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 Joshua 7:19; Ezra 10:11; 3 Esdras 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 Joshua 7:19, does not fit 1 Samuel 6:5 or Jeremiah 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 ( οἴδαμεν) 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.