Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:24
Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
24. Then again called they ] Literally, They called, therefore, a second time. They had cross-questioned the parents apart from the son, and now try to browbeat the son, before he finds out that his parents have not discredited his story.
Give God the praise ] Better, Give glory to God (comp. Joh 5:41 and Joh 8:54); it is the same word for ‘glory’ as in Joh 1:14, Joh 2:11, Joh 7:18, Joh 8:50. Even thus the meaning remains obscure: but ‘Give God the praise’ is absolutely misleading. The meaning is not ‘Give God the praise for the cure;’ they were trying to deny that there had been any cure: but, ‘Give glory to God by speaking the truth.’ The words are an adjuration to confess. Comp. Jos 7:19 ; 1Sa 6:5; Ezr 10:11 ; 1Es 9:8; 2Co 11:31. Wiclif, with the Genevan and Rhemish Versions, is right here. Tyndale and Cranmer have misled our translators.
we know that, &c.] ‘We’ with emphasis; ‘we, the people in authority, who have the right to pronounce decisively. So it is useless for you to maintain that He is a Prophet.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Give God the praise – This expression seems to be a form of administering an oath. It is used in Jos 7:19, when Achan was put on his oath and entreated to confess his guilt. Joshua said, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel (in the Greek of the Septuagint, the very expression used in John, Give God the praise), and make confession unto him. It is equivalent to an adjuration in the presence of God to acknowledge the truth; as the truth would be giving God praise, confessing the case before him, and trusting to his mercy. Compare 1Sa 6:5 The meaning here is not give God praise for healing you, for they were not willing to admit that he had been cured Joh 9:18, but confess that there is imposture in the case; that you have declared to us a falsehood, that you have endeavored to impose on us; and by thus confessing your sin, give praise and honor to God, who condemns all imposture and falsehood, and whom you will thus acknowledge to be right in your condemnation. To induce him to do this, they added that they knew, or were satisfied that Jesus was a sinner. As they considered that point settled, they urged him to confess that he had attempted to impose on them.
We know – We have settled that. He has broken the Sabbath, and that leaves no doubt.
A sinner – A violator of the law respecting the Sabbath, and an impostor. See Joh 9:16.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 9:24-34
Then again called they the man
The second examination of the man
I.
INTIMIDATION. The hostile section sought to overbear the mans judgment by their superior knowledge and position. They, the heaven-appointed leaders of the people and guardians of morality, were satisfied that Christ was a sinner. He had broken the Sabbath by manufacturing clay and spreading it over the mans eyes as an artizan might have plastered it upon a wall. Consequently there could have been no such thing as a miracle; and he had better confess himself a deceiver and Christ an impostor (Joh 9:24). To all this the man opposes his personal experience (Joh 9:25).
II. ENTANGLEMENT. By cross-examination they hoped to make him contradict himself (Joh 9:26). But the man, too clever to be caught by such an artifice (Pro 1:17), declined their invitation, reminding them that he had supplied all the information he possessed, and inquiring, with fine irony, if they desired to become Christs disciples (Joh 9:27).
III. REPROACH. They reviled Him as the follower, not of Moses, the great commissioner of Jehovah, but of a nameless fellow about whom no one knew anything (Joh 9:29). To this the man replied with crushing logic how no honest mind could evade the conclusion that Christ must at least be a prophet no less than Moses (Joh 9:30-33).
IV. EXPULSION. They could not answer the mans syllogism, but they could do what foiled controversialists commonly do (Joh 9:34). Lessons:
1. The danger of approaching religious questions with pro-conceived notions.
2. The power Christianity has to convince all sincere inquirers of its heavenly origin.
3. The duty of standing true to Christ in the face of all opposition.
4. The certainty that Christs witnesses will suffer persecution.
5. The helplessness of mans wisdom in opposing the truth. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)
Types of character in relation to Christs work–Those who are consciously restored by it
We find the man doing two things which are done by all who are spiritually restored by Christ.
I. MAINTAINING TRUTH IN THE FACE OF FIERCE OPPOSITION. See how he holds his own.
1. In a noble spirit. His conduct stands in sublime contrast to that of his parents and others concerned. Mark
(1) His candour. Hearing men disputing, without hesitation he says I am he. Outspokenness is the ring of a great nature.
(2) His courage. In defiance of the Sanhedrim he declares that the hated Jesus was his Healer. The genuine alone are brave; honest souls dread a lie more than the frowns of a thousand despots.
(3) His consistency. In spite of all questions and browbeating, he never varies in his statements. Truth is that subtle element which alone gives unity to all the varied parts of a mans life. Error makes man contradict himself. The whole subject shows us that there may be grandeur of soul where there is social obscurity and physical infirmity.
2. By sound argument.
(1) His answer was built upon consciousness (verse 25). The logic of a school of Aristotles could not disturb his conviction. It is so with a true Christian: he feels the change and no argument can touch it.
3. His argument was formulated by common sense. When his judges pressed him (verse 26) he reproves them for repeating questions already answered and with withering irony asks (verse 27). He states his argument thus: that his cure, of which he was conscious, was a miracle (verse 30), which they could not deny. Is it not a doctrine with you that no one without Divine authority can perform miracles? Why ask such questions? And not only has the Healer Divine authority but a holy character (verse 31).
II. FOLLOWING CHRIST WHEN CAST OUT FROM MEN. The best men in every age are cast out by the ungodly. But, when cast out, what became of him?
1. Christ sought him (verse 35), and found him out. Sometimes men have found Christ out by their own searching, e.g., Zacchaeus and Bartimaeus. But here Christ finds the man out, as He did the woman of Samaria, irrespective of His search.
2. Christ revealed Himself to him (verse 35-37).
3. Christ was followed by him (verse 38). (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Carping criticism
My hearers, this was a wretched business, was it not? It was a very poor business to go to the house of God to criticize a fellow mortal who is sincerely trying to do us good. Was it Carlyle who spoke of the cricket as chirping amid the crack of doom? I am apt to think that many people are like that cricket; they go on with their idle chit-chat when Christ Himself is set before them on the cross. Assuredly this is poor work. I am hungry; I come to a banquet; but instead of feasting upon the viands I begin to criticize the dress of the waiters, abuse the arrangements of the banqueting-hall, and vilify the provisions. I shall go home as hungry as I came; and who will be blamed for it? The best criticism that you can possibly give of your friends entertainment is to be hearty in partaking of it. The greatest honour that we can do to Christ Jesus is to feed upon Him, to receive Him, to trust Him, to live upon Him. Merely to carp and to question will bring no good to the most clever of you. How can it? It is a pitiful waste of time for yourself, and a trial of temper to others. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 24. Give God the praise] Having called the man a second time, they proceeded to deal with him in the most solemn manner; and therefore they put him to his oath; for the words above were the form of an oath, proposed by the chief magistrate to those who were to give evidence to any particular fact, or to attest any thing, as produced by or belonging to the Lord. See Jos 7:19; 1Sa 6:5, and Lu 17:18. But, while they solemnly put him to his oath, they endeavoured to put their own words in his mouth, viz. he is a sinner-a pretender to the prophetic character, and a transgressor of the law of God:- assert this, or you will not please us.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
24-34. Give God the praise; we knowthat this man is a sinnernot wishing him to own, even to thepraise of God, that a miracle had been wrought upon him, but to showmore regard to the honor of God than ascribe any such act to one whowas a sinner.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then again called they the man that was blind,…. That had been blind. After they had examined his parents, and could get nothing from them for their purpose, they try a second time what they could do with the son:
and said unto him, give God the praise; a phrase used when confession of sin was required; see Jos 7:19; and this may be the meaning of it here; confess this fraud and imposture before the omniscient God, the searcher of hearts, and in so doing glorify that perfection of his. One and the same word, , signifies both to confess the truth of anything, as a sinful action, Pr 28:13, and to give thanks and praise to God for any mercy and blessing,
Ps 45:17. Some take this to be the form of an oath, and that the Pharisees adjured the than by the living God, that he would tell the truth, and discover the cheat and collusion used in this affair of receiving his sight; and thought hereby to have deterred him from speaking of this benefit he had received from Christ, especially in such a manner as to reflect any honour upon the author of it. Or the sense may be, if this really is matter of fact, that thou wast born blind, and hast received thy sight by the means of this man, give all the glory of it to God, to whom alone it is due, and not to him. God sometimes works by wicked instruments, when the glory of what is done ought not to be ascribed to them, but to him.
We know that this man is a sinner; this they concluded from his breaking the sabbath, as they supposed; though they also aspersed his character, and accused him of other things, yet falsely; see
Mt 11:19; nor could they prove one single instance of sin in him, though they express themselves here with so much assurance.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
A second time ( ). He had given the Pharisees the facts the first time (9:15). It was really the third time (see in 9:17). Now it was like a joke unless the Pharisees meant to imply that his previous story was untrue.
Give glory to God ( ). Second aorist active imperative of (cf. , ). This phrase does not mean gratitude to God as in Lu 17:18. It is rather an adjuration to speak the truth (Josh 7:19; 1Sam 6:5) as if he had not done it before. Augustine says: “Quid est Da gloriam Deo? Nega quod accepisti.” Is a sinner ( ). They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner. They wish to decide the fact by logic and authority like all persecutors through the ages. Recall the Pharisaic distinction between (righteous) and (sinner).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Give God the praise [ ] . Rev., give glory to God. Compare Jos 7:19; 1Sa 6:5. This phrase addressed to an offender implies that by some previous act or word he has done dishonor to God, and appeals to him to repair the dishonor by speaking the truth. In this case it is also an appeal to the restored man to ascribe his cure directly to God, and not to Jesus. Palgrave, “Central and Eastern Arabia,” says that the Arabic phrase commonly addressed to one who has said something extremely out of place, is Istaghfir Allah, Ask pardon of God.
We know. The we is emphatic. We, the wise men and guardians of religion.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then again called they the man,” (ephonesan oun ton anthropon ek deuterou) “Then they called the man the second time;- The “they” refers to the Pharisees, Joh 9:15, who had already dragged the healed man through the third degree of examination for ulterior motives, despising Jesus Christ, bent on finding a legal ground for killing Him, Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18; Joh 5:25; Joh 8:37; Joh 8:40.
2) “That was blind, and said unto him,” (hos hen tuphlos kai auto eipan) “Who was (once) blind and said directly to him,” as a former blind man, and a beggar, now set free or at liberty, released from blindness and the need to beg, Joh 9:8.
3) “Give God the praise: (dos doksan to theo) “Give or dole out to God glory,” or high praise, putting words in the man’s mouth, not realizing that to acknowledge what Jesus had done, in healing him, was giving God who sent Him, praise, Jos 7:19; 1Sa 6:5; Col 3:17. It was an appeal for the man to tell the truth in the presence of God, though they did not receive it.
4) “We know this man is a sinner.” (hemeis oikamen hoti houtos ho anthropous hamartolos estin) “We know that this man (Jesus) is (morally and ethically) lawless,” or a sinner, who misses the mark of holiness, in healing on the Sabbath day, Joh 9:14; Joh 9:16; Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. A second time, therefore, they called the man who had been blind. There can be no doubt that they were constrained by shame to call the blind man, whom they had previously found to be too firm and steady. In this way, the more fiercely they struggle against God, the more numerous are the cords which they put about their neck, (269) and the more strongly do they bind themselves. Besides, they put the questions in such a manner as to endeavor to make the man say what they wish. It is a plausible preface, indeed, when they exhort him to give glory to God; but immediately afterwards they strictly forbid him to answer according to the conviction of his mind; and therefore, under the pretense of the name of God, they demand from him servile obedience.
Give glory to God. Though this adjuration may be referred to what is connected with the present cause, that the blind man should not obscure the glory of God by ascribing to man the benefit which he had received, yet I rather agree with those who think that it was a solemn form, which was wont to be employed when an oath was administered to any person. For in those very words does Joshua adjure Achan, when he wishes to draw from him a true confession of having taken away the accursed thing, (Jos 7:19.) By these words they reminded him that no slight insult is offered to God, when any person, in His name, commits falsehood. And, indeed, whenever we are called to swear, we ought to remember this preface, so that truth may not be less highly valued by us than the glory of God. If this were done, the sacredness of an oath would be viewed in a very different light. Now, since the greater part of men — not considering that they deny God, when they invoke His name for upholding a falsehood — rashly and daringly rush forward to swear, the consequence is, that every place is full of perjuries. Meanwhile, we see how hypocrites, though they pretend to have the greatest reverence for God, are guilty not only of hypocrisy, but of insolent mockery; for they at the same time express a wish that the blind man should wickedly swear according to their direction, with open contempt of God. Thus God drags to light their wicked designs, whatever attempts they may make to give them a plausible appearance, or to conceal them by hypocritical pretences.
(269) “ Tant plus de lags se mettent-ils au Col.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE QUESTIONED BECOMES QUESTIONER
Text 9:24-34
24
So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner.
25
He therefore answered, Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26
They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27
He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples?
28
And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses.
29
We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is.
30
The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes.
31
We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth.
32
Since the world began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind.
33
If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.
34
They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
Queries
a.
What do the Pharisees mean by saying, Give glory to God?
b.
What is meant by, God heareth not sinners?
c.
Why did the Pharisees say the beggar was altogether born in sin?
Paraphrase
So for the second time the Pharisees called the man that had been blind, and adjured him, Give glory to God; we know that this particular man is an open sinner. The beggar replied, Whether he is a sinner or not, I do not know; one thing I do knowI was blind and now I can see! So they said to him, What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes? Deliberately the man answered them, I have told you already and you would not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become his disciples, do you? They reviled him vociferously, sneering, You are that ones disciple; we are the disciples of Moses. We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow we do not know where he has come from. The man replied, Well this is astonishing, that you say you do not know where he comes from and yet he has opened my eyes. We Jews know that God does not hear willful sinners, but if a man is a worshipper of God and seeks to do His will, to such a man God listens. Now, since the world began it was never heard that a man opened the eyes of a man born blind. It follows then that if this man were not from God, he would never be able to do anything like thisThey interrupted vehemently, You were absolutely conceived and begotten in sin; and are you now presuming to teach us? And they cast him out!
Summary
The poor beggar is not awed by the presence of the Pharisees. He is a man with a good and honest heart upon which the truth has fallen and is slowly bringing forth fruit. The beggar is more amazed at the willful blindness of the Pharisees than anything else. By his sincere, innocent and capable logic he becomes the questioner and exposes the stiff-necked unreasonableness of the Pharisees. He is summarily excommunicated for his troubles.
Comment
The adjuration, Give glory to God, could be either the administration of an oath or simply a statement that the man should give Jehovah the glory for His healing rather than Jesus whom they know to be a sinner. The commentators are disagreed. We prefer to think that this tribunal was attempting to intimidate their precocious opponent by the adjuration of an oath. There were many different formulae used to express the judicial oath among the Jews (cf. 1Sa. 14:39; 1Sa. 14:44; 1Sa. 19:6; 1Sa. 20:3; 1Sa. 20:23; 2Sa. 11:11; 2Sa. 14:19; 2Sa. 15:21; Mat. 5:34; Mat. 23:16; Mat. 26:63). This particular phrase is used in Jos. 7:19 when Achan was adjured to Give glory to God, and tell the truth as to his guilt. The Pharisees, having been thus far confounded and put on the defensive, bring to bear all the ecclesiastical and judicial authority they possess. They must regain the offensive. This naive and common beggar has, in his sincere adherence to the facts, shown the Pharisees for what they really arebigoted, ambiguous and dishonest. The rulers have already pronounced Jesus an open sinner, yet this beggar dares to call Him a prophet. To protect their proud position and to find an occasion for condemning Jesus to death, they threaten this man with an oath.
The arrogant, we know on the part of the Pharisees is not new. They were certain that they alone possessed knowledge. They were the intelligentsia and all others were ignorant (cf. Joh. 7:14; Joh. 7:45-52). The rebuke of Job to his three friends, No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you, would be fitting for the Pharisees.
But the man was not awedhe would not be intimidated. The beggar had been presented irrefutable evidence that this Jesus was more than a mere man. His evidence is empiricalthe highest type of evidencethat which appeals to the senses of man. Such evidence is so overwhelmingly factual he must stand in opposition to Pharisaic opinion regardless of the consequences. Furthermore, the very nature of the evidence makes only this one thing outweigh all the force of Pharisaic authority and prestige.
Now, having been bested in cross-examination and having their bigotry exposed, the only way they can think of to carry out their nefarious bluff is to repeat their question concerning the how of the alleged miracle. Perhaps they are hoping to trip the beggar into a contradiction in his account.
The beggars bravery is exciting to behold! In view of the power residing in this tribunal of Pharisees the mans courage is challenging. It is no less than amazing that his ironic answer in Joh. 9:27 did not incite the ire of the Pharisees more than it did! Only their all-consuming concentration on killing Jesus saved the beggar from probable bodily harm at this moment. The apostle Paul was later struck in the mouth for alleged impertinence in the same type of situation (Act. 23:2). He has told them over and over again from his own personal experiencethey have heard plainly enough, but refuse to accept the truth which is necessarily implied if they do acknowledge the miracle. The mans exasperation with these opinionated, self-righteous dogmatists is understandable. What man is able to retain his patience with those who deliberately and continually refuse to admit that which is undeniable.
Maliciously they turn upon the beggar with vile imprecations. The man has humiliated, outwitted and exposed these judges of Israel. He has further completely turned the tables in this investigationthe prosecutors have become the prosecuted! The only recourse imaginable to these Pharisees arises out of the very nature of their heartsto revile the man.
They could hardly think of any malediction more vile than to say, You are that ones disciple! They would not even so much as speak the name of Jesus. He was judged by the rulers and teachers of Israel as a blasphemera servant of Satan. Jesus was also pronounced a hereticadvocating (according to the Jews) destruction of the Law of Moses. The rulers had decided that Jesus must be destroyed (because of envy) and regardless of His truth and righteousness, anyone defending Him was also no better than a heretic.
As for themselves, the Pharisees boasted, we are the disciples of Moses. But Moses would never claim them! For Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt . . . Moses, through what he wrote, condemned these pseudo-disciples. Moses wrote of the great Prophet that was to be raised up from among them (cf. Deu. 18:15-19) and Jesus was that Prophet (cf. Joh. 5:45-47; Luk. 24:44; Act. 3:21-24). The warning of John the Baptist three years previous still applies (cf. Mat. 3:9), for God is not only able to raise up from stones children unto Abraham, but unto Moses as well.
Again the presumptuous, we know. Yes, they knew that God had spoken to Moses, but they lacked the essential thingwhat God had really spoken to Moses. But here is the marveljust as the blind man saw itthey knew so much about Moses which they had to accept on the testimony of the written record, yet they would not accept the first-hand testimony of this miracle which witnessed to Jesus! It simply astounded the guileless and straightforward beggar that men would so deliberately blind themselves to truth. This former blind man has a heart of the good and honest type, for to him Jesus origin is evidentHe is from God!
Their esteemed Moses, great as he was, had never performed any such miracle as thisopening the eyes of one congenitally blind. In fact, it had never been heard of in all the annals of history until the beggars day and age. None of the prophets had done such a miracle.
As Hendriksen points out, the beggar is an excellent logician. His syllogism here is perfect:
Major Premise: God hears and answers and works through only those who worship Him and abide in His will and are sent from Him.
Minor Premise: This man Jesus performed an unheard of and astounding miraclegreater even than any Moses had wrought.
Conclusion: This man Jesus is just as definitely sent from God as was Moses. He cannot possibly be an open and flagrant sinner as the Pharisees accuse Him.
Not only does the beggar use logic to prove his point, but he evidently had in mind many of the Scriptures which the Pharisees should have remembered concerning Gods relationship to the wicked. God does not hear nor answer the prayers of the willfull and blatant sinner John 15:29; Isa. 1:15; Isa. 59:2; Jer. 11:11; Jer. 14:12; Eze. 8:18; Mic. 3:4; (cf. 1Sa. 8:18; Job. 27:9; Job. 35:12; Psa. 18:41; Psa. 66:18; Pro. 1:28, Zec. 7:13; Joh. 8:21; Act. 10:35).
This verse (Joh. 9:31) has been abused. Some have taken it from its context and used it as a proof-text to declare that any person not affiliated with the Christian church cannot expect to have their prayers heard by God. It is very plain from Act. 10:35 that God hears the sincere and honest prayers of those who have not yet been obedient to that form of doctrine. In fact, in Cornelius case, God heard the prayer of one who had not yet even heard of the gospel of Christ! This, of course, may even be true of men and women today who have not yet heard the gospel, but are earnestly praying and seeking Gods willGod may hear and answer their prayers.
On the other hand, God will not listen nor will He answer the prayers of men and women who regard iniquity in their heart. Wilfull sinnerspersistent disobeyerswill not be heard, regardless of their outward affiliations with whatever religious group to which they may belong (cf. all the Major and Minor Prophets). To be heard of God we must hear Himto receive of His bounty, we must be obedient and full of faith.
Note the beggars growing faith and knowledge of Jesus. First, the man that is called Jesus . . . (Joh. 9:11); next, he is a prophet . . . (Joh. 9:17); next, . . . from God . . . (Joh. 9:33); and last, . . . Lord, I believe . . . (Joh. 9:38).
Here is a miracle that is a miracle indeedand the Pharisees cannot deny the veracity of its accomplishment. They themselves can readily see that the man has his sight. Both the neighbors and the mans parents testified under fear of banishment that the man had been born blind. The man himself testified under oath that Jesus of Nazareth had performed a miracle. The Pharisees could not disprove it.
The only way they could think to maintain their self-begotten prestige was to attack the character of the beggar and to excommunicate him from the synagogue. They inferred what Jesus had denied (cf. Joh. 9:2)that the beggars blindness was an indication of his and his parents wanton sinfulness. How dare he presume to teach the scholars of the Scriptures anything! This is normal procedure for the rulers of the Jewsif they cannot disprove the miracles attesting to Christs message, they will threaten the messengers or do them bodily harm (cf. Act. 4:16-21).
Quiz
1.
What two reasons are given for the Pharisees saying, Give glory to God?
2.
What is the highest type of evidence to attest to a fact?
3.
Why is the beggars bravery so exciting?
4.
Why was their boast to be the disciples of Moses absurd?
5.
Why did the beggar marvel?
6.
What two ways did the beggar prove Jesus to be from God?
7.
Does God ever hear the prayers of non-Christians? How do you know?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(24) Then again called they the man that was blind.He had not been present during the interview with his parents. They now wish him to believe that they have ascertained from his parents either that he was not their son, or that he was not really born blind. It is useless for him, therefore, to persist in his belief that a prophet had given him the power to see.
Give God the praise.Better, Give glory to God. This phrase is very generally misunderstood, though almost all competent authorities are agreed as to its true meaning. It is not Give God the praise for your cure, instead of this Man, who is a sinner. Trace the gift to its true source, and give glory to the true Giver. This is wholly opposed to the context, for they are assuming that no cure has really taken place. The phrase is rather an adjuration calling upon the man to speak, as in Gods presence, and confess the whole truth. (Comp. the words of Joshua to Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me, Jos. 7:19. Comp. also 1Sa. 6:5; Jer. 13:16; 1Es. 9:8; Rev. 16:9.)
We know that this man is a sinner.Some of them had said before that He was not from God, while others had felt that such miracles were inconsistent with the belief that He was a sinner. The man himself had declared his simple conviction that He was a prophet (Joh. 9:16-17). They now assert, with the emphasis of an authority which is beyond question, that they know Him to be a sinner.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The re-examination of the blind-born, Joh 9:24-34.
They are little satisfied with the previous arraignment, which resulted in a firm confession of the prophetic character of Jesus, (Joh 9:17.) They recall and salute him with a peremptory declaration of the character of Jesus, according to their verdict. The blind-born is of course expected to agree. The result is doubly unsatisfactory.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
24. Give God the praise The obvious meaning of this phrase to the English reader is, Give God the praise for thy healing, and not to this man. But it is rather an adjuration
Revere and glorify God by testifying the truth. We know And he is bound, so they think, to know just as they know. Respect was doubtless due to the opinion of this court; but with the man a point of conscience and a point of fact were at stake.
This man is a sinner This they might opine, but they could not know. This opinion was grounded upon the assumption that to apply moist clay to heal a man’s eyes on the Sabbath is Sabbath-breaking.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘So they called the man who was blind a second time and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.”
They clearly felt that it was their duty to set the man right. So they called the blind man who now saw and said to him, ‘Give glory to God, we know that this man is a sinner’, that is to say, not in a state, through obedience to the rules and regulations of the Rabbis, of acceptability to God. They were basically saying, ‘recognise that all the credit should go to God and none to the so-called miracle worker in view of his evident unworthiness in God’s eyes’. They could no longer deny the miracle. Thus instead they sought to cover up the obvious conclusion.
Now in the right circumstances ‘give the glory to God’ is a good and right statement. But we cannot avoid the fact that to ignore the One through whom the miracle was performed was a sign of dogmatic unwillingness to face facts. Such a healing was not just an act that anyone could perform. It required someone who was God approved. Thus the statement that his Benefactor was a sinner provoked the man to reply. This statement was so evidently self-contradictory that even the poor beggar could not believe what he had heard, even though understandably he did not want to antagonise them.
Alternately ‘give glory to God ’ can rather mean ‘consider things in the eyes of God’ (compare Jos 7:19), i.e. give glory to God by recognising and admitting the truth. And that is probably what the Judaisers meant here.
‘So they called the man.’ This suggests an official examination. Thus this may well have been a committee appointed by the Sanhedrin who were on the whole antagonistic to Jesus. At what stage this whole case ceased to be just a matter of interest and became an official enquiry we cannot be certain, but it was almost certainly that by this time.
On this view he was now undergoing official examination with a view to breaking his testimony. With this in mind they pointed out the impossibility of ‘a sinner’ doing such a thing and asked him to be open and honest about what had happened in the sight of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A second interview with the former blind man:
v. 24. Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise; we know that this Man is a sinner.
v. 25. He answered and said, Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
v. 26. Then said they to him again, What did He do to thee? How opened He thine eyes?
v. 27. He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? Will ye also be His disciples?
v. 28. Then they Revelation led him and said, Thou art His disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
v. 29. We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, we know not from whence He is. The Pharisees were in a quandary. If the facts concerning this miracle were spread abroad, the fame of Christ would grow and be carried out in all directions, and their prestige would receive a severe jolt. Therefore they made another attempt to shake the testimony of the man, but this time in such a way as to make him deny that a miracle had been performed. With a sanctimonious air they admonish him to give glory to God alone by telling the actual truth, and not a piece of fiction invented for the benefit of Jesus. There is almost a bit of threatening in the words: We know that this Man is a sinner. The deduction was that it must have been impossible to perform what the man claimed had been done. But the man doggedly stuck to the truth; he was not concerned about the sinfulness or sinlessness of his benefactor. One thing he knew: Having been blind, he could now see. This same simple faith and dogged perseverance should characterize a Christian’s confession of Jesus. If unbelievers try to shake the testimony concerning Conversion or regeneration, the simple adhering to that one truth: I know the experience of my own heart and mind; it is not an illusion, but it is the firmest conviction in the world, will often repulse the enemies. In the effort to shake the firmness of this witness, the Jews again asked him about the manner in which his eyes had been opened. It is hardly to be wondered at that the matter was getting on the man’s nerves and that he answered them rather tartly. He had told them once, and they had evidently not listened very well; why should he repeat the same testimony over and over again? Their silly effort to inveigle him into some inconsistent statement was a despicable piece of strategy. But the man’s taunt as to their wishing to become disciples of Jesus struck them in a tender place. Angrily they Revelation led him, charging him with being a disciple of that Man. They placed Jesus in the class of outcasts with whom they wanted nothing to do. But so far as they were concerned, they were the disciples of Moses, they piously assert. They were sure, in the case of Moses, that God had spoken with him; but in the case of this Man they have nothing definite to base their opinion on, they do not even know His origin. That was partly willful ignorance, partly blasphemous malice. They had had plenty of opportunity to get the information they desired, if they had only been willing to follow the directions of Jesus, chap. 7:17. Note: Unbelievers that attempt to be clever and sarcastic at the same time, throw aspersions upon the virgin birth of Christ, thus also questioning His origin, whereas a simple reading of Scripture would convince them, if they would not consistently resist the Holy Ghost.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 9:24. Give God the praise: “Give glory to God, in whose presence you now are, by making a full confession of your fraud and collusion with this man; for we know that he is an impostor, and have all the reason in the world to believe that you are his accomplice.” There could not be a greater insult on the character of our Redeemer, than to be pronounced a known, scandalous sinner by this high court of judicature; an infamy which has seldom, in any civilized country, fallen on any person not legally convicted. But how does this infamy fall upon their own heads when we recollect that they asserted without proof; that they admitted their own blind malice, instead of evidence.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 9:24-25 . . ] “Speciosa praefatio,” Bengel; for they expect a declaration prejudicial to Jesus, such as the man had hitherto refused to make, and therefore employ this sacred and binding requirement to declare the truth, by which God would be honoured, inasmuch as to speak the truth was to show reverence to Him. Comp. Jos 7:19 ; Esr. Joh 10:11 ; Joh 3 Esr. Joh 9:8 .
, etc.] This assertion of hierarchical authority ( with emphasis) was intended to overawe the man, and give a bias to his judgment. In vain. With cautious reticence he prudently refers them simply to what had actually happened; this alone was known to him (comp. Soph. O. C . 1103: ); but not whether , etc.
] being blind , namely, in his natural state, from birth. Comp. Joh 3:13 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
Ver. 24. Give God the glory ] It appears, Jos 7:19 ; 1Sa 6:5 , that this was some solemn form, in use among that people when they required an oath of delinquents. This the hypocrites made use of, as when the devils adjured Christ by the living God not to cast them out. So their forefathers would persecute godly men, and molest them with Church censures, and then say, “Let the Lord be glorified,” Isa 66:5 . With like honesty, as the conspirators in King Richard II’s time here in England indorsed all their letters, with “Glory be to God on high, on earth peace, good will towards men.” This poor man might have answered as Robert Smith the marytr did, when Bonner began the sentence of death against him, In Dei nomine, In the name of God, Ye begin in a wrong name, said he.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24. . . ] Not, ‘Give God the praise’ (E. V.), i.e. ‘the glory of thy healing:’ for the Pharisees want to overawe the man by their authority, and make him deny the miracle altogether. The words are a form of adjuration (see ref. Josh.), to tell the truth , q. d. ‘Remember that you are in God’s presence, and speak as unto Him.’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 9:24 . Baffled by the parents the Pharisees turn again, , a second time to the man and say: . They no longer deny the miracle, but bid the man ascribe the glory of it to the right quarter; to God: not to Jesus, because they can assure him knowledge of their own, , that He is a sinner.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 9:24-34
24So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.” 25He then answered, “Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” 26So they said to him, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” 27He answered them, “I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?” 28They reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from.” 30The man answered and said to them, “Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him. 32Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33If this man were not from God, He could do nothing.” 34They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?” So they put him out.
Joh 9:24 “Give glory to God” This was a formula of oath-taking to insure truthfulness (cf. Jos 7:19).
Joh 9:25 This answer must refer to Joh 9:16. The man does not want to argue theology, but he asserts the results of his meeting Jesus.
Joh 9:27 “You do not want to become His disciples too, do you” The Greek grammatical form expects a “no” answer, but the very asking of the question was sharp irony and shows the wit of this blind beggar.
Joh 9:28 a “You are His disciple” There is a real question as to what point in this chapter the man became a believer. It seems initially that Jesus’ healing was not connected with this man’s faith in Him as the Messiah; only later did Jesus confront him with His Messianic claims (cf. Joh 9:36-38). This episode shows that physical healing did not necessarily bring salvation.
Joh 9:28-29 This shows the difficulty that the religious leaders faced. They tried to equate the detailed, specific interpretations of the Oral Tradition (Talmud) with the inspired revelation to Moses. Their eyes were blinded by their theological prejudices (cf. Mat 6:23). They were disciples of human traditions (cf. Isa 29:13).
Joh 9:29 “we do not know where He is from” This is another example of John’s irony (cf. Joh 7:27-28; Joh 8:14). Jesus had come from the Father (cf. Joh 8:42; Joh 13:3; Joh 16:28) but in their blindness the disciples did not know
1. His origin
2. His birth place
Joh 9:30 “Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes” This is another example of the sharp wit and biting irony of this blind beggar as he refutes the logic of the Pharisees.
Joh 9:31-33 This uneducated blind man had better, more consistent theology then the religious leaders!
Joh 9:33 “If” This is a second class conditional sentence which is called “contrary to fact.” It should be understood as, “If this man had not come from God, which He did, then He could not have done anything like this, but He did.”
Joh 9:34 “You were born entirely in sins” It is interesting to note that rabbinical Judaism has no concept of “original sin” (cf. Job 14:1; Job 14:4; Psa 51:5). The fall of Genesis 3 was not emphasized in rabbinical Judaism. The Jews asserted that there was a good and bad intent (yetzer) in every man. These Pharisees were asserting that this healed man’s testimony and logic were invalid because obviously he was a sinner evidenced by being born blind.
“they put him out” This is literally “they cast him outside.” The reference is to (1) membership and attendance in the local synagogue or (2) dismissal from the meeting. In context #2 seems best.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
again = of (Greek. ek. App-104.) a second time.
Give God the praise = Give glory to God, as in Jos 7:19. 1Sa 6:5. A form of adjuration.
praise = glory. Greek. doxa. See p. 1511.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24. . . ] Not, Give God the praise (E. V.), i.e. the glory of thy healing: for the Pharisees want to overawe the man by their authority, and make him deny the miracle altogether. The words are a form of adjuration (see ref. Josh.), to tell the truth, q. d. Remember that you are in Gods presence, and speak as unto Him.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 9:24. , again) He had therefore been sent away after the conversation with him, described at Joh 9:17.-, give) A spacious preface. He gives glory to God, who confesses the truth, especially in a matter and cause attended with difficulties.- , we know) They attempt to prepossess and move him, as an unlearned man, by the weight of their authority, that he should call Jesus a sinner, and not avow Him as the Son of God [We see, say they; comp. Joh 9:41 (Now ye say, We see).-V. g.]-, a sinner) Joh 9:16, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 9:24
Joh 9:24
So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner.-They were unable to explain the facts, and in the face of the probable miracle, to use wisdom on the man that was healed, they say this man that did the healing was a sinner because he had healed on the Sabbath. [Having failed to get any satisfaction from the parents they again call the son for a conference. This time they try to force an acknowledgment from him that there was some deception or mistake about Jesus restoring his sight. Their evidence of deception was we know that this man is a sinner. Their proof that he was a sinner was he healed on the Sabbath day.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
sinner
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Give: Joh 5:23, Joh 8:49, Joh 16:2, Jos 7:19, 1Sa 6:5-9, Psa 50:14, Psa 50:15, Isa 66:5, Rom 10:2-4
we know: Joh 9:16, Joh 8:46, Joh 14:30, Joh 18:30, Joh 19:6, Mar 15:28, Rom 8:3, 2Co 5:21
a sinner: Luk 7:39, Luk 15:2, Luk 19:7
Reciprocal: Gen 13:13 – But the Ecc 9:16 – the poor Mat 15:31 – and they Mat 23:13 – for ye shut Mat 27:42 – saved Luk 2:34 – for a Luk 5:25 – glorifying Luk 7:37 – which Luk 11:52 – for Joh 8:52 – Now Joh 9:29 – as for Joh 11:4 – for Joh 11:42 – that they
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
The Jews did not accomplish what they expected from the parents, so they thought they would make another effort with the son. But this time they did not trust the case to an unbiased question, but tried to prejudice him beforehand by framing the answer for him. It was similar to a case of our day where a judge will deliver a “directed verdict” instruction to a jury, when that jury had been sworn to decide the case themselves according to the evidence as they understood it.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 9:24. They called therefore a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. In this second hearing the aim of the Jews is to overawe the man, and then force from him a confession that there had been some deception or mistake. This appears first in their words, Give glory to God (see Jos 7:19),a formula used when a criminal who was thought to be concealing the truth was urged to make a full confession. Remembering that the eye of God was upon him, let him give honour to God by speaking truth. Another significant point is the emphasis laid on we know; the authorities to whom he has been wont to yield implicit respect and deference in all religious matters, possessed of deeper insight and wider knowledge than himself, (do not think merely, but) know that Jesus is a breaker of the law, and therefore cannot have wrought a miracle.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here we have an account of the Pharisees farther practising upon this blind man, to rob Christ of the glory of this miracle; first, they insinuate with him, and then they frown upon him.
First, they insinuate with him, saying, give God, the praise. As if they had said, “Ascribe the cure to God, not to this man,” whom they conclude to be a sinner, because he broke (as they thought) the sabbath. It is no new thing to see men pretend to aim at the glory of God, when at the same time they are maliciously opposing Christ and persecuting his members.
Next, they they attempted to frown this poor man into a denial of this miracle wrought upon him, or to persuade the people that it was a cheat: but it is wonderful to observe, how the boldness and confidence of this poor man increased, God giving him that wisdom and courage which all his adversaries were not able to resist or gainstay. Therefore the Pharisees being angry at this boldness of the man, they revile him for being so silly, as to become a disciple to Christ, whose office and authority they knew not; whereas they were the disciples of Moses, whom they knew God spake unto.
Learn hence, That such as are led by malice, and prepossessed with prejudice against Christ, will not only think basely of his person, but refuse to see the clearest evidences of his authority and commission. As for this fellow, say the malicious Pharisees, we know not whence he is, or who gave him this commission.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 9:24-29. Then again called they the man The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the mans parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried, by fair words, to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. They said, Give God the praise If the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of God, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know this man, of whom thou speakest, is a profligate sinner, and deserves public punishment rather than esteem. Thus some explain the clause; and doubtless this would be the meaning of it, if the original words did properly signify, Give God the praise. But the expression, , is literally, Give glory to God, that is, as they seem to have meant, by a free confession of the fraud, collusion, or artifice which they supposed was in this affair, and in which they believed the man to be an accomplice of Jesus. See Jos 7:19, where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. Their speech was to this effect: Thou canst not impose upon us by this incredible story. We know that the man thou speakest of, who openly profanes the sabbath, is a transgressor, and therefore can have no authority or commission from God: it will, consequently, be the wisest thing thou canst do, to profess the truth honestly, as thereby thou wilt give glory to God. As it is greatly for the honour of the divine omniscience and providence, that persons who are guilty of crimes not fully proved against them, should freely confess them, and not presume, against the dictates of conscience, to maintain their own innocence; there is a propriety in the phrase, taken in this sense. Doddridge. He answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not Having no personal acquaintance with him; one thing I know And will stand to the truth of it; that, whereas I was blind Even from my birth; now I see Perfectly well, and owe my sight to the very person whom you condemn. In this answer of the beggar there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him, therefore, to tell them again how it had been performed: saying, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? They asked him this question before, (Joh 9:15,) but they now proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at his cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. For gladly would they have prevailed with him to join them in the judgment which they passed upon Jesus. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that, laying aside fear, he answered, I have told you already, and you did not hear That is, believe; wherefore would ye hear it again? Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? Will ye also As well as I; be his disciples? Being at length convinced of his divine mission. In this answer the irony was more plain, pointed, and severe, than in the former. By this, therefore, the rulers were provoked to the highest pitch; and reviled him, saying, Thou art his disciple As is plain from the partiality thou discoverest toward him; but we are Mosess disciples And with great reason; for we know God spake to Moses He clearly demonstrated his mission from God. As for this fellow, &c. Whereas this fellow, who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws, by his pretended cures performed on the sabbath; we know not whence he is
Nor by what power or authority he does these things. Their partiality here was inexcusable; for if they believed the mission of Moses, on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they were here compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 24-34. They called, for the second time, the man who had been blind, and they said to him, Give glory to God; we know that this man is a wicked person. 25. He answered them, Whether he is a wicked person, I know not; one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see. 26. They said to him again, What did he to thee? How did he open thine eyes? 27. He answered them, I told you already, and you did not hear. Why would you hear it again? Do you also wish to become his disciples? 28. They reviled him and said to him, Thou art this man’s disciple; we are disciples of Moses. 29. As to Moses, we know that God has spoken to him; but as for this man, we know not whence he is. 30. The man answered them and said, Herein is the marvellous thing, that you do not know whence he is; and yet, he has opened my eyes! 31. Now, we know that God does not hear the wicked; but if any one is his worshipper and does his will, him he hears. 32. Never has it been heard that any one has opened the eyes of one born blind. 33. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing like this. 34. They answered and said to him, Thou wert altogether born in sin, and thou teachest us! And they drove him out.
After this confronting, a deliberation intervenes; it is determined to extort from the blind man the disavowal of the miracle in the name of the Sabbatic principle, in other terms, to annihilate the fact by dogma. The expression: to give glory to God, denotes the homage rendered to one of the divine perfections momentarily obscured by a word or an act which seems to be derogatory to it (Jos 7:19; 1Sa 6:5).
The blasphemy here was the declaration of the blind man: He is a prophet. It was in contempt of the holiness and truth of God to give this title to a violator of the Sabbath. This culpable assertion must be washed away by the opposite declaration: He is a wicked person. We know say the rulers (Joh 9:24; Joh 9:29), setting themselves up as representatives of theological knowledge in Israel; in virtue of their knowledge, the miracle cannot be: therefore it is not. On his part, the blind man, while admitting his incompetency in theological questions, simply opposes fact to knowledge; his language becomes decidedly ironical; he is conscious of the bad faith of his adversaries. They feel the force of his position, and ask him again as to the circumstances of the fact (Joh 9:26), hoping to find in some detail of his account a means of assailing the fact itself. Not having succeeded in overthrowing the miracle by dogmatics, they wish to undermine it by criticism.
This return to a phase of investigation already settled at once renders the blind man indignant and emboldens him; he triumphs in their impotence, and his reply borders upon irony: You did not hear? You are deaf then! They then cover their embarrassment by insult; between Jesus and the Sabbath, or, what amounts to the same thing, between Jesus and Moses, their choice is made. The blind man, seeing that there is a wish to argue with him, becomes more and more bold, and sets himself also to the work of arguing. If he has not studied dogmatics, he at least knows his catechism. Is there an Israelite who is ignorant of this theocratic axiom: that a miracle is an answer to prayer, and that the prayer of a wicked person is not answered. The construction of Joh 9:30 is doubtful. Meyer, Luthardt andWeiss explain: In such a condition of things ( ), it is astonishing that you do not know whence he comes, and that he has opened my eyes. But, in this sense, the last words are useless.
More than this, the idea: and that he has opened my eyes being the premise of the preceding conclusion: whence he comes, should be placed before it. We must therefore make the , as is so frequently the case, refer to the following : in this that, and give to the which follows the sense of and yet (as in so many other passages in John): There is truly herein a marvel (without ); or (with ): The real marvelous thing consists in this: that you do not know whence this man comes: and yet He has opened my eyes! This last reading is evidently the true one. There is here a miracle greater than even my cure itself; it is your unbelief. The (for), in Greek, often refers to an understood thought. Thus in this case: You do not know this? In fact, there is something here which borders upon the marvelous! We know; that is to say, we simple Jews, in general (Joh 9:31); in contrast to the proud we know of these doctors, in Joh 9:24; Joh 9:29. The argument is compact; Joh 9:31 is the major premise, Joh 9:32 the minor, and Joh 9:33 draws the conclusion.
Defeated by his pitiless logic, whose point of support is simply the principle that what is, is, the adversaries of Jesus give way to rage. Saying to the blind man: Thou wert altogether born in sin, they allude to his blindness from birth, which they regard as a proof of the divine curse under which the man was born (Joh 9:2-3); and they do not perceive that, by this very insult, they render homage to the reality of the miracle which they pretend to deny. Thus unbelief ends by giving the lie to itself. The expression: they drove him out, cannot designate an official excommunication; for this could not be pronounced except in a regular meeting. They expelled him violently from the hall, perhaps with the intention of having the excommunication pronounced afterwards by the Sanhedrim in pursuance of a formal deliberation.
It is asked what is the aim with which John related this fact with so much of detail. No striking testimony of Jesus respecting His person marks it as worthy of attention. It refers far more, as it seems, to the history and conduct of a secondary personage, than to the revelation of Jesus Himself. Evidently John accords to this fact this honorable place because it marks in his view a decisive step in the progress of Israelitish unbelief. For the first time, a believer is, for his faith, cast out of the theocratic community. It is the first act of the rupture between the Church and the Synagogue. We shall see in the following chapter that Jesus really regards this fact in this light.
The whole scene here described has an historical truthfulness which is obvious. It is so little ideal in its nature that it rests, from one end to the other, upon the brute reality of a fact. Baur himself acknowledges this. The reality of the fact, he says, is the point against which the contradiction of the adversaries is broken. And yet this fact, according to him, is a pure invention! What sort of a man must an evangelist be who describes, with greatest detail, a whole series of scenes for the purpose of showing how dogmatic reasoning is shattered against a fact in the reality of which he does not himself believe? Does not criticism meet the same experience which here happens to the Pharisees in Joh 9:34? Does it not give the lie to itself? This whole chapter presents to modern criticism its own portrait. The defenders of the Sabbath ordinance reason thus: God cannot lend His power to a violator of the Sabbath; therefore the miracle ascribed to Jesus does not exist. A non posse ad non esse valet consequentia. The opponents of the miracles in the Gospel history reason in exactly the same way, only substituting for a religious ordinance a scientific axiom: The supernatural cannot be; therefore, however well attested the miracles of Jesus may be, they are not. The historical fact holds good against the ordinance, of whatsoever nature it may be, and it will end by forcing it to submit.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 24
Give God the praise; that is, fear God, and confess that this is an imposture. See Joshua 7:19, for a similar expression.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, {d} Give God the praise: we know that this man is a {e} sinner.
(d) A solemn order, by which men were put under oath in ancient time to acknowledge their fault before God, as if it was said to them, “Consider that you are before God, who knows the entire matter, and therefore be sure that you revere his majesty, and do him this honour and confess the whole matter openly rather than to lie before him”; Jos 7:19; 1Sa 6:5 .
(e) He is called a sinner in the Hebrew language, who is a wicked man, and someone who makes an art of sinning.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Pharisees’ second interrogation 9:24-34
The Pharisees, who considered themselves enlightened, now tried to badger the formerly blind man into denying that he saw the light.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Pharisees proceeded to question the healed man again. They had already decided that Jesus was not the Messiah, but they had to admit that He had done a remarkable miracle. Having failed to prove Jesus a sinner they now hoped the healed man would cave in to pressure from the authorities and testify that Jesus was a sinner. Moreover they suggested that the man would be glorifying God if he agreed with their verdict and admitted his guilt in glorifying Jesus (cf. Joh 9:15). Another evidence of Johannine irony appears. The Pharisees assumed that glorifying God and glorifying Jesus were mutually exclusive whereas to glorify the Son is really to glorify the Father.
Their disdain for Jesus comes through in their calling Him simply "this man." A sinner in the Pharisees’ eyes was someone who broke the oral traditions as well as the Mosaic Law. They hoped the restored man would identify some instance of disobedience that would confirm their conclusion. Notice that these judges prejudiced everyone against Jesus from the start by saying that they had already determined that He was a sinner.