Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 9:1 - 9:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Cure of a Man Blind from His Birth (9:1-13)
1. κὶπργνεδνκλ This is an abrupt beginning, but the introductory κίis thoroughly Johannine. πργι does not occur again in the Fourth Gospel; but cf. 1Jn_2:8, 1Jn_2:17.
τφὸ ἐ γντς Probably the man was a well-known figure, as he begged for alms (v. 8) near the Temple or at some other much-frequented place. γντ does not appear again in the N.T., but the phrase τφὸ ἐ γντςis common in secular writers (see Wetstein).
It is not reported of any other case of healing in the Gospels that the person cured had been sick, blind, or lame from his birth (cf. Act_3:2, Act_14:8), and some critics have found here an instance of Jn.`s alleged habit of magnifying the miraculous element in the ministry of Jesus (see Introd., p. clxxx). This healing goes beyond any of the healings of blind men recorded by the Synoptists, Jn., after his wont, selecting one typical and notable case for record (see below on v. 6).
Diseases of the eye are common in the East, and it is not surprising that blind folk should have been brought for cure to Jesus. There is no mention in the O.T. of a blind person being cured (unless the case of Tob. 11:11 be reckoned as such); but to the prophet the blessings of the Messianic age included the opening of the eyes of the blind (Isa_35:5), and the Baptist was reminded of this in connexion with the cures wrought by Jesus (cf. Mat_11:5). Mk. records two special cases, sc. at Mar_8:23 (to which further reference must be made) and Mar_10:46 (cf. Mat_20:29, Luk_18:35). See also Mat_9:27, Mat_12:22 (cf. Luk_11:14) 15:30, 21:14. But the singularity of the case recorded by Jn. is that the blindness is said to have been congenital.
There is a passage in Justin (Tryph. 69) which seems to presuppose a knowledge of this verse. Justin has quoted Isa_35:1-7, and he proceeds: πγ ὕαο ζνο πρ θο ἐ τ ἐήῳγώεςθο …ἀέλσν sc. Christ, τὺ ἐ γντςκὶκτ τνσραπρὺ κὶκφὺ κὶχλὺ ἰστ (cf. Apol. i. 22). πρςis used of blindness, as well as of other bodily disabilities; but, apart from that, the phrase ἐ γντςindicates a knowledge of Joh_9:1, for it occurs nowhere else in the Gospels, nor is the circumstance that Jesus healed men of congenital infirmities mentioned elsewhere in the N.T.
2. ἠώηα ατνο μθτὶατῦ These disciples may have been His Jewish adherents, as distinct from the Twelve, or the Twelve or some of them may be indicated (see on 2:2). But the nature of the question which they put betrays an intimate relation of discipleship (note the word Rabbi, and see on 1:38); and the close connexion of c. 9 with c. 10, in which the discourse about the Good Shepherd seems specially appropriate to the inner circle of His followers, suggests that ο μθτὶατῦhere at any rate includes the Twelve.
τςἥατνκλ The question is as old as humanity. The first of the alternative answers suggested is that the man himself had sinned and that his blindness was a punishment divinely sent. As to this, it may be true in an individual case, but the whole drift of the Book of Job is to show that suffering is not always due to sin, and with this may be compared the words of Jesus at Luk_13:2, Luk_13:4 (see on 5:14 above). In this particular instance which drew forth the disciples` question, as the man had been blind from birth, if his blindness was a punishment for his own sin, it must have been prenatal sin. This was a possibility, according to some Rabbinical casuists (see Bereshith, R xxxiv, cited by Wetstein). Cf. v. 34. It is hardly likely that the questioners had in view sins committed in a former body, although the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was not unknown to later Judaism; cf. Wisd. 8:19, 20.
The other alternative answer, as it seemed to the disciples, was that the man’s blindness was divinely sent as a punishment for the sins of his parents, a doctrine which is frequently stated in the O.T. (Exo_20:5, Exo_34:7, Num_14:18, Psa_79:8, Psa_109:14, Isa_65:6, Isa_65:7). This was the doctrine of punishment which Ezekiel repudiated, declaring that justice is only to be found in the operation of the principle, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eze_18:20).
The question of the relation between sin and suffering was discussed by the Gnostic Basilides in a passage quoted by Clem. Alex. (Strom. iv. 12), but although the problem raised is similar to that in the text, the discussion does not contain any allusion to the story before us.
3. ἀερθ υηος See for the omission of ὁbefore Ἰς on 1:50.
The answer of Jesus to the questioners approved neither of the alternatives which they put before Him. His answer, as set forth by Jn., is that the man’s blindness was foreordained so that it might be the occasion of the exhibition of Divine power in his cure, ἵαφνρθ τ ἔγ τῦθο ἐ ατ.1 Cf. 5:36 for the witness borne to the Divine mission of Jesus by His ἔγ; and 11:4 (where see note), where the sickness of Lazarus is said to have been “for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.”
The doctrine of predestination is apparent at every point in the Fourth Gospel, every incident being viewed sub specie aternitatis, as predetermined in the mind of God. See on 2:4 and 3:14.
4. ἐὲδῖἐγζσα τ ἔγ τῦπματςμ. So אΓΘ the Lat. and Syr. vss. (including Syr. sin.). But א read ἡᾶ δῖ and for τῦπματςμ, א read τῦπματςἡᾶ. The latter variant may be rejected, both on the MS. evidence and because the phrase “He that sent me” is characteristically Johannine (see on 4:34), while “He that sent us” would be foreign to the phraseology of the Gospels. But ἡᾶ δῖἐγζσα, etc., would give a tolerable sense (see on 3:11). It is adopted by Westcott-Hort, and by the R.V., as having the weight of uncial authority, the combination of א (and also apparently the evidence of Origen) being strong. Yet although it is true of all of us that “we must work while it is day” (cf. Ecclus. 51:30), “the works of Him that sent me” in this passage has special reference to the ἔγ τῦθο, such as were made manifest in the cure of the blind man, which could not be wrought by the disciples, but were the “signs” of Jesus alone. In the doing of such ἔγ Jesus never associated others with Himself.
Nor, again, is it in the manner of Jn. to report a mere maxim of experience, such as “We must all work while it is day” would be. The force of δῖgoes deeper, for the words of Jesus here (vv. 3, 4) express that Divine predestination of events which is so prominently brought out in Jn. (see Introd., p. clii, and on 2:4). The man ’s blindness had been foreordained in the Divine purpose ἵαφνρθ τ ἔγ τῦθο ἐ ατ (v. 3); and in like manner there was a Divine necessity that Jesus should do the works of “Him that sent Him” (see on 4:34 for this phrase). The only reading that brings out the force of the passage and gives consistency to the sentence is the rec. reading ἐὲδῖἐγζσα τ ἔγ τῦπματςμ.
Some expositors find in these words an allusion to 5:17 ὁπτρμυἕςἄτ ἐγζτι κγ ἐγζμι(see note in loc.); this healing at Siloam, like the healing at Bethesda, having been wrought on a Sabbath (v. 14). But the allusion to 5:17 is doubtful.
ἕςἡέαἐτν The day is the time for labour, while the night is for rest (Psa_104:23); and the day is none too long for its appointed task. Jesus had already spoken of the shortness of His time (see on 7:33). The “night” was coming for Him in this sense only, that when His public ministry on earth was ended, the “works” which it exhibited would no longer be possible.
ἕςwith the pres. indic. occurs in Jn. only here and at 21:22, 23 (but cf. 12:35), and is in these passages to be rendered “while” (cf. 13:38, where, followed by ο, it is “until”).
ἔχτινξκλ cf. 11:9, 12:35.
5. ὅα ἐ τ κσῳὦ φςεμ τῦκσο. We had in 8:12 the majestic claim ἐώεμ τ φςτῦκσο (see note in loc.). Here it reappears, but not in so universal or exclusive a form: ἐώis omitted; so is the article before φς and it is introduced by a clause which seems to limit its application to the time of the ministry of Jesus upon earth. “While I am in the world, I am a light of the world,” He says; and He proceeds to impress His meaning upon His hearers by restoring his sight to the blind man. When Jn. says that Christ was “in the world” (1:10) he refers quite definitely to the period of His historical manifestation in the flesh (cf. also 17:11); and the context in the present passage shows that the same meaning must be given here to ἐ τ κσῳ Christ is always, and always has been, and will be, τ φςτῦκσο; but that thought is not fully expressed by ὅα ἐ τ κσῳὦ φςεμ τῦκσο. The thought here is that it had been eternally ordered in the Divine purpose that He should “work the works of God” during His earthly ministry; and another way of expressing this is to say that while He is in the world He is, inevitably, a light of the world, whose brightness cannot be hidden.
6. Jesus is represented here (as also at 5:6) as curing the sufferer without waiting to be asked. This is unlike the Synoptic narratives of healing, e.g. Mar_8:23, the cure of the blind man at Bethsaida, who was brought to Jesus by his friends. In that case, however, as in this, Jesus is said to have resorted to the use of physical means for the recovery of the patient, sc. the eyes were treated with spittle (cf. also Mar_7:33).
The curative effects of saliva (especially of fasting saliva) have been, and still are, accepted in many countries. “Magyars believe that styes on the eye can be cured by some one spitting on them.”1 A blind man who sought a cure from Vespasian asked “ut …oculorum orbes dignaretur respergere oris excremento” (Tacitus, Hist. iv. 81). Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) quotes a Rabbinical story which embodies the same idea. It was, apparently, a current belief in Judæ that spittle was good for diseased eyes, and that Jesus accommodated Himself to that belief is reported both by Mk. and Jn., although in neither case is it stated that He Himself accepted it as well founded. This tradition of Jesus curing blindness by means of His spittle is not found in Mt. or Lk. It is evidently the oldest tradition.
Severus Sammonicus, a second-century physician, quoted by Wetstein, prescribes the use of clay for smearing bad eyes, “turgentes oculos uili circumline caeno.”2
These strange remedies may be compared with those mentioned in a second-century inscription:3 Οαεί Ἄρ σρτώῃτφῷἐρμτσνὁθὸ ἐθῖ κὶλβῖ αμ ἐ ἀετυνςλυο μτ μλτςκὶκλυίυσνρψι(cf. the mixture of clay and spittle) κὶἐὶτεςἡέα ἐιρῖα ἐὶτὺ ὀθλος(cf. ἐέρσν…ἐὶτὺ ὀθλος v. 6) κὶἀέλψνκὶἐήυε κὶηχρσηε δμσᾳτ θῷ
ἔτσνχμί πύι occurs again only Mar_7:33, Mar_7:8:23; it should be noted that at Mar_8:23 Jesus spat into the eyes of the blind man, πύα εςτ ὄμτ ατῦ χμίonly occurs again 18:6.
ἐέρσν So אΘ BC* give ἐέηε. In the N.T. ἐιρωoccurs again only at v. 11.
The true text (אΘ proceeds: ατῦτνπλνἐὶτὺ ὀθλος i.e. “and smeared its clay” (sc. the clay which He had mixed with His spittle) “on the eyes.” The rec. text after ὀθλοςadds τῦτφο, “He smeared the clay on the eyes of the blind man.”
Irenæ has a curious comment on the use of clay. He says (Hæ v. xv. 2) that the true work of God (cf. v. 3) is the creation of man, “plasmatio hominis,” and he quotes Gen_2:7 of God making man out of the dust of the earth. He concludes that the use of clay for the cure of the blind man was similar to this; being blind from his birth, he had virtually no eyes, and Jesus created them out of the clay.
7. ὕαε See on 7:33 for ὑάεν a favourite verb with Jn. νψι For the aor. imperative, see on 2:5.
εςτνκλμήρν The man interpreted this command (v. 11) as meaning, “Go to the Pool, and wash.” νψιεςτνκλ however, may be translated as “wash in the Pool,” εςbeing often used where the verb of motion is not expressed but only implied, e.g. ἐθνκτκσνεςπλνκλ (Mat_2:23; cf. Mat_4:13), and cf. ἐττλγέο εςἕατπν(20:7). See, further, on 19:13.
The man, apparently, was not directed to bathe in the Pool, but only to go there to wash off the clay with which his eyes had been smeared. The Egyptian vss. render νψιas meaning “wash thy face” (cf. v. 10).
The Pool of Siloam (there are two pools) is situated to the south of the Temple area, at the mouth of the Tyropœ Valley. It is mentioned Isa_8:6, where “the waters of Shiloah that go softly” are contrasted with “the waters of the Euphrates, strong and many,” which typify the Assyrian power; cf. also Neh_3:15, Luk_13:4. The waters which gather in the Pool are connected by a subterranean tunnel or conduit with the Virgin’s Well (see on 5:2). שַָ, misit, is the root of the name Shiloah, or Siloam, which thus means, etymologically, “sent,” this name having been given to the Pool because the water is “sent” or “conducted” thither by the artificial aqueduct which goes back to the time of Hezekiah, or even earlier.1
In the note ὃἑμνύτιἈετλέο we observe the tendency to interpret Hebrew proper names for his Greek readers, of which we have many instances in Jn. (see on 1:38). Σλὰ ὃἑμνύτιἈετλέο is exactly parallel to ΚφςὃἑμνύτιΠτο (1:42). Hence it is unnecessary, and even perverse, to seek esoteric symbolism in the note ὃἑμ Ἀετλέο, such as is suggested by commentators who call attention here to the fact that Jesus was “sent” by God (6:29 etc.). The evangelist knew that the name Siloam was given to the Pool because the water was conducted or “sent” there artificially; and he naturally passes on the information to his readers.2 The word “Siloam” is not strictly a proper name, and this Jn. indicates by prefixing the article, τῦΣλά, as in Isa_8:6, Luk_13:4.
ἀῆθνονκὶἐίαο κὶἦθνβέω. B omits ον…ἦθν an omission due to homoioteleuton (ἀῆθν…ἦθν The man did as he was bidden. He was able to find his way to the Pool of Siloam, for he was no doubt familiar with the streets near the place where he was accustomed to solicit alms. Apparently, he had some confidence in the power of Jesus to heal him, for he did not hesitate, as Naaman did when bidden to bathe in the Jordan.
ἦθνβέω. The mention of his neighbours in the next verse suggests that ἦθνmeans that he went home after he had visited the Pool. At any rate, it is not clearly said that the cure was instantaneous (but cf. v. 11). The restoration or improvement of sight may not have been observed for a day or more; and some days may have elapsed between v. 7 and v. 8. See v. 13 τνπτ τφό.
8. The lively account which follows, of the experiences of the blind man who had recovered his sight, may go back to the evidence of the man himself.
ο θωονε ατνὅικλ θωενis used here (see on 2:23) of “taking notice,” as at 10:12, 20:6 etc. They noticed the man because he was a familiar figure, as a blind beggar. Burney urges that ὅιmust mean “when,” and that it is a misrendering of the Aramaic particle דְ which might be translated either “that” or “when.” But this is unnecessary. They had noticed the man formerly because he used to beg from them; cf. 12:41.
For ποατς(אΘ the rec. has τφό.
With ὁκθμνςκὶποατνcf. Mar_10:46 τφὸ ποατςἐάηοπρ τνὁό. A blind man begging by the wayside is a common figure in the East.
9. His neighbours and those who had formerly noticed the poor man, were not sure of his identity, now that his sight had been restored. His appearance would naturally be changed. Some said he was the man, others thought not. But he himself (ἐενς cf. vv. 11, 12, 25, 36) set them right. ἐώεμ, “I am the man.” This is a simple affirmation of identity, not to be confused with the mystical use of ἐώεμ in Jn. (see Introd., p. cxx).
10. πςονἠεχηά συο ὀθλο; The fact that the man’s sight had been restored is not challenged; it is only the manner of the cure that is in question. See vv. 15, 19, 26.
11. Ὁἄθ. ὁλγμνςἸσῦ κλ “the man who is called Jesus,” etc. He does not yet acknowledge Jesus as the Christ (cf. v. 36).
ὕαεεςτνΣλὰ κὶνψι Some Latin and Syriac renderings give “wash thy eyes”; the Egyptian versions have “wash thy face.” (See on v. 7 above.)
νψμνςἀέλψ. For ἀαλπι of recovering sight, see Tob. 14:2, Mat_11:5, Mar_10:51, Luk_18:41; and cf. Luk_4:18. The aor. ἀέλψ would suggest that the man was cured immediately after the washing at the Pool of Siloam; but cf. v. 7 above. Strictly speaking, the verb is inappropriate to the case of congenital blindness; but a parallel is cited from Pausanias (Messen. iv. 12. 10), in which a man, who is described as τνἐ γντςτφό, after an attack of headache recovers his sight (ἀέλψνἀʼατῦ although only temporarily.
12. Πῦἐτνἐενς See on 7:11 for the same question.
The Pharisees Investigate the Cure of the Blind Man on the Sabbath (vv. 13-34)
13. The cure was so striking, and the technical breach of the Sabbath so obvious, that some of those who had been interesting themselves in the case brought the man that had been cured before the Pharisees, as the most orthodox and austere of the religious leaders (see on 7:32). This was not on the day of the cure, but on a later day. Note τνπτ τφό.
14. ἦ δ σβαο (cf. 5:9) ἐ ᾗἡέᾳ(so א but the rec. has simply ὅε with ADNΓΘ τνπλνἐοηε. It was the kneading of the clay that primarily called for notice, as it was obviously a work of labour and so was a breach of the Sabbath.
15. πλνονἠώω κλ The questioning (see v. 10) had to begin all over again, for this was an official inquiry, and the brevity and sharpness of the man’s answers now show that he is tired of replying to queries as to the manner and circumstances of his cure.
16. There was a division of opinion among the Pharisees who heard the story of the man whose sight had been restored. The strict legalists among them fastened on one point only, viz. that the Sabbath had been broken. οκἔτνοτςπρ θο ὁἄθωο, “this person is not from God,” i.e. has not been sent by God, has no Divine mission. For πρ cf. 1:6, also 1 Macc. 2:15, 17; and see on 6:46 for the deeper meaning which πρ θο has elsewhere.
ὅιτ σβαο ο τρῖ This was the charge that had been made against Jesus on a former occasion, when He healed the impotent man at Bethesda and told him to carry his mat away (5:10). There was a twofold violation of the Sabbath laws apparent in this case, for not only had the clay been kneaded (v. 14), but it was specially forbidden to use spittle to cure bad eyes on the Sabbath: “As to fasting spittle; it is not lawful to put it so much as upon the eyelids.”1
It is curious that the phrase τ σβαο τρῖ does not occur again in the Greek Bible; but τρῖ is a favourite verb with Jn. (see on 8:51).
Others among the Pharisees took a larger view of the situation, probably such men as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathæ They called attention to the σμῖ of Jesus as wonderful, no matter what the day was on which they were wrought. πςδντιἄθωο ἁατλς(this word “sinner” is only found in Jn. in this chapter) τιῦασμῖ (see on 2:11) πιῖ; How could a sinner do such things?
κὶσίμ ἦ ἐ ατῖ. Cf. for similar divisions of opinion, 7:43, 10:19; and see also 6:52, 7:12.
17. λγυι οντ τφῷπλν “they,” sc. the Pharisees collectively who were present, “say again to the blind man,” i.e. they resume their inquiry, to get more details.
τ σ λγι πρ ατῦ “What do you say about Him?”
ὅιἠέξνimplies that as Jesus had opened his eyes, the man’s opinion was worth having. “What do you say, inasmuch as it was your eyes that He opened?” conveys the sense. For the constr., cf. 2:18. Burney suggested that ὅιis here a mistranslation of the Aramaic relative דְ and points to the Vulgate qui aperuit. But it is not necessary to appeal to an Aramaic original here. See Abbott, Diat. 2183.
The man’s answer was ποήη ἐτν He did not say that Jesus was “the prophet,” as the multitude said after the miracle of the loaves (6:14), but only that He was “a prophet,” a simple answer like that of the Samaritan woman (4:19), i.e. that He was an extraordinary person who could do extra-ordinary things.
18. Up to this point the Pharisees have not directly challenged the statement that the man’s sight had been restored, having confined themselves to the question about the breach of the Sabbath which was involved. But the answer of the man, ποήη ἐτν leads the more hostile of them (ο Ἰυαο, see on 5:10) to suspect collusion between Jesus and the patient, and so they summon the parents for further inquiry as to their son’s blindness and its cure.
γνῖ occurs in Jn. only in this chapter: the word in the N.T. is always used in the plural.
19. The Pharisees now cross-examine the parents, in strict fashion. “Is this your son? the son whom you say was born blind? How is it that he now sees?”
ἄτ is a favourite word with Jn., and signifies “at this moment,” as distinct from the vaguer νν “at the present time.” Cf. v. 25, 13:7, 33, 37, 16:12, 31.
20. ἀερθσνονο γνῖ κλ א support ον which is omitted in the rec. text, ατῖ being put in its place (om. א
The parents were anxious to avoid responsibility in the matter of the cure, being afraid of the Jewish leaders (v. 22). They admit, of course, that the man was their son, and that he had been born blind, but they disclaim all knowledge of the manner of his cure. Perhaps they had not been present when Jesus smeared the man’s eyes. At any rate, they repudiate with special emphasis any knowledge of who it was that healed him: τςἤοξνατῦτὺ ὀθλοςἡεςοκοδμν
21. ατνἐωήαε ἡιίνἔε, “ask him, he is of age,” and therefore a legal witness. ἡιί in the Synoptists always means “stature,” but in this passage and at Heb_11:11 it means “age.” ἡιίνἔε is a good classical phrase, and is found in Plato. ατςπρ ἑυο λλσι “he will tell you about himself.” The parents were much alarmed.
ατνἐωήαεis omitted by א b and the Sahidic vss. (including Q), a remarkable combination.
22. τῦαεπν…ὅιἐοονοτὺ Ἰυαος The fear of “the Jews” (see 1:19, 5:10), the Jewish opponents of Jesus, whose leaders were the Pharisees, was very definite (cf. 7:13). They were determined to check His success, and to put down His popularity. Cf. 7:44f.
ἤησντθιτ, they had formed a compact (cf. 7:32, 47-49), and decided that strong measures must be taken against any one confessing (see on 1:20) Jesus as Christ. He had not yet declared Himself openly in Jerusalem (10:24), but it had been debated whether He were not indeed the Christ (7:26f.).
Except when Jn. is interpreting Μσίς(1:41, 4:25), this is the only place in the Gospel where we find Χιτςwithout the def. article: “if any one should confess Him as Christ.” Cf. Rom_10:9 for a similar constr.: ἐνὁοοήῃ Κρο Ἰσῦ, “if thou shalt confess Jesus as Lord.”
ἀουάωο, “excommunicate.” The word is found in the Greek Bible only here and at 12:42, 16:2. Full excommunication involved a cutting off from the whole “congregation of Israel” (cf. Mat_18:17); but it is probable that the lesser penalty of exclusion from the synagogue for a month (the usual period) is all that is indicated here. That he who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah was to be treated as ἀουάωο is mentioned again 12:42.1
23. δὰτῦο “wherefore,” referring (as generally in Greek) to what precedes; cf. 13:11, 15:19, 16:15, 19:11, 1Jn_4:5. For δὰτῦοas referring to what follows, see on 5:16.
ὅιἩιίνἔε, ατνἐεωήαε(so א ὅιis recitantis, purporting to introduce the actual words spoken. Note that the order of the words has been changed, for in v. 21 we have ατνἐωήαε ἡίινἔε. Jn. is not punctilious in his narrative about reproducing the exact words or the order of words (see on 3:16).
24. The Jewish leaders summon the man himself for re-examination (ἐ δυέο, cf. v. 17). They now press him on the point of his former evidence, which they suggest was not true.
δςδξντ θῷ 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).
ἡεςοδμνὅιοτςὁἄθωο ἁατλςἐτν “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.
25. The shrewdness and obstinacy of the man reveal themselves in his answer. He refuses to discuss their assertion that Jesus was a sinner. “One thing I know, that being a blind man, now I see.” That is all he will say.
26. Accordingly his questioners attempt a further cross-examination, hoping to elicit some damaging admission.
After ατ, the rec. text has πλν(אΓΘ but om. א
27. The man who has recovered his sight now becomes irritable, and turns on his questioners: επνὑῖ ἤηκὶοκἠοστ, “I told you already (v. 15), and you did not hear,” i.e. you did not heed. Fam. 13 have ἐιτύαεfor ἠοστ, and the O.L. r has creditis, an attempt to interpret ἠοστ.
μ κὶὑεςθλτ ατῦμθτὶγνσα; “Surely you do not wish to become disciples of His?” He could not refrain from this ironical gibe, which he must have known would irritate the Pharisees. κίbefore ὑες “you also,” suggests that it was known that Jesus had made some disciples already, and that the Pharisees were aware of it.
28. κὶἐοδρσνατν “and they reviled him.” Having failed to get anything out of the man which might be damaging to Jesus, they angrily accuse him of being on the side of Jesus.
Σ μθτςε ἐεο, “you yourself are a disciple of that fellow.” ἐενςconveys a suggestion of contempt; and, as Bengel says, “hoc vocabulo remouent Iesum a sese.”
ἡεςδ κλ “we, on the contrary, are disciples of Moses,” as all orthodox Rabbis claimed to be.
29. ἡεςοδμν(cf. v. 24) ὅιΜϋε λλλκνὁθό (cf. Heb_1:1): that was why they were proud to be disciples of Moses.
τῦο δ οκοδμνπθνἐτν They profess complete ignorance of the antecedents of Jesus. Some of the people of Jerusalem knew, indeed, whence He came, τῦο οδμνπθνἐτν(7:27, where see note), although there was a deeper sense in which none of the Jews knew it (8:14). But the Pharisees would not admit that they either knew or cared what was His origin or who were His kindred.
30. The man whose sight had been restored is now thoroughly angry, and he goes on to argue in his turn, shrewdly enough, beginning with a mocking retort.
ἐ τύῳγρ(this is the order of words in אΘ τ θυατνἐτνκλ “Why, then, here is an astonishing thing, that you (ὑες whose business it is to know about miracle-workers) do not know whence He is, and yet (κί He opened my eyes!” Syr. sin., with a b c ff2, om. γρ D and e replacing it by ον but γρmust be retained. Blass says that we should treat the sentence as an interrogative, “Is not this, then, an astonishing thing?” (see Abbott, Diat. 2683). But it is simpler to take γρas referring back to what had just been said, “Why, if that be so, etc.”
On κίfor κιο, see on 1:10.
31. The argument is clear. God does not hear the prayers of sinners. Miracles are granted in answer to the prayers of a good man. Jesus has worked a miracle. Therefore Jesus is a good man.
οδμν “we all know,” introducing a maxim which no one will dispute; cf. 3:2, 1Jn_5:18.
ἁατλνὁθὸ οκἀοε, “sinners are not heard by God,” ἁατλνbeing put in the first place (with אΓ, but BDΘhave ὁθ. ἁ.) for emphasis. ἀοενhere takes the genitive, because it implies a hearing with attention; see on 3:8.
The principle that God does not hearken to the prayers of sinners appears frequently in the O.T.; cf. Job_27:9, Psa_66:18, Isa_1:15, Isa_59:2, Eze_8:18, Mic_3:4, Zec_7:13. For the converse principle, that God hears the prayer of a godly man, cf. Psa_34:15, Psa_145:19, Pro_15:29, Jam_5:16.
θοεή is not found again in the N.T. (it occurs in the LXX, e.g. Job_1:1); but cf. 1Ti_2:10 for θοέεα
ἐντς…τ θλμ ατῦπι, τύο ἀοε. That Jesus “did the will of God” is a frequent thought in Jn.; see on 4:34. For the answer always given to His prayers, cf. 11:22, 41.
32. ἐ τῦαῶο. The phrase ἀὸτῦαῶο or ἀʼαῶο occurs Luk_1:70, Act_3:21, Act_15:18, and is common in the LXX (1Ch_16:36, Psa_25:6, Psa_90:2, Ecclus. 14:17, Jer_2:20, etc.), as it is in the papyri. But ἐ τῦαῶο does not occur again in the Greek Bible, the nearest phrase being ἐ αῶο, Pro_8:21. (Wetstein illustrates it freely from non-Biblical authors.) We have here an instance of the interchangeability of ἐ and ἀόwhich we have already observed in Jn. (see on 1:44, 6:38).
ἐ τῦαῶο κλ “Since the world began it was unheard of that any one opened the eyes of one who was born blind.” It is this point, viz. that the blindness was congenital, that is insisted on throughout; whereas in the case of the cure of the man at Bethesda, the circumstance that he had been infirm for thirty-eight years (5:5) passes out of view at once, and attention is concentrated on the fact that he was cured on a Sabbath day.
33. ε μ ἦ …πιῖ οδν This was a principle recognised by Nicodemus (3:2), to which reference is made again at 10:21. “If this man were not sent from God (cf. v. 16 for πρ θο), He could do nothing,” sc. of this wonderful nature.
34. The Pharisees will not stoop to refute a low person who ventures to argue with them; but the retort ascribed to them is weak, for it admits what they had previously questioned (v. 19), viz. that the blindness was congenital, and assigns as a reason for it the man’s prenatal sin (cf. v. 2).
ἐ ἁατας(the emphatic words beginning the sentence) σ ἐενθςὃο. Cf. Psa_51:5; and for ὅο cf. 13:10.
σ δδσεςἡᾶ; Every word is scornfully emphatic.
κὶἐέαο ατνἔω This does not signify “they excommunicated him” (v. 22), a formal act which could only be done at a formal sitting of the Sanhedrim. It only means “they put him out,” sc. of their presence; cf. note on 6:37, where ἐβλενἐ is shown to be a Johannine phrase.
The Man Who Was Cured Accepts Jesus as the Son of Man (vv. 35-38)
35. ἤοσνἸσῦ א omit ὁbefore Ἰσῦ, perhaps rightly; see on 1:29, 50.
When Jesus heard of the repulse of the man by the Pharisees, after his courageous utterances, He sought him out. With ερνατνcf. 1:43, 5:14.
σ πσεεςεςτνυὸ τῦἀθώο; The form of the question presupposes an affirmative reply, “Thou, at least, believest in the Son of Man?” The man’s simplicity and constancy, in the presence of those whom he had good reason to fear, show Jesus that he is already on the way to become a disciple. Not only did he assert before the Pharisees that his Healer must have a Divine mission (πρ θο, v. 33), but his faith was beginning to go deeper. He was on the point of believing in (see on 1:12 for the force of πσεενες…and cf. 4:39) the Son of Man (see Introd., p. cxxxi). This is the criterion of Christian discipleship which was placed before him.
We follow א and Syr. sin. in reading τνυὸ τῦἀθώο But ALΘand most vss. read τνυὸ τῦθο, which is the usual title in Jn. when confession of faith is in question. See, e.g., 1:34, 49, 11:27; and cf. Mat_16:16. According to 20:31, the purpose of the Fourth Gospel is that readers may believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” But if “the Son of God” were the original reading here, it is surprising that scribes should have altered it to “the Son of Man,” which does not appear in any of the other confessions of faith; while the change from the unusual “Son of Man” to “Son of God,” the usual title in similar contexts, is easily explicable (see 6:69 for a similar alteration by scribes). Further, v. 36 shows that the would-be disciple did not understand who was meant by “the Son of Man” or that Jesus was claiming such a title for Himself. As we have seen (1:49), the Messiah was popularly designated “the Son of God,” but “the Son of Man” was not a recognised Messianic title (see Introd., p. cxxx). The man to whom Jesus spoke was evidently puzzled (cf. 12:34).
36. ἀερθ ἐενςκὶεπνκὶτςἐτν κρε For this BW have the shorter form κὶτςἐτν ἔη κρε
The man had accepted Jesus as a prophet (v. 17), and so he was ready to act on whatever Jesus bade him. He will put his trust in the “Son of Man” if he is told who He is, and where he may find Him.
κὶτςἐτν “Who then is He?” For the initial κὶ cf. κὶτςδντισθνι (Mar_10:26, Luk_18:26) and κὶτςἐτνμυπηίν (Luk_10:29). Cf. also 14:22.
He addresses Jesus with respect: κρε “sir” (see on 12:21). κρεgenerally comes at the beginning of the sentence, but here and at v. 38 it comes at the end.
ἵαπσεσ εςατν taking up the words of Jesus in the preceding verse. There is an ellipsis before ἵα which has full telic force. “Who is He?” for I want to know in order that I may put my trust in Him.” Cf., for a similar constr., 1:22.
37. The reply of Jesus, beginning κὶἑρκςατν has a special force as addressed to a man who had been blind from his birth. “You have seen Him.” This was one of the first blessings which came to him through “the opening of his eyes.” In his case, faith followed immediately on the “seeing” of Jesus, in marked contrast with the case of those to whom it was said ἑρκτ [μ] κὶο πσεεε(6:36, where see note).
κὶὁλλνμτ σῦἐενςἐτν “He who is talking with you is He.” Cf. 4:26 for a similar discovery of Himself to the Samaritan woman. For ἐενς used by the speaker or narrator of himself, see on 19:35.
38. The man’s response is unhesitating: πσεω κρε “I believe, Lord”; κρεbeing now used with a respect which has passed into reverence (see on 1:38, 4:1), for the narrator adds κὶποεύηε ατ “and he worshipped Him.” ποκνῖ (see on 4:20) is always used in Jn. to express divine worship.
The man who has been cured of his blindness now passes out of the story.
The whole of v. 38 and the words κὶεπνὁἸσῦ in v. 39 are omitted in א the O.L. b, and the fourth-century Coptic MS. described as Q. The O.L. l also omits the clause, with the exception of κὶποεύηε ατ. Such a consensus of Greek, Coptic, and Latin authorities for this omission is remarkable, as a textual phenomenon; but the omission cannot be original.
The Inner Meaning of the Healing, and the Condemnation of the Pharisees (vv. 39-41)
39. Here is given, in brief, the interpretation of the story, for this miracle was a σμῖν(v. 16). The cure of the man’s blindness was symbolic of the giving of spiritual vision to those conscious of their spiritual blindness, who are therefore willing to be healed. But some do not feel the need of a Healer. This is the dividing line between man and man. And the mission of Jesus leads up to judgment, according as men do or do not recognise their Deliverer in Him.
εςκίαἐὼεςτνκσο τῦο ἦθν Cf. 16:28, 18:37 for the saying “I am come into the world”; and cf. also 6:14. For the phrase “this world,” see on 8:23. It means the earthly world, the home of fallen man, which is therefore imperfect. κία(a word not found again in Jn.) is the result of a κίι or act of distinguishing between good and bad, and so of judging. So the sentence means, “It was with a view to that ultimate decision which shall distinguish man from man that I came into this world,” special emphasis being laid on ἐώ
There is no mention of the Agent of this Judgment, i.e. of the Personality of the Judge, and so there is no inconsistency with 3:17 (cf. 8:15). Jesus does not say here that He came to execute Judgment (cf. 5:22), but in order that by His coming men might be tested and so judgment reached at last. The supreme test, as always (cf. v. 35, and see on 3:15), is faith in Himself. Those who recognise Him for what He is are in one category; those who fail to do so, in another.
He came, not only to give recovery of sight to the physically blind (Isa_61:2, quoted by Himself Luk_4:18), but to open the eyes of the spiritually blind. It was the challenge of a prophet, “Look, ye blind, that ye may see” (Isa_42:18); and Jesus came to bring this illumination to those conscious of their blindness, ἵαο μ βέοτςβέωι.
There is also a severer purpose in the coming of Jesus. It was ἵα…ο βέοτςτφο γννα, “that those who see should become blind” (cf. Mar_4:12). There is a darkening of moral vision which is caused by complacent satisfaction with the light that is already enjoyed (cf. Rev_3:17, Rev_3:18). Those who see only dimly, and do not desire to see more clearly, lose the power of sight wholly; they become blind. This was the end of the Pharisees (the “blind guides” of Mat_23:16), who did not see anything exceptional in Jesus. They could not see at first, because they would not; and so the judgment of blindness fell upon them. See further on 12:40.
40. Some Pharisees who were near overheard what Jesus said, and interjected the scornful question, “Are we also blind?”
ἐ τνφρσίν…ο μτ ατῦὄτς The Sinai Syriac renders “who were near Him,” μτ indicating proximity in place, but not necessarily any attachment of discipleship. See τὺ πωοςγρπνοεἔεεμθ ἑυῶ (12:8); and cf. Mat_9:15. The crushing reply of Jesus (v. 41) to their question forbids the hypothesis that these Pharisees are to be reckoned among the half-believing Jews mentioned at 8:31.
μ κὶἡεςτφο ἐμν “Are we also spiritually blind,” we who are the recognised religious teachers of the nation? The form of the question, μ κὶἡες… suggests that a negative answer is believed by the questioners to be the obviously true answer See on 6:67.
41. The answer of Jesus is as overwhelming as it was unforeseen. The Pharisees had expected that He would say, “Yes, you are blind, despite your authoritative position as religious guides” (cf. Mat_23:16). But instead of that, He said, “No, you are not wholly blind; that is the worst feature of your case.”
ε τφο ἦε οκἂ εχτ ἁατα. If they were wholly and involuntarily blind to the presentation of the Divine which Jesus embodied, they would not be blameworthy for refusing to acknowledge it. Cf. ε μ ἦθνκὶἐάηαατῖ ἁατα οκεχσν(15:22). But this was not their situation. The perpetual reproach with which Jesus challenged them (cf., e.g., 8:47) was that their failure to accept Him was a moral failure. Their self-satisfaction prevented them from seeing what they ought to have seen in Him (see on v. 39 above). Their claim to “see,” βέοε, was arrogant, and shut them out from the larger vision which had offered itself (cf. Pro_26:12). So “your sin abides,” i.e. is not removed.
For the Johannine constr. ἔενἁατα, cf. 15:22, 19:11 and 1Jn_1:8.
ἡἁαταὑῶ μνι There is a sin against light which is eternal in its consequences. Cf. Mar_3:29 for the Synoptic form of this tremendous judgment.
1 For the ellipse in ἀλ ἵα cf. 13:18, 15:25, 1Jn_2:19.
אSinaiticus (δ2). Leningrad. iv.
A Alexandrinus (δ4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50-8:52 are missing.
C Ephræ (δ3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.
N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cam