one another, in this way:
In the beginning, since I also speak to you, [inasmuch as I am even speaking to, or, for you],
I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: But He, who sent Me, is true;
and what things I have heard from Him, these I speak to the world.
Every word in this passage both ought and can be taken in its own proper signification. I. is not here equivalent in meaning to , altogether, but in the strict sense, in the beginning. I have shown it to be so at Chrysost. de Sacerdot, p. 425, etc.: also at 1Co 5:1. Also the Herodotea Raphelii, p. 293, etc., deserve to be well weighed. Nonnus, when he might have retained (saith Joach. Camerarius), as the numbers of his verse were no obstacle, yet has changed the words into . II. is because, since, inasmuch as; so Joh 8:45, but because, , I speak the truth, ye do not believe Me. Let the force of the same particle be weighed at Joh 8:22; Joh 8:43; Joh 2:18, What sign showest Thou, seeing that Thou doest these things? Joh 11:47, What do we? for-inasmuch as-this Man doeth many miracles; Joh 8:56, What think ye, that He will not come to the feast? etc. III. about the beginning, and not the very beginning of a clause, has the force of even, also; and in this passage it intensifies the force of the present tense and indicative mood in the verb ; Comp. with it , even, 1Co 15:29, What shall they do, that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then [Engl. Vers. ; rather, even] baptized for the dead? Php 3:8, Yea doubtless, and I [Engl. Vers. ; rather, I even] count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. IV. , I am speaking, not merely I have to speak, not merely I have spoken, but even yet I am speaking [I speak]. V. , to you [for you], is the dative of the advantage, i.e. I speak concerning Myself, who I am, in order that ye may believe and be saved. Hardly any point has caused more difficulty to expositors than the stopping after this . The Codices MSS. quoted in the Apparatus Crit. p. 589, defend the comma; and so also, in addition to Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Scaliger, who are mentioned in the same place, Knatchbull, Raphelius, also James Faber, Corn. Jansenius, and Franc. Lucas. [Engl. Vers. Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say, etc. Vulg. Principium quia (or, as other copies, qui) et loquor vobis; [223] [224], quod; [225], quoniam; , in Rec. Text. So Lachmann, reading the sentence with an interrogation, making , = , resembling the interrogative. So Mar 9:11, They asked, saying, , , , . Alford translates , etc., I am essentially that same which I SPEAK unto you. Appropriate to Him, as the revealed. Just as to Moses I am that I am was appropriate of One as yet unrevealed.] VI. , much [multa] concerning you, on account of your much [multam] incredulity. This was the chief point of Jesus Christs complaint concerning the Jews everywhere, and especially here, where He begins to make mention as to His departure. VII. , I have to speak and to judge. To this appertains the , and it has thus somewhat more force than . Now for the first time there was given by the Jews to the Lord by far the greatest reason for His speaking and judging concerning themselves, after that they had heard so many testimonies, and yet had not believed. Similarly , now, is employed, Luk 11:39, in an argument, for which a great handle had been given, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup, etc. Comp. the , began, Mat 11:20, Then began He to upbraid the cities, etc. Here the Protasis ceases, in the whole of which the same thing is said, as at ch. Joh 6:36, I said to you that ye both [also, Engl. Vers.] have seen Me, and do not believe; and at ch. Joh 10:25, etc., where to the same question the same reply is repeated, only in other words. VIII. There follows the Apodosis, beginning with , in which He plainly enough intimates, who He is. IX. i.e. although you to such a degree refuse to believe, that your incredulity furnishes the strongest reason why I might have judged you; yet He, who hath sent Me into the world, is true. Your unbelief does not set aside His own faithfulness. X. , , i.e. These things I speak, which He that is true hath committed to Me, for the purpose of saving you, not for the purpose of judging you; the sum and substance of which is, that I have been sent by Him: I speak these things, and these alone, not other things, which would appertain to the judging of you; ch. Joh 3:17, God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved; ch. Joh 5:45, Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; ch. Joh 12:47, If any man hear My words and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. XI. . An abbreviated form of expression, i.e. These things, which were before unknown to the world, I have brought into the world, and I speak in the world, in order that they may be distributed by My witnesses throughout the whole world, now a stranger to [alien from] the faith, but, whether you will believe or not, hereafter about to believe. I do not pay any regard to your obstinacy. Out of the four members of this portion, as marked out at the beginning of this note, the first and fourth, the second and third, cohere together in a most suitable . In the Protasis, both the first clause, I even speak to you, and the second, I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, and the connection of both, ought to be regarded. For the words in antithesis are, I even speak, and the expression, to you: corresponding respectively to, I have to speak and to judge, and the expression, concerning you. The Apodosis is easy to perceive, when regarded by itself; but how it stands in relation to the Protasis, they who look less to the sense than to the words, are not likely forthwith to perceive. These will observe, that the unbelief of the Jews is marked in the Protasis; but, that the unshaken perseverance of Jesus in setting forth the truth unto salvation is rather made manifest in the Apodosis, and at the same time the truth itself concerning Jesus, who He is, is summarily brought in by implication. Comp. by all means the whole of Joh 8:28, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things. I might justly make the beginning of My speech, saith He, now even more than heretofore, by a judgment pronounced on your unbelief before that I bring forth the other subjects: but I perseveringly speak not so much severe things of you, as saving things of Myself [tidings of salvation to you in Myself]. Very many take separately these words, , : and indeed H. B. Starkius has thus explained the words, In the beginning, to wit, I said, what even still I say to you: which had been previously the explanation of Nic. Hemmingius, from whom John Brentius in his Homilies does not much differ. Others generally in this way: , , i.e. I am He, whom in the beginning I said to you I was; an interpretation which, however easy a sense it introduces, yet will be found to make many departures from the words of the text, if you compare them together.
[223] Vercellensis of the old Itala, or Latin Version before Jeromes, probably made in Africa, in the second century: the Gospels.
[224] Colbertinus, do.
[225] Cantabrigiensis, do.: the Gospels, Acts , , 3 d Ep. John.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:25
Joh 8:25
They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning.-The statement that they would die in their sins and never be able to come where he will be stirred their indignation and they ask, Who art thou? Jesus had claimed from the beginning to be of his Father God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Who: Joh 1:19, Joh 1:22, Joh 10:24, Joh 19:9, Luk 22:67
Even: Joh 8:12, Joh 5:17-29
Reciprocal: Mat 26:63 – that Joh 8:18 – one 1Jo 2:24 – which
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Who art thou? This question was asked in pretense of interest, for they had been told in plain terms about the personality of Jesus. He understood their motive, and only referred them to what he had said to them previously.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
[The same that I said unto you from the beginning.] I. Amongst the several renderings of this place, this seems the most proper; The same that I said unto you from the beginning. So Gen 43:18; The money returned…..at the first time “: and Joh 8:20, We came indeed down at the first time to buy food.
The words thus rendered may refer to that full and open profession which our Saviour made of himself before the Sanhedrim, that he was ‘the Son of God,’ or ‘the Messiah,’ John 5: “Do you ask me who I am? I am the same that I told you from the beginning; when I was summoned to answer before the Sanhedrim.”
II. However, I cannot but a little call to mind the common forms of speech used so much in the Jewish schools, the beginning and the end. Where, by the beginning they meant any thing that was chiefly and primarily to be offered and taken notice of: by the end what was secondary, or of less weight.
The question is, whether it were lawful for the priests to sleep in their holy vestments. The end or the secondary question was, whether it was lawful for them to sleep in them. But the beginning; or the thing chiefly and primarily to be discussed, was, whether it was lawful for them to have them on at all but in divine service. Hence the Gemarists, The tradition is, that they must not sleep in them, if you will explain the end [or secondary question]: but let them put them off and fold them up, and lay them under their heads [when they sleep]: this, ‘the beginning’ [or chief matter in hand] determines; that is, that it is not lawful for the priest so much as to wear his holy garments but when he is in holy service.
“It is a tradition of the Rabbins. If one, in walking near any city, see lights in it, if the greatest number in that city be Cuthites, let him not bless them; if they be most Israelites, let him bless it. They teach ‘the beginning,’ when they say, Most Cuthites. They teach ‘the end,’ when they say, Most Israelites.” For the chief and principal scruple was, whether they should pronounce a blessing upon those lights when there might be most Cuthites in the city that lighted them up: the lesser scruple was, whether he should bless them if there were most Israelites in that city.
“There is a dispute upon that precept, Lev 17:13; If any one kill a beast or bird upon a holy day, the Shammean school saith, Let him dig with an instrument and cover the blood. The school of Hillel saith, Let him not kill at all, if he have not dust ready by him to cover the blood.”
The end; or the secondary question, is about covering the blood if a beast should be killed. The beginning; or the principal question, is about killing a beast or a fowl at all upon a holy day, merely for the labour of scraping up dust, if there be none at hand.
There are numberless instances of this kind: and if our Saviour had any respect to this form or mode of speaking, we may suppose what he said was to this purpose: “You ask who I am? The beginning. That is the chief thing to be inquired into, which I now say, viz. That I am the light of the world, the Messiah, the Son of God, etc. But what works I do, what doctrines I teach, and by what authority, this is an inquiry of the second place, in comparison to that first and chief question, who I am.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 8:25. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Had they been patient, willing listeners, they would have seen His meaning; but now He seems to them to have left out the one essential word, in thus saying, Except ye shall believe that I am. What is that word? Who art thou? The tone of the preceding words makes it certain that the question is one of impatience and scorn, not of a spirit eager and ready to learn. This is a point of importance, as throwing light on our Lords reply.
Jesus said unto them, How is it that I even speak to you at all? The true nature and meaning of this reply are points on which the greatest difference of opinion has existed and still exists. The question is one of translation, not interpretation merely; and a discussion on a matter or Greek philology would be out of place here. The first words of the sentence are The beginning; and many have endeavoured to retain these words in translation, but in very different ways. Some have taken The beginning as a name applied by our Lord to Himself; others understand the words adverbially, as meaning in the beginning, from the very first, before all things. But none of these explanations can be obtained without doing violence to the Greek; and we are therefore bound to consider them all untenable. Even if they were possible renderings, they would present a serious difficulty to an attentive student of the words of Jesus, especially as contained in this Gospel. Our Lord is not wont directly to answer a question so presented. His whole treatment of the Jews is based on the fact that He had given them abundant evidence regarding Himself and His work. They who will not see must rest in their blindness (chap. Joh 9:39). No sign from heaven shall be wrought at the bidding of those to whom no former signs have brought instruction (Mat 16:1-2): certainly no direct answer will be vouchsafed to men who, having heard all that He has said before, have just shown themselves able awfully to pervert His simplest sayings. One line of translation only seems to be allowed by the Greek,that which takes the words as a question (or exclamation), and gives to the first words (the beginning) a meaning which in such sentences they often bear, viz. at all(as Does he act at all? is equivalent to Does he even make a beginning of action?). This is the interpretation which tire early Greek writers Cyril of Alexandria and Chrysostom gave to the words; and we cannot but lay stress on the fact that such men, who habitually spoke Greek, seem not to have thought of any other meaning. Whether the sentence is an exclamation or a question, the general sense is the same, viz. Why am I even speaking to you at all? Much has He to say concerning them (Joh 8:26) and to judge; but why does He any longer speak to men who will not understand His word? The words remind us of Mat 17:17, O faithless and perverse generation! How long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? And yet those words were said to slow-minded Galileans, not to the hostile Jews.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The Jews hearing our Saviour denouncing such a terrible threatening against them, because they believed not on him in the foregoing verses; here they perversely ask him, Who he was? Our Saviour replies, That he was the same that he was from the beginning, even the very Christ; and that they were the very same, they were also the mortal enemies and opposers of the truth. But that the time was hastening, when they should be fully convinced who he was; namely, when they had lifted him up upon his cross, when he was risen again, and ascended into heaven, and brought that destruction upon them, which he had so often threatened.
Learn hence, That the sufferings of Christ were clear and convincing demonstrations, both who he was, and what he was. The darkening of the sun, the quaking of the earth, the rending of the rocks, the opening of the graves, were such convincing proofs of his deity, that they could not but say, Verily, this was the Son of God.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 8:25-27. Then said they, Who art thou? This question they ask in derision, and not with any desire to be instructed. And Jesus saith, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning Namely, of my public ministry, or from the time I first spake to you. Or, as Whitby renders it, I am what I before told you I was; a sense of the expression, , (here rendered, from the beginning,) which he justifies by several passages of the Septuagint, particularly Gen 13:4; Gen 41:21; Gen 42:18; Gen 42:20; that is, I am one sent of God to reveal his will to you. I have many things to say and to judge of you That is, you say and judge many things of me, which from my words and deeds will appear to be false; but I have many things to say of you, what you are as to your spirit and conduct, and what you will be through the just judgment of God, which, though you will not believe, will be found true; for he that sent me to say them is true, and I speak those things which I have heard of him I deliver truly what he hath given me in charge, and he will finally verify my words. They understood not So exceeding stupid were they, and so blinded by the prejudices of their minds; that he spake to them of the Father Of God, as the person who sent him.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
8:25 {9} Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even {f} [the same] that I said unto you from the beginning.
(9) He will eventually know who Christ is who will diligently hear what Christ says.
(f) That is, I am Christ, and the Saviour, for so I told you from the beginning that I was.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ hearers did not understand what He meant at first. He responded that He was saying nothing different from what He had been saying about His identity since the beginning of His ministry. This was a new title, but it represented revelation that was consistent with what He had always claimed about Himself.