John 9:18

9:18 The Pharisees wanted to discount the miracle and hoped the man’s parents would deny the healing.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 9:18. Αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναβλέψαντος, of him that had received his sight) These are joined as substantive and adjective, and the of him refers to the blind man.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_9:18. Observe that the mere verb is not again employed, nor even οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, but οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, i.e. the hostile hierarchical party among the assembled Pharisees, which now carries on further proceedings. Comp. Joh_9:22.

οὐκ ἐπίστ. placed emphatically at the beginning of the verse.

οὖν as the healed man had declared Him to be a prophet. They now suspected the existence of a fraudulent understanding between the two.

ἕως ὅτου] 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).

αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναβλέψ.] of him who had himself again become seeing, concerning whom his own parents must surely know best.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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; Οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν , “they did not believe” his account (Joh 9:19 ), ἕως ὅτου … βλέπει ; “until they summoned his parents”.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

the Jews did not believe . . . he had been born blind . . . till they called the parents of him that had received his sight--Foiled by the testimony of the young man himself, they hope to throw doubt on the fact by close questioning his parents, who, perceiving the snare laid for them, ingeniously escape it by testifying simply to the identity of their son, and his birth-blindness, leaving it to himself, as a competent witness, to speak as to the cure. They prevaricated, however, in saying they "knew not who had opened his eyes," for "they feared the Jews," who had come to an understanding (probably after what is recorded, Joh 7:50, &c.; but by this time well known), that whoever owned Him as the Christ would be put out of the synagogue--that is, not simply excluded, but excommunicated.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4.)

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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 18, 19. The narrative once more brings "the Jews" into prominence the hierarchical party, adverse to Jesus. The angry magistrates who were in the court allowed it to be seen at once that they will not be tampered with, nor lose the chance, if possible, of pursuing their malicious plans already formed against Jesus. They take the ground that no miracle had occurred. At all events, they must have further evidence of the fact. The Jews then did not believe, or refused to believe, concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight, and asked them, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see?

There were three questions proposed after the delay involved in fetching the parents of the blind beggar. The first was identification of the blind man. The second was the fact of his congenital blindness. The third was the means of his cure.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. οὐκ ἐπ. οὖν οἱ Ἰ. 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).

αὐτοῦ τ. ἀναβλ. Of the man himself that had received his sight.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18.] The hostile party (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι,—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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. Up to this point the Pharisees have not directly challenged the statement that the man’s sight had been restored, having confined themselves to the question about the breach of the Sabbath which was involved. But the answer of the man, προφήτης ἐστίν, leads the more hostile of them (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, see on 5:10) to suspect collusion between Jesus and the patient, and so they summon the parents for further inquiry as to their son’s blindness and its cure.

γονεῖς occurs in Jn. only in this chapter: the word in the N.T. is always used in the plural.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 [αυτου του αναβλεψαντος] . Properly, "of the very one who had received."

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 οἱ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, 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 two—those which relate to the blindness from birth of their son and the identity of the man who is cured with this son—are immediately answered by the parents affirmatively. There is something comical in the three αὐτός, he, by means of which they pass over from themselves to him the burden of answering the third. The term συνετέθεντο, they had agreed, Joh 9:22, denotes a decision formed, and not a mere project, as Meyer thinks; this follows from the word ἤδη, 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:

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.