Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:18
But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
18. But the Jews did not believe ] Better, the Jews, therefore, did not believe. The man having pronounced for the moderates, the bigoted and hostile party begin to question the fact of the miracle. Note that here and in Joh 9:22 S. John no longer speaks of the Pharisees, some of whom were not unfriendly to Christ, but ‘the Jews,’ His enemies, the official representatives of the nation that rejected the Messiah (see on Joh 1:19).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Is this your son? … – The Pharisees proposed three questions to the parents, by which they hoped to convict the man of falsehood:
- Whether he was their son?
- Whether they would affirm that he was born blind? and,
- Whether they knew by what means he now saw?
They evidently intended to intimidate the parents, so that they might give an answer to one of these questions that would convict the man of deception. We see here the art to which men will resort rather than admit the truth. Had they been half as much disposed to believe on Jesus as they were to disbelieve, there would have been no difficulty in the case. And so with all men: were they as much inclined to embrace the truth as they are to reject it, there would soon be an end of cavils.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 18. But the Jews did not believe] All the subterfuge they could use was simply to sin against their conscience, by asserting that the man had not been blind; but out of this subterfuge they were soon driven by the testimony of the parents, who, if tried farther on this subject, might have produced as witness, not only the whole neighbourhood, but nearly the whole city: for it appears the man got his bread by publicly begging, Joh 9:8.
That he had been blind, and received his sight] This clause is omitted in some MSS., probably because similar words occur immediately after. There is, however, no evidence against it, sufficient to exclude it from the test.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
That is, the rulers of the Jews did not, or the multitude or rabble of the Jews did not; for we before heard that many of the common Jews did: they had seen him for a long time sit begging; (begging being allowed in that their corrupt and miserable state, they being tributary to the Romans; though in their settled, prosperous state, there was such a liberal provision made for their poor, that there was no beggar in Israel); besides, they had it from his own mouth, Joh 9:9; but the rulers had no mind to believe it; and many others of the Jews (possibly) had been no eyewitnesses of his begging, but had only heard the relation from others: the rulers therefore send for the parents of the blind man.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18-23. the Jews did not believe . .. he had been born blind . . . till they called the parents of himthat had received his sightFoiled by the testimony of theyoung man himself, they hope to throw doubt on the fact by closequestioning his parents, who, perceiving the snare laid for them,ingeniously escape it by testifying simply to the identity of theirson, and his birth-blindness, leaving it to himself, as a competentwitness, to speak as to the cure. They prevaricated, however, insaying they “knew not who had opened his eyes,” for “theyfeared the Jews,” who had come to an understanding (probablyafter what is recorded, Joh 7:50,c. but by this time well known), that whoever owned Him as the Christwould be put out of the synagoguethat is, not simply excluded,but excommunicated.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But the Jews did not believe concerning him,…. Not Jesus, but the blind man;
that he had been blind, and received his sight; they imagine there was a fraud in the case, that it was collusion between Jesus and this man; that he was a man who had never been blind, but only had given out that he was, and pretended he had now received his sight from Jesus, on purpose to spread his fame, and induce people to believe he was the Messiah; and in this imagination they endeavoured to strengthen themselves and others:
until they called the parents of him that had received his sight; they sent messengers to them, and summoned them before them, that they might examine them about this matter, hoping, they might get something out of them, which might detect the supposed fraud, and bring Jesus under disgrace.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Jews ( ). Probably the incredulous and hostile section of the Pharisees in verse 16 (cf. 5:10).
Did not believe ( ). The facts told by the man, “that he had been blind and had received his sight” ( ), conflicted with their theological views of God and the Sabbath. So they refused belief “until they called the parents” ( ). Usual construction of ( = until which time, like alone) with aorist active indicative of , old verb from (voice, sound). They called out loud for his parents to throw light on this grave problem to cover up their own stupidity.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The Jews. Notice the change from the Pharisees. The Pharisees had already divided on this miracle (ver. 16). The Jews represent that section which was hostile to Jesus.
Of him that had received his sight [ ] . Properly, “of the very one who had received.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But the Jews did not believe concerning him,” (ouk episteusan oun hoi loudaioi peri autou) “Therefore the Jews did not believe (the report or account) concerning him;” Their unbelief or skepticism led to further evidence in the examination of truth, Thus they unwittingly gave aid to the cause of truth.
2) “That he had been blind, and received his sight,” (hoti hen tuphlos kai aneblepsen) “That he was(formerly) blind and (that he now) saw,” though his neighbors and others who had often seen him begging, had told them that it was true, Joh 9:8-13. They appeared to believe that there had been collusion between Jesus and the man.
3) “Until they called the parents of him,” (heos hotou ephonesan tous goneis autou) “Until they called his parents,” as witnesses, who certainly knew that he had been blind from birth, but no better than the man himself, who said, “I am he,” Joh 9:9, Isa 26:11.
4) “That had received his sight.” (tou anablepsantos) “Of the one who was having received his continuing sight or vision,” who had been blind from birth, Joh 9:1-3.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. But the Jews did not believe. There are two things here which ought to be observed; that they do not believe that a miracle has been performed, and that, being wilfully blinded through a perverse hatred of Christ, they do not perceive what is manifest. The Evangelist tells us that they did not believe. If the reason be asked, there can be no doubt that their blindness was voluntary. For what prevents them from seeing an obvious work of God placed before their eyes; or, after having been fully convinced, what prevents them from believing what they already know, except that the inward malice of their heart keeps their eyes shut? Paul informs us that the same thing takes place in the doctrine of the Gospel; for he says that it is not hidden or obscure, except to the reprobate,
whose understandings the god of this world hath blinded, (2Co 4:3.)
Warned by such examples, let us learn not to bring upon ourselves those obstacles which drive us away from the faith. By the Jews, the Evangelist means that part of them which held the government of the people.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(18) But the Jews did not believe.Better, The Jews therefore did not believe. The words are connected, as an inference, with those which precede. Because of this explanation of the fact, they are driven to the expedient of disbelieving the fact itself. The designation of those who take this position is remarkable. The substantive is not unexpressed, as in Joh. 9:17, nor is it the Pharisees, as in Joh. 9:16, but it is the term which we have met with again and again, as marking out the leaders of the Jerusalem party who were opposed to Christ. (Comp. Note on Joh. 1:19.)
Until they called the parents.After they have done so, they can affect to doubt the fact no longer (Joh. 9:26). But they hoped that the parents would from fear (Joh. 9:22) have given an answer which would have enabled them to deny the identity of person, or the fact of congenital blindness.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘The Judaisers therefore did not believe about him that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of him who had received his sight.’
But they were not prepared to believe his words. Note the change from ‘the Pharisees’ to ‘the Judaisers’. Not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus as we have seen, and they were prepared to wait and see. ‘The Judaisers’, which is John’s term here for those who were antagonistic, were not willing to be convinced and did not believe the man’s story. So they called in the man’s parents. This may have been the beginning of an official enquiry, or just a preliminary vetting.
It was quite an awe inspiring thing for these people to be brought before a gathering of the leading religious authorities. They knew that such men could have them excluded from the privileges of the synagogue.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The consultation with the parents:
v. 18. But the Jews did not believe concerning him that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
v. 19. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who, ye say, was born blind? How, then, doth he now see?
v. 20. His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;
21. but by what means he now seeth we know not, or who hath opened his eyes we know not. He is of age; ask him; he shall speak for himself.
v. 22. These words spake his parents because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had agreed already that if any man did confess that He was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
v. 23. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. The Jewish rulers, having found the testimony of the former blind man too simple to permit any questioning, now tried to invalidate his statements by expressing doubts as to his former blindness. In an effort to discredit the whole matter, therefore, they called the parents before their tribunal. Mark the procedure of a typical hierarchical government. The parents were asked whether they were sure as to the identity of this man, and also whether they knew in what way he had received his sight. We can very well imagine the scene, the timid old people shrinking back before the overbearing manner of the inquisitors, hardly daring to open their mouth, for fear of saying something that would offend the mighty ones. They could testify as to their son’s having been born blind, but they were very careful to remain absolutely neutral, to retain a disinterested attitude as to any possible miracle, for the Jews had threatened all those that would confess Christ or speak in His favor with excommunication. They referred the examiners to the man himself. He was of age, and he was fully able to speak for himself. They did not want to risk excommunication, since that shut them out from practically all intercourse with any but the lowest class of people. And that was the understanding among the members of the Sanhedrin, to put the confessors of Christ out of the Church. “Of excommunication there were three degrees: the first lasted for thirty days; then followed a ‘second admonition,’ and if impenitent, the culprit was punished for thirty days more; and if still impenitent, he was laid under the cheer, or ban, which was of indefinite duration, and which entirely cut him off from intercourse with others. He was treated as if he were a leper. This, to persons as poor as the parents of this beggar, would mean ruin and death. ” Note: It is a terrible judgment upon unbelief that the unbelievers cannot see the plainest and surest facts which are held before their eyes. The resurrection of Christ, the inerrancy of the Bible, and scores of other facts which have the testimony of the best witnesses in the world on their side are still being questioned by people that claim for themselves fairness. But their blindness is so dense that they can no longer. see the light.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 9:18. But the Jews did not believe, &c. Nothing is more remarkable than the power and goodness of Providence, throughout this transaction, which turned the malice of the Jews to the praise of HIM, whom they wanted to prove an impostor, and whom they longed to destroy. The neighbours of the man who had known him to have been blind for many years,his parents,the blind man himself, though intimidated by the sanhedrim, before whom they were solemnly examined, all unanimously persist in asserting the identity of the man and his former blindness: and some of the sanhedrim likewise, as appears from Joh 9:17 were convinced of the reality of the miracle. By suspending their belief, the Jews brought forth all the proofs which could be brought to establish the truth of the man’s evidence, and to clear both him and Jesus from any suspicion or shadow of collusion. Their motive was malice, their intent was destruction; but the result was the establishment of truth, and a glorious vindication of the character of Christ. See the next note.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 9:18 . Observe that the mere verb is not again employed, nor even , but , i.e . the hostile hierarchical party among the assembled Pharisees, which now carries on further proceedings. Comp. Joh 9:22 .
. placed emphatically at the beginning of the verse.
as the healed man had declared Him to be a prophet. They now suspected the existence of a fraudulent understanding between the two.
] till they called , etc. Then first, after these had come and made their declaration, were they unable any longer to call the cure in question (Joh 9:26 ; Joh 9:34 ).
.] of him who had himself again become seeing , concerning whom his own parents must surely know best.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
Ver. 18. But the Jews did not believe ] The Pharisees, who held themselves the only Jews, that is, true confessors; like as the Swenckfeldians entitled themselves the “confessors of the glory of Christ;” the Anabaptists style themselves the “meek of the earth;” the Antinomians will needs be called the “hearers of the gospel and of free grace,” &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
18. ] The hostile party ( , those in authority among these variously-minded Pharisees), disappointed at his direct testimony against them, betake themselves to sifting more closely the evidence of the fact . The parents are summoned as witnesses.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 9:18 . It now appears that their previous admission of the fact of the miracle was disingenuous and that they suspected fraudulent collusion between Jesus and the man; , “they did not believe” his account (Joh 9:19 ), ; “until they summoned his parents”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 9:18-23
18The Jews then did not believe it of him, that he had been blind and had received sight, until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight, 19and questioned them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?” 20His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21but how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not know. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself.” 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. 23For this reason his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”
Joh 9:22-23 “if any one confessed Him to be Christ” This is a third class conditional sentence which means potential action. The parents were afraid of these Jewish leaders. There are several witnesses who validated this healing: (1) the neighbors (Joh 9:8-10); (2) the man himself (Joh 9:11-17; Joh 9:24-33); and (3) his parents (Joh 9:18-23).
SPECIAL TOPIC: CONFESSION
Joh 9:22 “he was to be put out of the synagogue” Obviously the parents were afraid of being excommunicated (cf. Joh 12:42; Joh 16:2). This procedure may go back to Ezra (cf. Joh 10:8). We know from rabbinical literature that there were three types of exclusions: (1) for one week; (2) for one month; or (3) for life.
John, writing toward the closing years of the first century, knew well the excommunication from the Synagogue because of confessing Jesus as the Christ. These historical “curse formulas” were developed by the Pharisees after the 70 A.D. Jewish resurgence from Jamnia.
“he should be put out of the synagogue” This was a serious act of disfellowshipping (cf. Joh 12:42; Joh 16:2).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
But = Therefore.
the Jews. See note on Joh 1:19. See the Structure “P”
believe. See App-150and p. 1511.
concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
him = the very one.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18.] The hostile party ( ,-those in authority among these variously-minded Pharisees), disappointed at his direct testimony against them, betake themselves to sifting more closely the evidence of the fact. The parents are summoned as witnesses.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 9:18. , of him that had received his sight) These are joined as substantive and adjective, and the of him refers to the blind man.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 9:18
Joh 9:18
The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight,-Some in their doubt as to the man appealed to his parents. [They now begin scheming to get around Jesus working the miracle. They insisted that the man was not born blind. They undertook to prove it by his parents.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Joh 5:44, Joh 12:37-40, Gen 19:14, Isa 26:11, Isa 53:1, Luk 16:31, Heb 3:15-19, Heb 4:11
Reciprocal: Act 3:10 – they knew
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
The Jews failed to get any satisfaction from the man who had been blind. Their next move was to show that the whole thing was a fraud; that the man had never really been blind. Perhaps the parents can help them in their wicked design.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 9:18. The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. The change from the Pharisees to the Jews is very striking, and must have special significance. Nor is it difficult to find an explanation. The Pharisees (see the note on chap. Joh 7:32) were united in zeal for the law and in watchfulness over the rites and usages of Israel, but not in hostility to Jesus: we have just seen that the testimony regarding the miracle has divided them into two camps. It is of a hostile body only that the Evangelist is speaking in this verse. But there is probably another reason for the change of expression. The Jews is not with John a designation of all the enemies of Jesus; it denotes the representatives of Jewish thought and action,the leaders of the people, who, alas! were leaders in the persecution of our Lord. The use of the word here, then, leads us to the thought that the dispute had passed into a different stage. So serious had the case become that the rulers themselves engaged in it: more than this,we have now done with inquiry in any true sense, and persecution has taken its place.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 18-23. The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had recovered his sight, until they had called the father and the mother of him who had recovered his sight; 19 and they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see? 20. The parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21 but how he now sees, we know not; or who has opened his eyes, we know not; he is of age, ask him;he shall speak for himself. 22. The parents spoke thus, because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should acknowledge him as the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 23. Therefore said his parents, He is of age, ask him.
By the term , the Jews, John does not mean to designate a group of new individuals. They are still the same; only he designates them now, no longer from the point of view of their position in Israel, but from that of their disposition towards Jesus.
The persons in question are the most hostile ones, those to whom Joh 9:16 a refers. They suspect a collusion between Jesus and the blind man, and for this reason they wish to make inquiry of his parents. Of the three questions which Joh 9:19 contains, the first twothose which relate to the blindness from birth of their son and the identity of the man who is cured with this sonare immediately answered by the parents affirmatively. There is something comical in the three , he, by means of which they pass over from themselves to him the burden of answering the third. The term , they had agreed, Joh 9:22, denotes a decision formed, and not a mere project, as Meyer thinks; this follows from the word , already, and from the knowledge which the parents have of this measure. The exclusion from the synagogue involved for the excommunicated person the breaking off of all social relations with those about him. The higher degree of excommunication would have had death as its result, if this penalty had been practicable under the Roman dominion. We find here a new landmark on the path of the hostile measures adopted with regard to Jesus; it is the transition between the sending of the officers (chap. 7) and the decree of death in chap. 11. The cowardice of the parents is, as it were, the prelude of that of the whole people.
Second appearance:
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
The Jews in view are the Pharisees (Joh 9:13). Evidently they chose to interview the healed man’s parents because they could not unite on a decision about Jesus. They wanted more information from people closer to him than just his neighbors (Joh 9:8). Only his parents could affirm that he had been truly blind from birth. If he had not been, the Pharisees could dispute Jesus’ miracle.