Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:20
His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
His parents answered … – To the first two questions they answered without hesitation. They knew that he was their son, and that he was born blind. The third question they could not positively answer, as they had not witnessed the means of the cure, and were afraid to express their belief. It appears that they had themselves no doubt, but they were not eye-witnesses, and could not be therefore legal evidence.
He is of age – He is of sufficient age to give testimony. Among the Jews this age was fixed at thirteen years.
If any man did confess that he was Christ – Did acknowledge that he was the Messiah. They had prejudged the case, and were determined to put down all free inquiry, and not to be convinced by any means.
Put out of the synagogue – This took place in the temple, or near the temple. It does not refer, therefore, to any immediate and violent putting forth from the place where they were. It refers to excommunication from the synagogue. Among the Jews there were two grades of excommunication; the one for lighter offences, of which they mentioned 24 causes; the other for greater offences. The first excluded a man for 30 days from the privilege of entering a synagogue, and from coming nearer to his wife or friends than 4 cubits. The other was a solemn exclusion forever from the worship of the synagogue, attended with awful maledictions and curses, and an exclusion from all contact with the people. This was called the curse, and so thoroughly excluded the person from all communion whatever with his countrymen, that they were not allowed to sell to him anything, even the necessaries of life (Buxtorf). It is probable that this latter punishment was what they intended to inflict if anyone should confess that Jesus was the Messiah: and it was the fear of this terrible punishment that deterred his parents from expressing their opinion.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
But besides this, the parents of this man proved more honest and stouter than, it may be, the Pharisees did expect. They affirm, that they knew that he was their son, and that he was born blind. But for the third question, How he now saw? They avoid an answer to that, being possibly no eyewitnesses of Christ when he wrought the miracle. For this they refer them to their son, who was no babe, but a man grown, one of age, able to speak for himself; of whom they might inquire, and he was best able, as to this thing, to give them satisfaction.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
His parents answered them, and said,…. What follows, which contains distinct answers to the several questions: and to the first they reply very freely, and with great confidence,
we know that this is our son; for though his receiving his sight made a considerable alteration in him, yet his features were the same; and there might be some marks in his body, which they were acquainted with, by which they knew assuredly he was their son: and if even the neighbours, though they disagreed about him, yet some of them knew him to be the same person that had been blind and begged, then much more his parents; and even those who said it was not he, yet they owned he was like him: and with respect to the second question they answer,
and that he was born blind: this they were ready to attest, and did attest.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind ( ). These two questions the parents answer clearly and thus cut the ground from under the disbelief of these Pharisees as to the fact of the cure (verse 18). So these Pharisees made a failure here.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1 ) “His parents answered them and said,” (apekrithesan oun kai goneis autou kai eipan) “Then the parents of him replied and said,” directly, without evasion or equivocation, to the three parts of their question.
2) “We know that this is our son,” (oidamen hoti houtos estin ho huios hemon) “We do know that this is (exists as) our heir son,” born to us, and we are not ashamed of him, Joh 9:1-3. This is their reply to question one of their three-point quiz, Joh 9:19. This exploded their suspicion of collusion between any of the family of the blind man with Jesus.
3) “And that he was born blind,” (kai hoti tuphlos egennethe) “And we do know that he was born blind,” and has been blind from birth as our son, a thing that has brought us much bitter grief for a long time, Joh 9:1-3. Answer to point two of their three point quiz, Joh 9:19.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
20. We hnow that this is our son, and that he was born blind. Hence it follows that he does not see naturally, but that his eyes have been miraculously opened; but this latter point — that his sight had been miraculously restored — they pass by, because it would give offense. By their silence they show their ingratitude; for, having received so distinguished a gift of God, they ought to have burned with desire to celebrate his name. But, struck with terror, they bury the grace of God, as far as lies in their power, with this exception, that they substitute in their room, as a witness, their son, who will explain the whole matter as it happened, and who will be heard with less prejudice, and will be more readily believed. But though they prudently avoid danger, and continue this middle path, of testifying indirectly about Christ by the mouth of their son, yet this does not prevent the Holy Spirit from condemning their cowardice by the mouth of the Evangelist, because they fail to discharge their own duty. How much less excuse then will they have, who, by treacherous denial, utterly bury Christ, with his doctrine, with his miracles, with his power and grace!
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(20) We know that this is our son . . .The two earlier questions of matter of fact they can answer with certainty. They know, as none besides themselves can know, that he was their son, and they know the painful truth that he was born blind.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Parents examined before the spiritual court, Joh 9:18-23.
20. Parents answered To suit the court, they ought to answer that it is a great mistake that the man was born blind. He was only a little dim, and washing in Siloam purged his vision, and so gave grounds for this impostor’s quackery. But the aged couple, though non-committal, refuse to be false.
We know As the court had asked a double question, the wary witnesses divide it and give a twofold answer. He is their own blind-born son, they know; but as to the pinch, how he now sees, these deponents say not.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
Ver. 20. We know that this is our son ] They answer obliquely and over warily; but Christ had better deserved of them. Squirrels ever set their holes to the sunny side. Political professors, neuter passive Christians, will be sure to keep on the warmer side of the hedge; neither will they launch farther into the sea than they may be sure to return safe to the shore. Cyprian calleth such double minded men, palpatores temporum, in lenitate tantum constantes, giddy brains.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 9:20 . To them they put virtually three questions: Is this your son? Was he born blind? (for though you say this of him, emphatic, we do not believe it). How does he now see? The first two questions they unhesitatingly answer: This is our son who was born blind. This answer explodes the idea of collusion.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Joh 9:20
Joh 9:20
His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:-[We know these two facts to be true. They were very positive in this.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Reciprocal: Mar 9:21 – How
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
They answered the first question very positively, saying we know, etc. It would have been useless for them to deny the facts, for such as the birth of a child without eyesight, and suffering that handicap for all the years up to manhood, would be too well known to be denied.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 9:20. His parents therefore answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind. To two of the questions asked by the Jews the answer of the parents is perfectly clear and decided. In seeking for that which might invalidate the sign, the enemies of Jesus have but obtained new testimony to its reality.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The man’s parents confirmed that he was indeed their son and that he had been blind from birth, so they testified that a genuine miracle had happened. Yet they were unwilling to give their opinion about how their son became able to see or to identify Jesus as his healer. They probably knew the answers to these questions since John proceeded to explain that they had other reasons for hedging (Joh 9:22-23). They suggested that the investigators question their son on these points since he was capable of giving legal testimony himself. Jewish boys became responsible adults at the age of 13. The age of this man is unknown, but in view of his confident responses to the Pharisees that follow he appears to have been at least in his twenties.