No longer asking for the man born blind to witness to what Jesus said or did, the court now told him: “Give glory to God. We **know** this man is a sinner” (John 9:24). The phrase give glory to God is a formula for taking an oath. It was first used by Joshua, when it was found out that Aiken had brought the judgment of God down upon the nation (Joshua 7:19). Therefore, and perhaps wanting to appear pious, they told the man, who was healed by Jesus, to give glory to God (Joshua 7:19), implying that Jesus was bringing the judgment of God down upon the nation. Yet, in that day, Aiken had disobeyed God, hiding for himself that which was dedicated to God. So, when God caused the judgment lot to point to Aiken, singularly, out of the entire nation, Joshua asked Aiken to confess and give glory to God, in that only by the Lord directing the lots was Aiken found out. Here, on the other hand, God had already pointed to Jesus as the one sent by him, because no one but God could ever heal a man born blind. The testimony of God was clear for both events, and like Aiken before him, the man, now healed, gave glory to God by saying Jesus was a prophet. Rather, it was these rulers, hiding behind a pious façade, who were refusing to give glory to God in what was done.
The court claimed to already know Jesus was a sinner, implying he couldn’t possibly have healed the man. Therefore, they wanted the man to recant his testimony, and accept their ecclesiastical authority, as testimony to the fact that Jesus was no prophet (John 9:17), but was, rather, an evil man, who is trying to bring the judgment of God down upon their nation (cp. Joshua 7:19). Here was a court that had already passed down their judgment and were now searching for evidence to support that decision. Nevertheless, the man, who may have included some respect to the court by saying, “if Jesus was a sinner (perverting the nation) he had no knowledge of that.” All he knew to be true was that he was blind, but now he sees (John 9:25). He didn’t know much else, but he knew that!
The officer of the court then asked what Jesus did, meaning how did he open the man’s eyes. Clearly, the man didn’t know what else to tell them. He said he already told them what happened, and that only those desiring to be Jesus’ disciples would want to listen to the facts over and over (John 9:26-27). Once again, however, as the interrogation went on and on without the desired effect, the authorities turned to ad hominem slurs (cp. John 8:48) in an effort to revile the man and shame him. Then they said they were the disciples of Moses, but he was Jesus’ disciple! He was a disciple of a man slandered by the court, who claimed Jesus was a sinner, implying he perverted the nation (John 9:28). The members of the court claimed they knew who Moses was and that God spoke to him. In other words they knew God sent him to the nation. However, as for this man (Jesus), they didn’t know where he came from or who sent him (John 9:29).
The man said he was simply amazed at the testimony of the court, which claimed it didn’t know where Jesus was from or who sent him. Yet, Jesus opened the man’s eyes; he was blind and now he saw – all because of Jesus! Everyone knows God doesn’t hear the prayers of those who regard sin, but he does hear the prayers of folks who worship him and do his will. Moreover, since the beginning of the nation, no one had ever heard of a man opening the eyes of a man who was born blind! If Jesus were not sent by God, he could do nothing (John 9:30-33).
Finally, without anything to say in reply to the man’s logic, the court ceased their inquiry for the evidence for their ruling (cp. John 9:24) and adjourned with a superstitious decree, referencing the fact that the man had been born blind (John 9:2). They claimed he was born a reprobate, a sinner, and how could he ever believe he could teach this court how they should rule? They, therefore, cast him out, vis-à-vis cast him out of the synagogues, which meant casting him out of Jewish society. They excommunicated him (John 9:34).
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “Give God the Glory!”
Morning Eddie!
Given the way that Israel behaved throughout its history, particularly the way in which it rejected Christ, it is incredible to me that in modern Christianity, Israel is so revered. I respect modern Israel for its spunk, but I can’t see it as the inheritor of God’s promises; that seems to be reserved for believers (the true Church).
Good morning to you, Dave. Lord bless you, and thanks for reading and taking the time to offer a comment.
From where I sit, I don’t see a lot of difference between church history and that of the Jews. We’ve both treated the Lord as though he weren’t “the Lord”, and just as the Jews, we have often lived in disobedience. That’s the picture as a whole! Individually, we have the Spirit of God, which allows us to be in his Kingdom. His people are “born again” believers, who allow the Lord to correct us when we’re wrong. This is quite unlike the Jews’ rejecting Christ. For, according to Matthew 28, they knew they were wrong, but sought a way to force God to do their will and send them a messiah of their liking–a great general etc. God is able to work with disobedience, but not rebellion. Rebellion must be squashed, while disobedience can be changed through discipline and education.
Indeed, Israel is revered today as though they aren’t in rebellion against God. Nevertheless, I, too, admire their spunk, and I believe they exist as a nation by the mercy of God, but their covenant with him, as a physical nation, ended in 70 AD in the destruction of the Old Covenant/the Temple. The Israel of God (the true church as you put it above) are those Jews and gentiles, who have come under the blood of Jesus, embracing him as Messiah, who breaks our bondage to sin and rebellion, and places us in the presence of God, like man was in the beginning.