Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - John 9:1 - 9:41
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned [Neither did this man sin] nor his 4parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I [We] must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. 7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went his way 8[away], therefore, and washed, and came seeing. The neighbours, therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind [who had before observed him because he was a beggar] said, Is not this he that sat and begged [sitteth and beggeth]? 9Some said, This is he: others said, [said, Nay, but,] He is like him: but 10[omit but] he said, I am he. Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? 11He answered and said [omit and said], A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of [omit the pool of] Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight [I went therefore ( ïὖí ) and washed and received sight]. 12Then said they [They said] unto him, 13Where is he [that man, ἐêåῖíïò ]? He said [saith, ëÝãåé ], I know not. They brought 14[bring] to the Pharisees him that aforetime [before, once] was blind. And it was the sabbath day [it was sabbath on the day] when Jesus made the clay, and opened 15his eyes. Then again [Again therefore] the Pharisees also asked him how he had received [he received] his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of [from] God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day [omit day]. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles [signs]? And there was a division 17among them. They say [therefore] unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that [because, or, seeing that, or, for having opened] he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18But the Jews [The Jews therefore] did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. 19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? 20His parents answered them [omit them] and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: 21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened [who opened] his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him [ask him: he is of age]: he shall [will] speak 22for himself. These words spake his parents [These things his parents said] because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already that if any man did confess that he was Christ [should acknowledge him as Christ], he should be put out of the synagogue [excommunicated]. 23Therefore said his parents [For this reason his parents said], He is of age; ask him.
24Then again called they [So they called the second time] the man that was [had been] blind and said unto him, Give God the praise [Give glory to God]; we 25know that this man is a sinner. He [therefore] answered and said [omit and said], Whether he be a sinner or no [whether he is a sinner], I know not: one thing I 26know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see [that I, a blind man, now see]. Then said they to him again [They therefore said to him], What did he do to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore [why] would ye hear it again? will [would] ye also be 28[become] his disciples? Then [omit Then] they reviled him and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. 29We know that God spake [hath spoken] unto Moses: as for this fellow [but as for this man], we know not from [omit from] whence he Isaiah 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from [omit from] whence he is, and yet he hath opened [he 31opened] mine eyes. Now [omit Now] we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth [do] his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard [it was never heard] that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of [from] God he could do nothing. 34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether [wholly, ὅëïò ] born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out [not simply from the place where they were, but from the synagogue=excommunicated him].
35Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had [omit had] found him he said unto him, Dost thou believe on [in] the Son of God [the Son of Man]? 36He answered and said, Who [And who] is lie, Lord, that I might [may] believe on 37[in] him? And [omit And] Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38And he said, Lord, I believe [I believe, Lord]. And he worshipped him. 39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come [I came] into this world, that they which [who] see not might see; and that they which [who] see might be made [might become] blind.
40And some of the Pharisees which [who] were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we [also] blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin [ye should not have sin]; but now ye say, We see; [.] therefore [omit therefore] your sin remaineth.
Joh_9:1. And in passing by ( êáὶðáñÜãùí ). This history is evidently connected [by êáß ] in respect to time and place with the preceding chapter [with ἐîῆëèåí ἐê ôïῦ ἷåñïῦ , Joh_8:59]. As regards time, it was the day after the close of the Feast of Tabernacles, and that a Sabbath. Joh_9:14. See Lev_23:39. As for the place, Jesus had just quitted the temple, and we are most probably to imagine the blind beggar as seated at the entrance to the temple (comp. Act_3:2). De Wette cannot reconcile this peaceful occurrence with the scene of violence, Joh_8:59; John 16 but it is precisely in this secure deportment of Jesus, and in His halt after the moment of the most imminent peril of death, and while He was still in the vicinity of danger, that, we should recognize the Lord and Master. Hence we refer the ðáñÜãùí (comp. Mar_2:14), not to the beggar, but to Jesus Himself. It is obviously the participle of the preceding, even though doubtful ðáñῆãåí ïὕôùò . While lie is in the act of passing by the last frequenters of the temple, the blind beggar meets His eye at the door, and the fact of His pausing to look at Him is revealed by the question of His disciples.
[A man blind from his birth, ἐêãåíåôῆ ò = ἐê êïéëßáò ìçôñüò , Act_3:2. Possibly the beggar himself proclaimed the fact of his native blindness as giving additional force to his appeal for alms. It makes the miracle all the greater, and places it beyond the reach of an extraordinary medical cure (Ammon and other rationalists), but does not warrant the extravagant notion of some fathers (Irenæus, Theodorus Mopsu., Nonnus) that Jesus created the eyes out of the ðçëüò , as God made the blind man out of clay. According to Luthardt, the blind man represents the “world,” to which Christ turned after being rejected by the Jews; but this does not follow from Joh_9:5, “lam the Light of the world,” for the emphasis lies on light, and the world embraces the whole of humanity, Jews and Gentiles—P. S.]
Joh_9:2. Rabbi, who sinned? The motive for this question on the part of the disciples could, in their present situation, scarcely be dogmatical interest, being, its they were, just reunited to the Master after His escape from stoning. We suppose that they wish to induce the Lord to pass by the man as unworthy of His self-sacrificing interest, in order that He may hasten on; and that hence their question, uttered on the spur of the moment, derives a decided Pharisaical coloring from the popular notion. According to Euth. Zigabenus they suppose neither to be the case. Admitting this, the question itself would fall to the ground. The disciples take for granted that, this blindness was caused only by sin; the question is merely as to the dilemma: this man or his parents? The latter supposition was the proximate one, in accordance with the Pharisaical explication of Exo_20:5 (Lightfoot, p. 1048). Nevertheless, the disciples give the first place to the more remote question: whether this man himself sinned. Beza, Grotius and others have accounted for the expression by the belief in the transmigration of souls. This belief, however, could not have been, entertained by orthodox Jews, even though it may subsequently appear among the Cabalists (see Comm. on Matth., Joh_14:2, p. 272, Am. ed.). Cyril, De Wette and others mention, in explanation of the question, the belief in the pre-existence of souls (in accordance with Wisdom of Solomon Joh_8:20); but neither was this a national tenet of orthodox Jews, although it had forced an entrance from Platonism into Alexandrian Jewish theology. The view that most naturally suggests itself is, that the man may already have sinned in the womb, as an embryo, by evil affections. The distinction between nobler and baser vital motions in the embryonic state is also intimated by Scripture, Luk_1:41; Luk_1:44. Rabbinism has with reference to Gen_25:22 [the struggle between Jacob and Esau in the mother’s womb] further matured this idea (Lightfoot, Sanhedrin, fol. 91, 2, etc.). An obscure idea of pre-existence may have occurred to the disciples, who were here fashioning a question from reminiscences, together with this notion of embryonic guilt. The conception of Lampe, Luthardt, etc.: has he sinned, or, as this is inconceivable, etc., is not in accordance with the text. Tholuck’s supposition after Camero: they thought that he might in anticipation have been branded as a sinner [for predestinated sin to be committed here-after], is certainly not altogether clear (Meyer), [and without analogy in the Scriptures]. Von Gerlach speaks doubtfully in this connection of a punishment that precedes sin; and just as one-sidedly of how the work of divine grace has swallowed up avenging justice; while according to Heubner it is simply a question of the recognition of the fact that there are also unmerited sufferings (i.e., of sinful men, who yet have not directly brought the suffering upon themselves).
Joh_9:3. Neither did this man sin nor his parents. There is no question of their sinfulness in other respects, but Christ knows that no sin, either of this blind man or of his parents, was the cause of his being born blind.—But that ( ἀëë ’ ἵíá ); namely, to this end was he born blind [ ôõöëὸòἐãåííÞèç ]. The ultimate object of evil, as of things in general, is the glorification of God in the salvation of men; the glorification of God is however more definitely a glorification through the works of Christ, which are God’s own works. Here, too, God should be glorified in the salvation of the man who was born blind. It is incorrect to suppose that the question of the disciples first directed the attention of Jesus to the unfortunate man. This view is contradicted by the preceding åἷäåí .
[Trench’s remarks on this verse [Miracles, p. 238 f.) are appropriate: “The Lord neither denies their [the parents’] sin, nor his: all that He does is to turn away His disciples from that most harmful practice of diving down with cruel surmises into the secrets of other men’s lives, and, like the friends of Job, guessing for them hidden sins in explanation of their unusual sufferings. This blindness, He would say, is the chastening of no particular sin on his own part, or on his parents’. Seek, therefore, neither here nor there the cause of his calamity; but see what nobler explanation the evil in the world, and this evil in particular, is capable of receiving. The purpose of the life-long blindness of this man is that the works of God should be made manifest in him, and that through it and its removal the grace and glory of God might be magnified. We must not, indeed, understand our Lord’s declaration as though this man was used merely as a means, visited with this blindness to the end that the power of God might be manifested to others in its removal. The manifestation of the works of God has here a wider reach, and embraces the lasting weal of the man himself … it includes their manifestation to him and in him” [as well as on him]. Comp. Joh_11:4; Rom. 5:30; Rom_9:17; Rom_11:25; Rom_11:32-33.—P. S.]
“Joh_9:4. We [not I] must work. See the Textual Notes. According to Kuinoel, Jesus designed to meet the scruples entertained by the disciples as to the propriety of the healing on the Sabbath, which He was about to undertake. It is more probable that with this saying He encounters their urgent entreaties to hasten away from the dangerous position. Hence, with the “we,” He holds them fast also to the place where it is their duty to remain, and reveals to them that in the future they, as the prosecutors of His work, must stand firm in similar situations; with a view to which destiny they are now being exercised.—Who sent me. Not: Who sent us. The works of God are comprehended in His work, for which He alone is sent; in the carrying out of His work in individual works His disciples are to be participators with Him.
As long as it is day; the night is coming. The antithesis of day and night is the antithesis of the time of His life and activity in opposition to the period of His passion and death; uttered in anticipation of His approaching death, yet in the assurance that at present no mortal peril threatens Him. Similarly the contrast of day and night is significant of the contrast of life and death in the classics, especially in Homer (see Meyer). In the Rabbins: “Pirke Aboth, II. 19; ‘R. Tarphon spake: The day is short; the work is great; the Master presseth.’ ” Tholuck. Hence the interpretation of Chrysostom and others with reference to the áἰὼí ïὖôïò and ìÝëëùí is incorrect. Paulus quite tritely explains; Broad-daylight was requisite for cures effected upon the eyes! The day-time of the day’s work of Christ was at the same time a day-time of redemption, of visitation for Israel, which terminated with His night, viz: His death (see Joh_9:5). Only we must not convert this relative antithesis into an absolute one by the declaration: now is the time of grace, afterwards the time of darkness; thus Olshausen, after earlier exegetes (Grotius and others), too strongly defined the contrast. Luthardt: The presence of Christ in the world is the time of the event of redemption; His subsequent separation from the world the time solely of the appropriation of redemption; this interpretation comes nearer the mark, and yet Meyer, not without foundation, quotes against it Joh_16:7; Joh_16:15; Joh_16:26; Joh_14:26 and other passages, according to which the death of Jesus was the condition of greater enlightenment. The figure of the day’s work is here the decisive one. Every man has for his day’s work his one day by which he must profit; when his night comes he can work no more. So too must Christ perform His great, single, and yet universal, official historical day’s work, conditional upon His earthly pilgrimage.
Joh_9:5. While I am in the world.—We suppose that Christ here compares Himself to the sun, the light of day, as chap. 8 to the pillar of fire, the light of the night. This assumption is founded on the preceding antithesis; day, night. Accordingly the ὅôáí will mean quamdiu (Vulgate and many others), but not quandoquidem (Zwingle, Lampe, Lücke), or: [quando] at the time when (Meyer). The sun, throughout the day, as long as it is in the world, is the light of the world. The sun, however, opens and enlightens only the eyes of the seeing; Christ, as the real Sun, opens and enlightens the eyes of the blind likewise. And along with this is expressed the fact that He is the Sun of the world in a spiritual sense. The ὅôáí , however, in its figurative sense, denotes the antithesis between the personal presence of Christ in the world and His departure from the world, after which He does not indeed cease to be the light of the world (for the operations of the Paraclete are His), but He no longer works corporeo-spiritually as light, but spiritually, until at the last day the great solstice returns with the day of resurrection. The figure of the sun, which in its day illuminates everything, is the strong expression of His assurance that He will enlighten the eyes of the blind man.
Joh_9:6. He spat.—The whole conduct of Jesus is manifestly expressive of strong intentionality, and this must first receive our consideration. As the pursuers are close behind Him, and the disciples in a state of anxious tension, it seems to Him that His primary concern must be to give proof of His tranquillity by calmly remaining on the ground. Moreover, as His adversaries accounted Him guilty of antagonism to the law of Jehovah in His previous healing on the Sabbath, chap. 5, they should now see that the God of their temple is His co-agent on the Sabbath, since the temple-waters of Siloam are brought into co-operation: a fundamental motive, this, which exegesis has omitted to notice (see Leben Jesu, III., p. 635). Furthermore, as the blind man does not yet know Him, and at first is en rapport with Him only through the tone of His voice, the life of faith must of course be developed within him by a gradual process, as in the case of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mar_8:23; comp. Mar_7:33).
With reference to the use of external means, the three factors: the saliva, the clay, the spring of Siloam, and also the unity of the entire act must be distinguished. Respecting the employment of saliva comp. the analogous cases Mark 7 and chap. 8 (See Com. in loc.).On the sanativeness of clay in diseases of the eyes see Tholuck’s quotation from Serenus Samonicus:† “Si tumor insolitus typho se tollat inani, Turgentes oculos vili circumline cœno;” and Lightfoot. On the virtue of the waters of Siloam see above the Exegetical Notes on the pool of Bethesda (chap. 5) and Robinson II., p. 155.
In discussing the destination of the elements here employed in Christ’s one act of healing, we have to distinguish the idea of their material or medicinal, their organic or instrumental, their ethical and their allegorical destination. That the external elements in their combination had, as ancient remedies, no medicinal power to give sight to the man who was born blind, is evident. But that they were the better fitted to be organical bearers of the miraculous power of Christ, i.e., conductors of it (Nonnus: ðçëὸò öáåóöüñïò ; Olshausen and others), because they were moreover accounted medicinal, is all the more obvious since the question is here of the saliva of Christ and of a salve that He made with His own hand. But since the receptive faith in the miracle must correspond with the positive miraculous power, the alternative is misapprehended when Tholuck and Meyer will set aside the psychologico-ethical consideration (Chrysostom, Calvin and others) of the awakening of faith by the use of these in the case of the man who was born blind. In the instances given in the Old Testament also (2Ki_4:41; Joh_5:12; Isa_38:21) the organic operation of the miracle-worker is to he grasped conjunctively with the awakening of the psychologico-ethical receptivity. The allegorical interpretation (Luthardt on the anointing with clay: he who will see must become blind; after some Church fathers) is the most remote; on the mythical interpretation of Strauss, Baur, etc., see Meyer [p. 378.]
Joh_9:7. Go, wash.—It is a question here whether the asyndeton would not be better composed of three members than of two. The latter (go, wash thyself into the pool) is of course explained by the custom of the language. Tholuck: íéøáé åἰò pregnant, either including the entering into the water or expressive only of the dipping into it. Winer, p. 369 [387].—In the pool of Siloam.—The spring, Isa_8:6; the pool, Neh_3:15. Its situation see above, chap. 5 Meyer: “Re-discovered by Robinson (II., p. 142 ff. [Am. ed. of 1856, vol. I., pp. 338 ff.]), after Josephus, at the mouth of the Valley of Tyropœum on the south-east side of Zion. See Tobler, The Fountain of Siloam and the Mount of Olives, 1852, p. 1 ff.; Rödiger in Gesen. Thes. III. p. 1416; Ritter, Erdkunde, XVI. p. 446 ff. [Comp. my annotations with regard to the latest researches, on pp. 181 ff. Alford, at the close of his vol. on the Gospels, p. 923 f., gives a communication of a correspondent on the supposed identity of Siloam with the pool of Bethesda. Robinson has discovered, and Tobler and Warren have confirmed the connection of the intermittent Fountain of the Virgin (probably the pool of Bethesda) with the Fountain of Siloam, and both were probably connected with a fountain beneath the temple, which remains to be proven by further exploration.—P. S.]—The pool of Siloam.—The chief reference of this is not to the district of Siloam (as Tholuck has it, referring to Luk_13:4; Joseph. De bello Jud. II. 16, 2; VI. 7, 2); but it is especially the Siloah-pool of Siloah-spring which is again mentioned in the following. Tholuck’s explanation of the sending to this pool—for the purpose of purification—is too bald, as is also the design ascribed by Meyer: in order that the healing power of the clay ointment might have the necessary time for operation. Concerning the more direct purpose see the note to the preceding verse. As regards the sanative element of the water we can as little reject it (Meyer: the rabbinical traces of a healing power resident in the water point to the organs of digestion, see Schöttgen) as attach any particular credit to it; at all events it assisted in forming a foothold for the faith of the blind man.
Which is, when translated, One Sent.—The designation ùִׁéìåֹçַ (Greek in the Sept. and in Josephus ÓéëùÜì ) signifies: the sending [missio sc. aquarum], probably with reference to the fact that the temple-mount sends forth its spring-water. The question is, how far this word may become synonymous with ùָׁìåּçַ sent, [missus], or the sent. According to Hitzig the form is derived from ùָׁìåּçַ as éìּåֹã from éָìåּã and John has correctly translated: ἀðåóôáëìÝíïò (Com. on Isa_8:6, p. 97. For particulars see Tholuck, p. 327). According to Bengel, Meyer and others the evangelist referred the name to the blind man who was sent to the spring. An unfounded typology, unsupported by the context. This fountain, in that it is called the Sent, is the type of Him who in John continually designates Himself as the real Sent One, the type of Christ (Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin [Ebrard, Luthardt, Hengstenb., Brückner, Godet, Trench, Alford, Wordsworth] and others). It is remarkable how this pregnant symbolism has perplexed the commentators. Wassenbergh and others are inclined to consider the parenthesis (after the Syrian and the Persian translation) a gloss; Lücke also (p. 381) will not be “persuaded” that the parenthesis is Johannean; Meyer pleads in extenuation the “far more striking example” of a “typical etymologizing,” Gal_4:25.
He went away therefore.—As there is no mention of any leader it seems certainly to be indicated that a faint dawning of sight had already begun. Of course we are not to imagine that the anointing of the eyes glued them together; the release of the visive faculty may also have been preceded by a clairvoyant disposition. Compare the fine description of the restoration to sight of blind Œdipus in Sophocles. But as this trait is at all events not brought forward, it cannot be insisted upon as a certainty (comp. Tholuck with reference to Neander: “although we may also think that there was a guide”).—And returned.—Not in particular to Jesus, but from the spring and to his family (Joh_9:8).
Joh_9:8. The neighbors therefore.—Now follows an account of what further befell the blind man; so minute, distinct and true to life is this narration that we are at liberty to suppose the Evangelist had it from the very lips of him who was blind and healed (see Tholuck, Meyer).
Joh_9:11. A man that is called Jesus.—He is therefore not acquainted with the Messianic character of Jesus; he, however, emphasizes the name of Jesus. He has immediately noticed the significant name, which was not the case with the impotent man of Bethesda (chap. 5). The form of his already budding faith in the prophetic dignity and divine mission of Jesus declares itself in Joh_9:17; Joh_9:33; he as yet does not know Him as the Messiah, Joh_9:35.
I received sight.— ἈíáâëÝðåéí means to look up, to see again. Meyer maintains against Lücke’s explanation: I looked up (Mar_16:4, etc.), the: I received sight again; for this there is no ground in Joh_9:15; Joh_9:18, although the explanation of Grotius: nec male recipere quis dicitur, quod communiter tributum humanæ naturæ ipsi abfuit, is ingenious.
Joh_9:13. They bring to the Pharisees the whilom blind man.—Doubtless the Pharisees in a peculiar sense are meant; hence in their magisterial capacity and as enemies of Jesus; this is proved also by what follows. For to regard it as signifying the Pharisees in general “as a corporation” (Meyer) is historically inaccurate. Neither is there any ground for the assumption that they had led him before the Pharisees on account of the healing on the Sabbath, because they believed the transgression of the law should be reported. On the contrary, the clause: him that once was blind, indicates that they considered it their duty to bring the miracle to the cognizance of the theocratic court (see Tholuck). It is only after the introductory clause: it was the Sabbath, that the stumbling-block appears among the Pharisees. If these Pharisees did at all events form a judicial court (comp. the Pharisees Joh_7:47; Joh_11:46), since, as subsequently appears, they call a judicial inquiry and execute an act of excommunication, the question arises, whether it was the great Sanhedrin itself (Tholuck), or a minor Sanhedrin (Lücke); of the latter there were two in Jerusalem; these small Sanhedrins, as synagogue-courts consisting of 23 assessors, settled minor lawsuits in the Jewish cities. The latter supposition is the more probable, in accordance with hierarchical discipline; yet doubtless the small Sanhedrins in Jerusalem were closely connected with the great Sanhedrin, especially in matters that concerned the Person of Jesus. Tholuck alleges in support of his position, that the great Sanhedrin alone wielded the power of excommunication from the congregation of Israel. But the grade of the ban incurred by the healed blind man is not mentioned, and in minor degrees the right of excommunicating was possessed by the small Sanhedrins as well. Lücke assumes that the leading before the Pharisees took place after the Sabbath, as, according to the Talmud, on the Sabbath and on feast-days no causes were tried; Tholuck thinks it probable that sessions were held on the Sabbath also; he supposes only “that no writing was done.” At all events, such Sabbath sessions were extraordinary, and members of the Sanhedrin themselves took the initiative in them; therefore in this case we are safe in supposing that the presentation occurred after the Sabbath.
Joh_9:14. And it was Sabbath on the day when Jesus.—“A rabbinical statute specially prohibits the spreading of saliva on the eyes on the Sabbath. Maimonides, Schabb. 21. If this ordinance was not yet extant or sanctioned, still the general law was in force which forbade all healing on the Sabbath except in cases where life was imperiled (Schöttgen and Wetstein ad Mat_12:9).” Meyer. Hence stress is laid upon the fact that Jesus made clay on that day.
Joh_9:15. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight.—It is characteristic of them that they pass over the miracle itself, that he has received sight, and inquire at once as to the manner how, because the latter is the point to which the accusation of heresy against Jesus must attach itself.
He put clay (a paste), etc.—Meyer justly draws attention to the circumstance that the man relates only what he has himself felt, and hence does not mention the saliva; so before Joh_9:11.
Joh_9:16. This man is not from God because he keepeth not the Sabbath.—Characteristic hyperbaton, by which the name of God is brought forward first with hypocritical reverence, and then a contemptuous emphasis is laid upon: this man. Because he keepeth not the Sabbath, see note on Joh_9:14. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? The disparaging inference was drawn only by a portion of the tribunal; by the majority, it is true. From the mention of a greater division in this forum it seems to result that it was an association other than the great Sanhedrin. Be it observed, that these more conscientious judges express themselves timidly through fear of the others, but yet go so far as to declare that the miracle performed by Jesus proves that He is not a sinner.
Joh_9:17. What sayest thou [ óý is emphatic] of him, because, etc.—John introduces this statement with the characteristic ïὖí again. It was to be expected that they would resort to artifices. For the evangelist is again speaking of the dominant party in this court. So explain Apollinaris and others: it is the hostile party which is here spoken of; Chrysostom on the contrary, erroneously: it is the friendly party; Meyer and others: all are included. It is patent, however, that the conduct of the suit is in the hands of the predominant hostile party. But of course the examination takes place in the name of the whole body. As regarded the fact itself, they had no further hold on the clear-headed and firm man. Hence they inquire what conclusion he has reached with respect to the miracle-worker,—what opinion he has formed of Him—in order from this dogmatical point to unsettle him and betray him into some other statement. From the question of faith they design to unsettle him in the question of fact, as the hierarchy once did with the Jansenists in France.
He is a prophet.—The straight-forward, decided and intelligent character of the man appears still more distinctly here. May we call him “uncouth” also (Tholuck)? Instead of that he manifests good humor, acuteness and ready wit. [These attributes, especially a cheerful temper, I have frequently found in blind persons. Kindly nature often compensates for so great a calamity as the loss of an organ.—P. S.]
Joh_9:18. The Jews therefore did not believe.—That the hostile party is here designated by the name of Jews, by no means proves that in this place it first re-appears in active operation (Meyer). It characterizes them, however, as Jews, or unbelievers, that they now, having heard the confession of the man, issuing from the fact, do not believe, i.e. will not believe the fact itself. This does not mean that they consider the whole account, for example, of the making of clay by the Lord, a lie; but they pretend that some fraud may exist. John again intimates by the expressive ïὖí that their unbelief and mistrust originate in their fanaticism. In the first place, they evidently desired to reproach Jesus with a violation of the Sabbath. But in this they were thwarted by the great miracle which weighed heavily in the balance. Therefore they now hope to accuse Him of a spiritual deception and, at the same time, of violating the Sabbath.—Until they called the parents. Meyer explains; Then they believed. Tholuck on the contrary: This does not result from the ἕùò ὅôïõ . Of course it follows only, that they must now let pass the judicially protested statement of the man, whether they believed it or not.
Joh_9:19. Is this your son?—The one question progessively subdivides itself into three questions [put in strict legal formality: 1. Is this your ?Song of Solomon 2. Was he born blind? 3. How did he recover his sight?—P. S.]. They, however, hasten on to the third query, because in it is concentrated the weight of their fanatical passion, or because by intimidating the parents, they hope to be able to weaken the testimony of the son.
Joh_9:21. But by what means he now seeth, we know not.—The first and second questions are successively answered by the parents simply in the affirmative. The third question they evade. Yet they hint that they have heard of One who has opened his eyes. On this point the son must speak for himself. The whole reply is characteristic of parents who are honest and sensible, but at the same time timidly and selfishly cautious. Something of their son’s intellectual humor is perceptible in their answer, which however especially testifies to their pride that their son has wit enough to give them correct information with regard to the last question. The thrice repeated áὐôüò [ áὐôïῦ ἡìåῖò — áὐôüí — áὐôüò ] is in the highest degree significant. On the one hand, it tells of their confidence in their son, but on the other hand also of their fear. That they thereby jeopardize him, or leave him in the lurch, is truly a selfish trait. They lack strength to prove their gratitude for the healing of their son by uniting their testimony to his, although they clearly indicate by the tartness and touchiness of their reply that they are thoroughly observant of the bad intentions of the inquisitors.
Joh_9:22. For the Jews had already agreed, etc.—A public and formal decree or act (Tholuck) can not as yet be intended, else they must now have brought the cause of Jesus to an immediate termination; a mere agreement of private individuals (Meyer) would, however, be saying too little. Doubtless the subject in question is a regulation, made by the Jews in Jerusalem, concerning excommunication from the synagogue. Such a regulation directly became known to the people and served to intimidate the spirits of the undecided. The ἵíá gives the interest of excommunication as a motive for the regulation. This determination probably coincided with the resolution to have the Lord taken, chap. 7.
He should be put out of the synagogue [be excommunicated.]—Tholuck: “The word ÜðïóõíÜãùãïò has led to researches into the nature of the Jewish law; of these the latest (for example, Rüetschi in Herzog’s Encykl.) still refer to the old authorities, to Drusius, Lightfoot; the subject has been more thoroughly investigated in Gildemeister’s Blendwerk des Rationalismus, 1841.According to this the Mischna does not recognize several grades of excommunication; it knows of but one. the ðִãּåּé , in pursuance of which the excommunicated person was not permitted to shave or wash or to enter other than an outer hall of the temple. The duration of this was dependent upon the contrition of the person. Excommunication was inflicted by the President of the great Sanhedrin. Opinions differ with regard to the biblical expression ἀðïóõíÜãùãïò as to whether it means simply exclusion from divine worship in the synagogue of a single congregation (Vitringa, De Synagog. vet., p. 741; Witsius, Miscellanea, ii. p. 49), or exclusion from the ýý ÷ָäָì ý the united congregation (Selden, De Synedr. i. 7). But the former appeared merely as a substitute, when the temple was no longer in existence. Moreover the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah was such an offence that nothing can be intended save exclusion from the great congregation.”
The matter, however, is scarcely decided so simply. Evangelical history demonstrates that this man suffered a species of excommunication which did not prevent him from going about with impunity, while Jesus came under a ban with which a trial resulting in death was connected. The idea of the ἀíÜèåìá (Rom_9:3) or ἀíÜèåìá , ìáñὰí ἀèÜ (1Co_16:22) is manifestly derived from circumstances connected with the synagogue and denotes an excommunication symbolically expressive of reprobation, the Cherem of the Old Testament. On the other hand, we know that unclean persons and lepers (these from levitical reasons, as also from ethical reasons “publicans and sinners”) were excluded from the full right of communion in a way which could scarcely have amounted to Cherem. Thus from two to three degrees of excommunication are faintly traced in the Holy Scriptures themselves, and three grades of excommunication are certainly intimated by the words of Christ also: in danger of (the synagogue’s) judgment, in danger of the council (Sanhedrin), in danger of hell fire (Mat_5:22). The first degree, as it appears in rabbinical tradition (Niddu), may be designated a congregational course of discipline. The second degree is ecclesiastical or rather theocratico-political (Cherem); the third hierarchico-criminal (Schamatha). The fact that the Mischna treats of excommunication in its more limited sense only, might be thus explained: the Jews had in its time lost all right of conducting religious criminal proceedings or executing the Cherem, whilst on the other hand, in the absence of a religious centre, the disciplinary congregational proceeding might coincide with the ecclesiastical in the limited sense of the latter term. The subsequent distinct, rabbinical development of several grades of excommunication (see Winer, s. v. Bann) must at all events be grounded on ancient tradition. In this connection be it observed that a purely disciplinary course of proceeding is no longer spoken of, while the Cherem in Elias Levita is in its turn intensified by the idea of Schamatha. Analogous to the latter is the solemn form of the great excommunication accompanied by curses in the Church of the middle ages.
Joh_9:24. Then they called the second time the man, etc.—The rigor of the judicial procedure appears from the fact that they caused the man who had been healed to go away or step out during the examination of his parents. As they do not attain their purpose with them, they summon him again.—Give glory to God. As regards the expression, this is a solemn charge to tell the truth, which he might possibly have concealed hitherto (Jos_7:19); as regards the intention, it is an insinuation that he should make a statement such as they desired; hence in reality it is blasphemous hypocrisy, meaning as much as this: give the hierarchy the glory, and lie or play the hypocrite. So they seek to influence his evidence by the previous statement of their opinion.
Joh_9:25. Whether he is a sinner I know not. One thing I know.—The dogma of the hierarchical dignitaries he is content respectfully to leave undecided. But he will not be dissuaded from his actual experience. He knows full well too, what light his experience throws upon the dogma whereby they support their accusation of heresy.
Joh_9:26. To him again: What did he to thee?—They at first endeavored to make the healed man the accuser of Jesus on the score of a violation of the Sabbath, then on the ground of spiritual deception. They now despair, in view of the firmness of the man, of making away with the miracle itself, that Jesus had wrought. They return therefore to the how, to the accusation of breaking the Sabbath, in order to make that a means of working upon the man. Their evidently malicious examination, however, fills the man with scorn, and he mingles irony with the expression of his displeasure.
Joh_9:27. Are ye also desirous to become his disciples?—Chrysostom: He thus presents himself (with the êáß ) as the disciple of Jesus. But he utters the words principally with reference to all the disciples of Jesus, of whom he has heard. Plainly perceiving their intention to stamp him also as the disciple of Jesus if his testimony does not accord with their wishes, he makes use of the ironical and withal defensive expression not without a presentiment of his own destiny.
Joh_9:28. They reviled him.—At first gravely, craftily, calmly, now passionately, meanly they press upon him. To call him the disciple of Jesus delights them as if it were some vile aspersion; and the accusation seems to them true, because he has allowed himself to be healed by Him on the Sabbath, bears witness to this fact and believes Him to be a prophet,—or, because he will not turn liar to please them. The antithesis: Jesus’ disciple, Moses’ disciples, relates here to the pretended violation of the Sabbath, in the guilt, of which he seems to have participated, and to their zeal for the sanctity of the Sabbath. Qualification of the antithesis by the antithesis: Moses, Jesus. Moses characterized as a prophet, Jesus as an antithesis to Moses, a suspected person, concerning whom they reserve their final opinion. Yet a sting lies in the expression: we know not whence. From some quarter He had extraordinary power; this his dealings with the blind man demonstrated; now if this power was not from above, the man on whom the cure had been performed would be distressed by the thought that he had been healed by demoniacal agency.
Joh_9:30-31. With respect to him, this is marvellous, to wit, etc.—We do not translate ἐí ôïýôῳ : in this matter, herein, but: in respect to this one, namely Jesus, previously the subject; and we render the ãÜñ not by: truly, but by: namely. They have ambiguously declared: we know not how it is with that fellow; he is a mystery to us. He rejoins ironically: certainly that is wonderful as far as He is concerned. And now comes the strange thing: they, fathers in Israel, know not whence He is, and yet He is a man of God and a prophet, who has opened his eyes. The expression doubtless boars the twofold signification that now his spiritual eyes are beginning to be opened. And he then appeals to their common creed: Now we know that God heareth not sinners, (Joh_9:31). Job_27:9; Job_35:13; Psa_109:7; Pro_15:19. But a miracle is a hearing of prayer (Joh_11:41; Mar_7:34), consequently Jesus must be free from their reproach; He is of necessity no sinner, but in favor with God.—But if any be a God-fearing man, etc.—First, therefore, comes the testimony to the innocence and piety of Jesus, and then the enthusiastic testimony to His unique prophetic glory bursts forth.
Joh_9:32-33. Since the world began it was never heard, etc.—Hereby, in accordance with his subjective sense of the greatness of the miracle experienced by himself, he not indistinctly elevates Jesus above all the prophets, and even above Abraham and Moses, whom they had exalted as judges over Him. Finally, reverting to what had gone before, he says appeasingly: If this man were not from God (as a prophet), he could do nothing.—He would likewise be unable to disquiet you.
Joh_9:34. Thou wast born wholly in sins.—These Pharisees assume from the beginning that his being born blind is a punishment for sin; now however they cast upon him the additional reproach of being ὅëïò (not simply ὅëùò ) born in sins,—intimating, namely, that as a heretic he was not only physically blind and maimed, but that his soul shared the defects of his body. With haughty emphasis: thou, born thus, thou wilt, teach us?
Cast him out.—The external turning of the man out (of the hall of judgment) was doubtless here symbolical, a corroboration of the excommunication, the casting out ðִãַּç , ðָãָç = ἐêâÜëëåéí ἔîù , Joh_6:37; Joh_12:31, which preceded. The excommunication is indeed with malicious wit prefaced by the words: thou wast on every side born in sins (comp. also Joh_9:35), and is denied by Meyer without valid reason.
Joh_9:35. Dost thou believe on the Son of God [Son of Man?—See Text. Notes.—P. S.] After Jesus has heard that by his steadfast testimony he has earned the disgrace of excommunication, He can reveal to him by His question the faith that he ignorantly possesses. According to Meyer, Jesus makes the assumption that he has confessed the Messiah before the tribunal; and Meyer also states that this conclusion is “virtually” correct. Jesus only assumes that the man has believingly recognized the living God in His miraculous deed, and has maintained this belief in temptation without being aware of what faith nominally comprehends. It is precisely the question of Jesus that gives him this fulfilment and sealing. Meyer asserts that not the metaphysical but solely the theocratical signification of the Son of God is to be understood in this place. The theocratical signification was, however, not exclusive; its background was formed by the “metaphysical” acceptation of the title.
Joh_9:36. And who is it, Lord, that I may believe in him? etc., ( ἵíá ).—He is ready to take Jesus’ word for it. That is: he credits Jesus in an unlimited sense, and in this trust of his lies the presentiment that Jesus Himself is the Son of God;—the germ of his faith in Him.
Joh_9:37. Thou hast both seen him, etc.—The animated question is followed by an animated answer from Jesus, hence beginning with êáß (see Joh_14:22; Mar_10:26). Thou hast seen Him. Tholuck construes the word ὁñᾷí in a general sense, with reference to experience, namely, even to their first meeting; Meyer as having reference to the present seeing: thou hast a view of Him. But with this the rendering of the êáß — êáß as well—as also—does not correspond. The seeing really seems to contain also an allusion to his spiritual receiving of sight, (Lücke). Indeed thou hast already seen Him, and—He it is that speaketh with thee. Manifestly, a turn is given to the expression. The true antithesis would be: thou hast perceived Him, and He hath given thee sight, or: thou hast seen Him and dost see Him now.
Joh_9:38. I believe, Lord.—Lord in a loftier sense here than in Joh_9:36 (Bengel). The ðñïóêõíåῖí denotes adoring worship.
Joh_9:39. For judgment I came, etc.—The kneeling man has sealed his excommunication by his act of adoring homage and, knowing as yet little of fellow-disciples, finds himself in a unique and isolated position, confronting, with Jesus only, the mighty hierarchy. Jesus appreciates the state of the case. He reveals to him that he is entering into a congregation of the seeing, that the hierarchs who condemn him stand ever against him as blind men, and that He Himself, Jesus, is the destined cause of this separation. The oxymoron at the same time utters the decree that he has become possessed of spiritual sight, that he is illuminated inwardly as well as physically. The motive is the contrast between the Pharisees, learned in the Scriptures, hardening themselves in spiritual blindness in presence of His light, and the ignorant blind beggar who receives sight through His light; this contrast is presented in the light of divine appointment (see Mat_11:25). The judgment is not a judgment of damnation (Euthym., Olshausen), for it refers also to the blind who obtain sight. It is the judgment of active sentencing and retributive separation between those who are in need of light and those who shun it; of course for the latter this severance is the beginning of the judgment of damnation, while to the former it is the commencement of bliss. The contrast between those that see not, who receive sight, and the converse, is ingeniously apprehended by Bucer and Neander in an intellectual and a physical sense, i.e., typically, not simply allegorically. The spiritually blind do not see well physically until with spiritual sight they receive also true bodily sight. Those possessed of spiritual sight, being primarily discerners of Old Testament truth, but who subsequently delude themselves in their self-conceit, become through their obduracy intellectually and physically blind in presence of the Messiah. Christ particularly addresses this saying to the blind man; but it is also loudly and solemnly uttered for the disciples and all that are about Him.
Joh_9:40. Some of the Pharisees who were with him.—Faithless former disciples (Chrysostom), more favorably disposed ones (Calvin), spies from Jerusalem (Tholuck, Meyer). According to Mat_12:30 and other passages, the åἶíáé ìåô ’ áὐôïῦ seems to denote a relation of discipleship. Probably a remnant of pharisaically-minded followers is meant, who stand to Him in such wise as the people, Luk_18:9; comp. Joh_10:19-20. Judas, as the last Pharisee, did not desert Him until after this.
Are we also blind?—They cannot mean this in the physical sense (as Chrysostom and others explain); neither can they understand it with reference to those who have become blind (Hunnius, Stier), but with reference to the intellectually blind who must receive sight. They deny, therefore, that they, as blind men, have received sight, or are yet to receive it, i.e., they assail the principle laid down by the Lord, and establish a third class consisting of men originally possessing sight and ever becoming more clear-sighted. This attack upon His antithesis calls forth the piercing words of Jesus.
Joh_9:41. If ye were blind ye would not have sin.—It is questionable whether blindness is to be taken in the same sense here as Joh_9:38, ïἱ ìὴ âëÝðïíôåò i.e., whether it denotes those who need light. Or: if ye considered yourselves blind. Thus interpret with reference to the: ye say: we see, Augustine, Calvin, Meyer, Stier. Tholuck is undecided. Augustine: “Quia dicendo: ‘videmus,’ medicum non quæritis, in cecitate vestra remanetis.” On the other hand Chrysostom, Zwingli, etc., Lücke, Neander [Alford] discover in the expression the recognition of a certain superiority. Tholuck: It cannot be denied that the position of the scribes towards the fountain of the saving knowledge of the Redeemer is regarded as an advantage (Luk_11:52; Joh_3:10); and thus Mat_11:25 they are called óõíåôïß not merely inasmuch as they thus look upon themselves, but as men who really were so in comparison with the ὅ÷ëïò ἀãñÜììáôïò . So too in the practical field, where the äßêáéïé are confronted with the ἁìáñôùëïß the äßêáéïé are in very truth relatively righteous and the ἁìáñôùëïß gross sinners, publicans, Matthew , 9, comp. the elder brother, Luke 15; certainly, however, the former are also such as think themselves endowed with a sufficiency in possessing this äéêáéïóýíç and óýíåóéò . The recollection of this parallel has induced many commentators to see in the words åἶ ôõöëïὶ ἦôå the recognition of a certain pre-eminence. “If ye were indeed utterly incapable of perceiving what is divine,” or better: “if a certain insight into the truth of salvation were not granted you;” De Wette: “if ye were ignorant, erring,—with the accessory idea of susceptibility,—the imputation of sin would be on a smaller scale.”—We also assume that Christ here attributes to them a certain degree of sight. It is the gleam of a better, objective, Old Testament knowledge which they are consciously converting into a false, unbelieving knowledge, i.e. into the blindness of self-infatuation. Hence the advantage of Old Testament knowledge itself (as of legal righteousness itself) can not be meant. Certainly, however, self-conceit in the possession of this knowledge is meant; the vain-gl