rwp - John:9:1-41

rwp@John:9:1 @{As he passed by} (\paragn\). Present active participle of \parag\, old verb to go along, by, or past (Matthew:20:30|). Only example in this Gospel, but in strkjv@1John:2:8,17|. The day was after the stirring scenes in chapter 8, but not at the feast of dedication as Westcott argues. That comes three months later (10:22|). {From his birth} (\ek genets\). Ablative case with \ek\ of old word from \gen, ginomai\. Here alone in N.T., but the phrase \tuphlos ek genets\ is common in Greek writers. Probably a well-known character with his stand as a beggar (verse 5|).

rwp@John:9:2 @{Who did sin?} (\tis hmarten;\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan\. See strkjv@Acts:3:2; strkjv@14:8| for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23; strkjv@10:46|) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Matthew:11:5|). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job:had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Luke:13:1-5|). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Exodus:20:5|, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Ezekiel:18:20|) says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything. {That he should be born blind} (\hina tuphlos gennthi\). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \genna\.

rwp@John:9:3 @{But that the works of God should be made manifest in him} (\all' hina phanerthi ta erga tou theou en auti\). Jesus denies both alternatives, and puts God's purpose (\all' hina\ with first aorist subjunctive of \phanero\) as the true solution. It is sometimes true that disease is the result of personal sin as in the man in strkjv@5:14| and parents can hand on the effects of sin to the third and fourth generations, but there are cases free from blame like this. There is comfort for many sufferers in the words of Jesus here.

rwp@John:9:4 @{We must work the works of him that sent me} (\hmas dei ergazesthai ta erga tou pempsantos me\). This is undoubtedly the correct text (supported by the Neutral and Western classes) and not \eme\ (I) and \me\ (me) of the Syrian class nor \hmas\ (we) and \hmas\ (us) of the Alexandrian class. Jesus associates us with him in the task committed to him by the Father. Bernard argues vigorously, but vainly, for \eme\ me. We are not able to fathom the depth of the necessity (\dei\) here involved in each life as in this poor blind man and in each of us. {While it is day} (\hes hmera estin\). This clause gives the note of urgency upon us all. {The night cometh} (\erchetai nux\). "Night is coming on," and rapidly. Night was coming for Jesus (7:33|) and for each of us. Cf. strkjv@11:9; strkjv@12:35|. Even electric lights do not turn night into day. \Hes\ with the present indicative (21:22f.|) means "while," not until as in strkjv@13:38|.

rwp@John:9:5 @{When I am in the world} (\hotan en ti kosmi \). Indefinite relative clause with \hotan\ and present active subjunctive \\, "whenever I am in the world." The Latin Vulgate renders here \hotan\ by _quamdiu_ so long as or while as if it were \hes\. But clearly Jesus here refers to the historic Incarnation (17:11|) and to any previous visitations in the time of the patriarchs, prophets, etc. Jesus as God's Son is always the Light of the World (1:4,10; strkjv@8:12|), but here the reference is limited to his manifestation "in the world." {I am the light of the world} (\phs eimi tou kosmou\). The absence of the definite article (\to phs\ in strkjv@8:12|) is to be noted (Westcott). Literally, "I am light to the world, whenever I am in the world." "The display of the character varies with the occasion" (Westcott).

rwp@John:9:6 @{He spat on the ground} (\eptusen chamai\). First aorist active indicative of the old verb \ptu\ for which see strkjv@Mark:7:33|. \Chamai\ is an old adverb either in the dative or locative (sense suits locative), in N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:6|. Jesus was not asked to cure this man. The curative effects of saliva are held in many places. The Jews held saliva efficacious for eye-trouble, but it was forbidden on the Sabbath. "That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it" (Dods). Cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23|. Why he here accommodated himself to current belief we do not know unless it was to encourage the man to believe. {He made clay} (\epoisen plon\). Only use of \plos\, old word for clay, in N.T. in this chapter and strkjv@Romans:9:21|. The kneading of the clay and spittle added another offence against the Sabbath rules of the rabbis. {Anointed his eyes with the clay} (\epechrisen autou ton plon epi tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active indicative of \epichri\, old verb, to spread on, anoint, here only and verse 11| in N.T. "He spread the clay upon his eyes." B C read \epethken\ (first aorist active indicative of \epitithmi\, to put on).

rwp@John:9:7 @{Wash} (\nipsai\). First aorist middle imperative second person singular of \nipt\, later form of \niz\, to wash, especially parts of the body. Certainly bathing the eyes is good for eye trouble, and yet we are not to infer that the cure was due to the use of the clay or to the washing. {In the pool of Siloam} (\eis tn kolumbthran tou Silam\). The word \kolumbthra\ (from \kolumba\, to swim) is a common word for swimming-pool, in N.T. only here and strkjv@5:2,7|. The name _Siloam_ is Hebrew (Isaiah:8:6|) and means "sent" (\apestalmenos\, perfect passive participle of \apostell\). It was situated south of the temple area and was apparently connected by a subterranean tunnel with the Virgin's Well (5:2|) according to Bernard. The water was conducted artificially to the pool of Siloam. {Washed} (\enipsato\). First aorist direct middle (cf. \nipsai\), apparently bathing and not merely washing his eyes. {Came seeing} (\lthen blepn\). Jesus had healed him. He was tested by the demand to bathe his eyes.

rwp@John:9:8 @{Neighbours} (\geitones\). From \g\ (land), of the same land, old word. See strkjv@Luke:14:2|. {Saw him} (\therountes\). Present active participle of \there\, who used to observe him. {Aforetime} (\to proteron\). Adverbial accusative, "the former time," formerly. {That he was a beggar} (\hoti prosaits n\). See strkjv@4:19; strkjv@12:19| for declarative \hoti\ after \there\. But it is entirely possible that \hoti\ here is "because" (Westcott). \Prosaits\ is a late word for beggar, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Mark:10:46|. It is from \prosaite\, to ask in addition (see \prosaitn\ below), a thing that beggars know how to do. {Is not this he that sat and begged?} (\Ouch houtos estin ho kathmenos kai prosaitn;\). He had his regular place and was a familiar figure. But now his eyes are wide open.

rwp@John:9:9 @{Nay but he is like him} (\Ouchi, alla homoios auti estin\). Vigorous denial (\ouchi\) and mere similarity suggested. Associative instrumental case \autoi\ after \homoios\. The crowd is divided. {He said} (\ekeinos elegen\). Emphatic demonstrative (as in 11,12,25,36|), "That one spake up." He knew.

rwp@John:9:10 @{How then were thine eyes opened?} (\Ps oun neichthsan sou hoi ophthalmoi;\). Natural and logical (\oun\) question. First aorist passive indicative (triple augment) of \anoig\. These neighbours admit the fact and want the manner ("how") of the cure made clear.

rwp@John:9:11 @{The man that is called Jesus} (\ho anthrpos ho legomenos Isous\). He does not yet know Jesus as the Messiah the Son of God (9:36|). {I received sight} (\aneblepsa\). First aorist active indicative of \anablep\, old verb to see again, to recover sight, not strictly true of this man who had never seen. He got back sight that he had never had. Originally the verb means to look up (Matthew:14:19|).

rwp@John:9:12 @{Where is he?} (\Pou estin ekeinos;\). The very question of strkjv@7:11|.

rwp@John:9:13 @{They bring him} (\agousin auton\). Vivid dramatic present active of \ag\. These neighbours bring him. {To the Pharisees} (\pros tous Pharisaious\). The accepted professional teachers who posed as knowing everything. The scribes were usually Pharisees. {Him that aforetime was blind} (\ton pote tuphlon\). Simply, "the once blind man."

rwp@John:9:14 @{Now it was the sabbath} (\n de sabbaton\). Literally, "Now it was a sabbath" (no article). To the Pharisees this fact was a far more important matter than whether or how the thing was done. See Volumes I and II for discussions of the minute Sabbath regulations of the rabbis.

rwp@John:9:15 @{Again} (\palin\). Besides the questioning of the neighbours (verses 8,9|). {Therefore} (\oun\). Since he has been brought to the Pharisees who must make a show of wisdom. {Also asked him} (\rtn auton kai\). Inchoative imperfect active of \erta\, "began also to question him." {How he received his sight} (\ps aneblepsen\). No denial as yet of the fact, only interest in the "how." {He put} (\epethken\). Genuine here, but see verse 6|. {And lo see} (\kai blep\). That is the overwhelming fact.

rwp@John:9:16 @{Because he keepeth not the sabbath} (\hoti to sabbaton ou trei\). This is reason (causal \hoti\) enough. He violates our rules about the Sabbath and therefore is a Sabbath-breaker as charged when here before (5:10,16,18|). Hence he is not "from God" (\para theou\). Songs:some. {How can a man that is a sinner do such signs?} (\Ps dunatai anthrpos hamartlos toiauta smeia poiein;\). This was the argument of Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee and one of the Sanhedrin, long ago (3:2|). It was a conundrum for the Pharisees. No wonder there was "a division" (\schisma\, schism, split, from \schiz\) as in strkjv@7:43; strkjv@10:19|.

rwp@John:9:17 @{Unto the blind man again} (\ti tuphli palin\). The doctors disagree and they ask the patient whose story they had already heard (verse 15|). {In that he opened thine eyes} (\hoti neixen sou tous ophthalmous\). Causal use of \hoti\ and triple augment in the first aorist active indicative of \anoig\. They offer the excuse that the man's experience particularly qualified him to explain the "how," overlooking the fact he had already told his story and also trying to conceal their own hopeless division of opinion. {He is a prophet} (\prophts estin\). The man will go that far anyhow.

rwp@John:9:18 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). Probably the incredulous and hostile section of the Pharisees in verse 16| (cf. strkjv@5:10|). {Did not believe} (\ouk episteusan\). The facts told by the man, "that he had been blind and had received his sight" (\hoti n tuphlos kai aneblepsen\), conflicted with their theological views of God and the Sabbath. Songs:they refused belief "until they called the parents" (\hes hotou ephnsan tous goneis\). Usual construction of \hes hotou\ ( = until which time, like \hes\ alone) with aorist active indicative of \phne\, old verb from \phn\ (voice, sound). They called out loud for his parents to throw light on this grave problem to cover up their own stupidity.

rwp@John:9:19 @{Is this your son who ye say was born blind? how doth he now see?} (\Houtos estin ho huios humn, hon humeis lgete hoti tuphlos egennth; ps oun blepei arti;\). It was shrewdly put with three questions in one in order to confuse the parents if possible and give the hostile Pharisees a handle.

rwp@John:9:20 @{We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind} (\Oidamen hoti houtos estin ho huios hmn kai hoti tuphlos egennth\). These two questions the parents answer clearly and thus cut the ground from under the disbelief of these Pharisees as to the fact of the cure (verse 18|). Songs:these Pharisees made a failure here.

rwp@John:9:21 @{But how he now seeth we know not} (\ps de nun blepei ouk oidamen\). Concerning the third question they profess ignorance both as to the "how" (\ps\) and the "who" (\tis\). {Opened} (\noixen\). First aorist active indicative with single augment of \anoig\, same form as \neixen\ (triple augment) in verse 17|. They were not witnesses of the cure and had the story only from the son as the Pharisees had. {He is of age} (\hlikian echei\). "He has maturity of age." He is an adult. A regular classical phrase in Plato, etc. The parents were wholly right and within their rights.

rwp@John:9:22 @{Because they feared the Jews} (\hoti ephobounto tous Ioudaious\). Imperfect middle, a continuing fear and not without reason. See already the whispers about Jesus because of fear of the Jews (7:13|). {Had agreed already} (\d sunetetheinto\). Past perfect middle of \suntithmi\, to put together, to form a compact (7:32,47-49|). {If any man should confess him to be Christ} (\ean tis auton homologsi Christon\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \homologe\ and predicate accusative \Christon\. Jesus had made confession of himself before men the test of discipleship and denial the disproof (Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Luke:12:8|). We know that many of the rulers nominally believed on Jesus (12:42|) and yet "did not confess him because of the Pharisees" (\alla dia tous Pharisaious ouch hmologoun\), for the very reason given here, "that they might not be put out of the synagogue" (\hina m aposunaggoi genntai\). Small wonder then that here the parents cowered a bit. {That he should be put out of the synagogue} (\hina aposunaggos gentai\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. \Aposunaggos\ (\apo\ and \sunagg\) is found in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:42; strkjv@16:2|. A purely Jewish word naturally. There were three kinds of excommunication (for thirty days, for thirty more, indefinitely).

rwp@John:9:23 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." Reason enough for due caution.

rwp@John:9:24 @{A second time} (\ek deuterou\). He had given the Pharisees the facts the first time (9:15|). It was really the third time (see \palin\ in strkjv@9:17|). Now it was like a joke unless the Pharisees meant to imply that his previous story was untrue. {Give glory to God} (\dos doxan ti thei\). Second aorist active imperative of \didmi\ (cf. \sches, hes\). This phrase does not mean gratitude to God as in strkjv@Luke:17:18|. It is rather an adjuration to speak the truth (Joshua:7:19; strkjv@1Samuel:6:5|) as if he had not done it before. Augustine says: "_Quid est Daniel:gloriam Deo? Nega quod accepisti._" Is a sinner (\hamartlos estin\). They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19|) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner. They wish to decide the fact by logic and authority like all persecutors through the ages. Recall the Pharisaic distinction between \dikaios\ (righteous) and \hamartlos\ (sinner).

rwp@John:9:25 @{One thing I know} (\hen oida\). This man is keen and quick and refuses to fall into the trap set for him. He passes by their quibbling about Jesus being a "sinner" (\hamartlos\) and clings to the one fact of his own experience. {Whereas I was blind, now I see} (\tuphlos n arti blep\). Literally, "Being blind I now see." The present active participle \n\ of \eimi\ by implication in contrast with \arti\ (just now, at this moment) points to previous and so past time. It must be borne in mind that the man did not at this stage know who Jesus was and so had not yet taken him as Saviour (9:36-38|).

rwp@John:9:26 @{What did he do to thee?} (\Ti epoisen soi;\). Another cross-examination, now admitting that Jesus opened his eyes and wishing again (9:15,17|) to know "how."

rwp@John:9:27 @{I told you even now} (\eipon humin d\). In verses 15,17,25|. {Would ye also become his disciples?} (\M kai humeis thelete autou mathtai genesthai;\). Negative answer formally expected, but the keenest irony in this gibe. Clearly the healed man knew from the use of "also" (\kai\) that Jesus had some "disciples" (\mathtai\, predicate nominative with the infinitive \genesthai\) and that the Pharisees knew that fact. "Do ye also (like the Galilean mob) wish, etc." See strkjv@7:45-52|. It cut to the bone.

rwp@John:9:28 @{They reviled him} (\eloidorsan auton\). First aorist active indicative of \loidore\, old verb from \loidoros\ (reviler, strkjv@1Corinthians:5:11|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:23:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:12; strkjv@1Peter:2:23|. {Thou art his disciple} (\su mathts ei ekeinou\). Probably a fling in \ekeinou\ (of that fellow). He had called him a prophet (9:17|) and became a joyful follower later (9:36-38|). {But we are disciples of Moses} (\hmeis de tou Muses esmen mathtai\). This they said with proud scorn of the healed beggar. All orthodox rabbis so claimed.

rwp@John:9:29 @{We know that God hath spoken unto Moses} (\hmeis oidamen hoti Musei lelalken ho theos\). Perfect active indicative of \lale\, so still on record. See strkjv@Exodus:33:11|. For \lale\ used of God speaking see strkjv@Hebrews:1:1|. They are proud to be disciples of Moses. {But as for this man, we do not know whence he is} (\touton de ouk oidamen pothen estin\). "This fellow" they mean by "\touton\" in emphatic position, we do not even know whence he is. Some of the people did (7:27|), but in the higher sense none of the Jews knew (8:14|). These Pharisees neither knew nor cared.

rwp@John:9:30 @{Why, herein is the marvel} (\en touti gar to thaumaston estin\). This use of \gar\ (\ge + ara\, accordingly indeed) to bring out an affirmation from the previous words is common enough. "Why in this very point is the wonder" (\thaumaston\, old verbal adjective from \thaumaz\ as in strkjv@Matthew:21:42|). The man is angry now and quick in his insight and reply. You confess your ignorance of whence he is, ye who know everything, "and yet (adversative use of \kai\ again) he opened my eyes" (\kai noixen mou tous ophthalmous\). That stubborn fact stands.

rwp@John:9:31 @{God does not hear sinners} (\ho theos hamartln ouk akouei\). Note genitive case with \akouei\. This was the argument of the Pharisees in strkjv@9:16|. It is frequent in the O.T. (Job:27:9; strkjv@Psalms:66:18; strkjv@Isaiah:1:15; strkjv@59:2|, etc.). The conclusion is inevitable from this premise. Jesus is not \hamartlos\. {If any man be a worshipper of God} (\ean tis theosebs i\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and present active subjunctive \i\. \Theosebs\ (\theos\, God, \sebomai\, to worship) is an old compound adjective, here alone in the N.T. {And do his will} (\kai to thelma autou poiei\). Same condition with present active subjunctive of \poie\, "keep on doing his will."

rwp@John:9:32 @{Since the world began} (\ek tou ainos\). Literally, "from the age," "from of old." Elsewhere in the N.T. we have \apo tou ainos\ or \ap 'ainos\ (Luke:1:70; strkjv@Acts:3:31; strkjv@15:18|) as is common in the LXX. {Of a man born blind} (\tuphlou gegennmenou\). Perfect passive participle of \genna\. This is the chief point and the man will not let it be overlooked, almost rubs it in, in fact. It was congenital blindness.

rwp@John:9:33 @{If this man were not from God} (\ei m n houtos para theou\). Negative condition of second class with imperfect indicative. Assuming that Jesus is not "from God" (\para theou\) as some argued in strkjv@9:16|, "he could do nothing" (\ouk dunato poiein ouden\). Conclusion of the second-class condition with imperfect indicative (double augment in \dunato\) without \an\ as is usual in conditions of possibility, propriety, obligation (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 920,1014). The man has scored with terrific power in his use of Scripture and logic.

rwp@John:9:34 @{Thou wast altogether born in sin} (\en hamartiais su egennths holos\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\. "In sins thou wast begotten (or born) all of thee." \Holos\ is predicate nominative and teaches total depravity in this case beyond controversy, the Pharisees being judges. {And dost thou teach us?} (\kai su didaskeis hmas;\). The audacity of it all. Note emphasis on \su\ (thou). It was insufferable. He had not only taught the rabbis, but had utterly routed them in argument. {And they cast him out} (\kai exebalon auton ex\). Effective second aorist active indicative of \ekball\ intensified by the addition of \ex\. Probably not yet expulsion from the synagogue (9:22|) which required a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, but certainly forcible driving of the gifted upstart from their presence. See strkjv@6:37| for another use of \ekball ex\ besides strkjv@9:35|.

rwp@John:9:35 @{Finding him} (\heurn auton\). Second aorist active participle of \heurisk\, after search because of what he had heard (\kousen\). {Dost thou believe on the Son of God?} (\Su pisteueis eis ton huion tou theou;\). Songs:A L Theta and most versions, but Aleph B D W Syr-sin read \tou anthrpou\ (the Son of Man), almost certainly correct. In either case it is a distinct Messianic claim quite beyond the range of this man's limited knowledge, keen as he is.

rwp@John:9:36 @{And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?} (\Kai tis estin, kurie;\). The initial \kai\ (and) is common (Mark:10:26; strkjv@Luke:10:29; strkjv@18:26|). Probably by \kurie\ he means only "Sir." It usually comes at the beginning of the sentence, not at the end as here and verse 38|. {That I may believe on him} (\hina pisteus eis auton\). Ellipsis to be supplied before this final clause. He catches up the words of Jesus in the preceding verse, though he does not yet know who the Son of Man (or Son of God) is, but he trusts Jesus.

rwp@John:9:37 @{Thou hast both seen him} (\kai herakas auton\). Perfect active indicative (double reduplication) of \hora\. Since his eyes were opened. {And he it is that speaketh with thee} (\kai ho laln meta sou ekeinos estin\). "And the one speaking with thee is that man." See strkjv@19:35| for \ekeinos\ used of the speaker. In strkjv@4:26| Jesus reveals himself in like manner to the Samaritan woman as Messiah while here as the Son of Man (or the Son of God).

rwp@John:9:38 @{Lord, I believe} (\Pisteu, kurie\). \Kurie\ here = Lord (reverence, no longer respect as in 36|). A short creed, but to the point. {And he worshipped him} (\kai prosekunsen auti\). Ingressive first aorist active indicative of \proskune\, old verb to fall down in reverence, to worship. Sometimes of men (Matthew:18:26|). In John (see strkjv@4:20|) this verb "is always used to express divine worship" (Bernard). It is tragic to hear men today deny that Jesus should be worshipped. He accepted worship from this new convert as he later did from Thomas who called him "God" (John:20:28|). Peter (Acts:10:25f.|) refused worship from Cornelius as Paul and Barnabas did at Lystra (Acts:14:18|), but Jesus made no protest here.

rwp@John:9:39 @{For judgement} (\eis krima\). The Father had sent the Son for this purpose (3:17|). This world (\kosmos\) is not the home of Jesus. The \krima\ (judgement), a word nowhere else in John, is the result of the \krisis\ (sifting) from \krin\, to separate. The Father has turned over this process of sifting (\krisis\) to the Son (5:22|). He is engaged in that very work by this miracle. {They which see not} (\hoi m blepontes\). The spiritually blind as well as the physically blind (Luke:4:18; strkjv@Isaiah:42:18|). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive \blepsin\ (may keep on seeing). This man now sees physically and spiritually. {And that they which see may become blind} (\kai hoi blepontes tuphloi genntai\). Another part of God's purpose, seen in strkjv@Matthew:11:25; strkjv@Luke:10:21|, is the curse on those who blaspheme and reject the Son. Note ingressive aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ and predicate nominative. \Hoi blepontes\ are those who profess to see like these Pharisees, but are really blind. Blind guides they were (Matthew:23:16|). Complacent satisfaction with their dim light.

rwp@John:9:40 @{Are we also blind?} (\M kai hmeis tuphloi esmen;\). Negative answer expected (\m\) and yet these Pharisees who overheard the words of Jesus to the new convert vaguely suspected that Jesus was referring to them by the last clause. Up in Galilee Jesus had called the Pharisees blind guides who stumble into the pit (Matthew:15:14|).

rwp@John:9:41 @{If ye were blind} (\ei tuphloi te\). Condition of second class with imperfect indicative in the protasis. The old word \tuphlos\ is from \tuph\, to raise a smoke, to blind by smoke (literally and metaphorically). Here, of course, it is moral blindness. If the Pharisees were born morally blind, they would, like idiots, be without responsibility. {Ye would not have sin} (\ouk an eichete hamartian\). Regular form for conclusion of second-class condition, \an\ with imperfect. {But now ye say} (\nun de legete\). In contrast to the previous condition. See like contrast in strkjv@15:22,24|. They arrogantly asserted superior knowledge. {We see} (\blepomen\). The ignorant mob do not (7:49|). It is sin against light and is hopeless (Mark:3:29; strkjv@Matthew:12:31f.|). "Ye are witnesses against yourselves" (\martureite heautois\, strkjv@Matthew:23:31|).