24 So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.” 25 He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.”
The religious authorities in Jerusalem were now in a conundrum. Their interrogation of the healed man’s parents did not give the result they wanted. The testimony of the healed man did not give them any support. There was no way for them to avoid the fact that Jesus healed this man, so they recalled the beggar to try again.
9:24
So they again called the man who was blind,
This was the second time the religious leaders summoned the beggar healed of congenital blindness. The Pharisees now attempted to pressure the formerly blind man to withdraw his testimony. They wanted to shake his witness somehow.
and said to him,
From this point the veracity of the miracle was not the issue for them. Their only concern was to discredit Jesus.
“Give God the glory [praise]!
The argument of the Pharisees was that Jesus did not heal the man; it was God. The idea was, “Don’t give glory to Jesus, give it to God.” The implication of this statement was to call the beggar to give an honest witness—”Tell the truth. Are you holding back something? Be frank with what you know.”
We [emphatic] know that this Man is a sinner.”
The “we” is emphatic in this sentence. “We, the religious authorities, know that Jesus is a sinner.” This was an appeal to their personal authority.
The Pharisees held that Jesus could not heal because He “is a sinner.” The idea of sinner here is of an untruthful teacher. He was a false teacher because He broke the Sabbath. This statement closed the framework of the discussion. Official religion had come to a decisive conclusion about Jesus.
9:25
He answered and said,
The blind man refused to yield to the pressure of the Pharisees and answered them in straightforward language. He was an independent thinker. He did not yield to theoretical arguments; he stuck to the facts. There was “one thing” he knew for sure. He had sight and nothing could change that. Fear did not deter him from his witness.
“Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know.
This man spoke only what he knew, nothing more. He did not buy into the Pharisees’ argument to not give glory to Jesus. He left theological issues to others.
One thing I know:
The blind man’s answer was clear. He was certain about the truth of his own testimony. He stuck strictly to the facts.
that though I was blind, now I see.”
This is a statement of undeniable truth—”I was blind, now I see.” This assertion stands in stark contrast to the Pharisees’ “say-so.”
PRINCIPLE:
Facts are more stubborn than opinions.
APPLICATION:
The indisputable and unalterable fact that the man received his sight was patent to everyone. The issue behind rejection of Christ is spiritual blindness, not the facts.
The testimony of Christians through the centuries is that once I was blind but now I see. Our transformation speaks loudly of God at work.
