John 9:24

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 9:24-29. Then again called they the man — The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the man’s 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, Δος δοξαν τω θεω, 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 Moses’s 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.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:24 God should get the glory for this: Greek reads Give glory to God. Cp. Josh 7:19.

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

Joh 9:24. Ἐκ δευτέρου, again) He had therefore been sent away after the conversation with him, described at Joh 9:17.—δός, give) A spacious preface. He gives glory to God, who confesses the truth, especially in a matter and cause attended with difficulties.—ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, 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.]—ἁμαρτωλός, a sinner) Joh 9:16, “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day.”

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

Joh_9:24-25. Δὸς δόξαν τ. θεῷ] 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; John 3 Esr. Joh_9:8.

ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, etc.] This assertion of hierarchical authority (ἡμεῖς 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: οὐκ οἶδα πλὴν ἕν); but not whether, etc.

τυφλὸς ὤν] being blind, namely, in his natural state, from birth. Comp. Joh_3:13.

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 9:24 . Baffled by the parents the Pharisees turn again, ἐκ δευτέρου , a second time to the man and say: Δὸς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ … ἐστιν . 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, ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν , that He is a sinner.

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

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 (ἐν τούτῳ), 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 ἐν τούτῳ, as is so frequently the case, refer to the following ὅτι : in this that, and give to the καί which follows the sense of and yet (as in so many other passages in John): “There is truly herein a marvel (without τό); or (with τό): “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 γάρ (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.

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.

A solemn order, whereby men were constrained in old time to acknowledge their fault before God, as if they should say, Consider thou art before God, who knoweth the whole matter, and therefore see thou reverence his majesty, and do him this honor, rather to confess the whole matter openly, than to lie before him, Josh. 7:19; 1 Sam. 6:5.

He is called a sinner in the Hebrew tongue, which is a wicked man, and maketh as it were an art of sins.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner--not wishing him to own, even to the praise of God, that a miracle had been wrought upon him, but to show more regard to the honor of God than ascribe any such act to one who was a sinner.

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 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.

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

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, 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, (Joshua 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.

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.

(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 God’s 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.

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

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.’

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.

He answered and said,.... That is, the man who had been blind, who takes no notice of the confession they pressed him to, which is what he could not do; there being no collusion in this case, he only replies to the reproachful character they had given of his benefactor.

Whether he be a sinner or not, I know not: or "if he is a sinner I know not", as the Vulgate Latin version renders it, suggesting that he did not know he was a sinner; he could not charge him with being one; nor could he join with them in saying he was a sinner; nor did he think and believe he was: however, he was sure he had done a good thing to him, and in that he was no sinner; and what proof they had of his being one he could not tell: and be that as it will, adds he,

one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see; as if he should say, whatever charges you bring against the person that has done me this favour, which I am not able to answer to, you cannot reason me out of this; this I am sure of, that once I had no eyes to see with, and now I have, and that by the means of this man you reproach. And so it is with persons enlightened in a spiritual sense, whatever things they may be ignorant of, though they may not know the exact time of their conversion, nor have so much Gospel light and knowledge as others, or be so capable of expressing themselves, or giving such a distinct and orderly account of the work of God upon them as some can, nor dispute with an adversary for the truths of the Gospel, or have that faith of assurance, and discoveries of God's love, and the application of such great and precious promises as others have; yet this they know, that they were once blind, as to the knowledge of spiritual things, as to a saving knowledge of God in Christ, as to a true sight and sense of themselves, their sins and lost estate, as to the way of righteousness and salvation by Christ, or the work of the Spirit of God upon their souls, or as to any true and spiritual discerning of the Scriptures, and the doctrines of grace in them: but now they are comfortably assured, they see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the plague of their own hearts, the insufficiency of their righteousness to justify them before God, and the beauty, fulness, suitableness, and ability of Christ as a Saviour; and that their salvation is, and must be of free grace; and that they see the truths of the Gospel in another light than they did before, and have some glimpse of eternal glory and happiness, in the hope of which they rejoice.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Give glory to God, before whom thou art speaking, and tell us the truth. It could not be this man who cured thee; for we know he is a sinner, who seduceth the people. (Bible de Vence) --- So say our separated brethren, when they derogate from miracles done by saints, pharisaically pretending the glory of God, as if it were not God’s glory when his servants act by his power and virtue. Witness Peter’s shadow, (Acts v.) and Paul’s handkerchiefs that cured diseases, and expelled wicked spirits. (Acts xix. 11, 12.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

So they ("the Jews") called a second time the man that was (had been) blind, and said unto him; no longer asking for any details of the process of the cure, they sought with ingenuity to blunt the edge of the powerful testimony which this man had borne to the prophetic rank and even Messianic claims of Jesus, by inducing him to recant. Give glory to God, said they. Many have urged (see Calvin, De Wette, Lange, Lucke, and Meyer) that this is only a solemn form of adjuration, which corresponds with Jos_7:19 Ezr_10:11 RAPC 2Est_9:8, and was a hypocritical appeal to the man to eat his own words on oath; and Godet urges, "They demanded that this guilty assertion, "He is a Prophet," should be blotted out by the contrary one," He is a sinner. Moulton says, "A formula used when a criminal who was thought to be concealing the truth was being urged to make a full confession." Luthardt, Lampe, and others rightly observe that this adjuration theory, though it suits Jos_7:19, does not fit 1Sa_6:5 or Jer_12:16, and that the Pharisees rather wished the man to give glory direct to God, and not to Jesus. They implied that their action was dictated by zeal for the honor of God, and tempted the man to disclaim the mediation of Divine grace through the lips and at the will of Jesus. They add, We know (oidamen) absolutely, on theologic grounds beyond the comprehension of the poor man, and we can sustain it with all the weight of our tradition and custom we know that this Man is a sinner. They give no reference, and do not condescend to particulars. They would overawe the man with their assumption of superior knowledge.

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

sinner

Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

24. We know that this man is a sinner. Because he healed on the Sabbath.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

they called the man

Here, "they" refers to the Jews. (John 9:18)

Give glory to God

This is an idiom that people used when taking an oath. AT: "In the presence of God, tell the truth" or "Speak the truth before God" (See: Idiom)

this man

This refers to Jesus.

that man

This refers to the man who had been blind.

translationWords

glory

sin

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

24. ἐφών. οὖν. They called, therefore, a second time. Having questioned the parents apart from the son, they now try to browbeat the son, before he learns that his parents have not discredited his story.

δὸς δ. τ. θ. Give glory to God. ‘Glory,’ not ‘praise’ (Joh 12:43), which would be αἶνος or ἔπαινος (Mat 21:16; Luk 18:43; Rom 2:29), nor ‘honour’ (Joh 5:41; Joh 5:44, Joh 8:54), which would be τιμί (Joh 4:44; Rev 4:9; Rev 4:11; Rev 5:12-13). 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. See on Jer 13:16.

ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν. Ἡμεῖς is emphatic. ‘We, the people in authority, who have a right to decide, know that this person (contemptuous, as in Joh 9:16) is a Sabbath-breaker. It is useless, therefore, for you to maintain that He is a Prophet.’

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.

24. δὸς δ. τ. θεῷ] 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.’

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

24. The Jewish leaders summon the man himself for re-examination (ἐκ δευτέρου, cf. v. 17). They now press him on the point of his former evidence, which they suggest was not true.

δὸς δόξαν τῷ θεῷ. This does not mean here “Thank God” (cf. Luk 17:18), but it is a form of adjuration meaning “Speak the truth,” as at Jos 7:19 (cf. 1 Ezr 9:8).

ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν, “we know,” speaking with ecclesiastical authority, “that this man is a sinner,” although the blind man had said (v. 17) that He was a prophet. They suggest that the man was lying, and was in collusion with Jesus.

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

Give God the praise [δος δοξαν τω θεω] . 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.

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