Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 9:1 - 9:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_9:1 f. The direct connection, by means of καί , with the preceding words ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τ . ἱεροῦ , and the correlation of παράγων therewith, makes it impossible, without arbitrariness, to take any view but this,—that the healing of the blind man, instead of not being determinable with chronological exactness (Hengstenberg), must rather be placed soon after Jesus had left the temple, whilst He was still on His way, and on the very same day, the record of whose scenes commences with Joh_8:21. This day was a Sabbath (Joh_9:14); not, however, the one mentioned in Joh_7:37 (Olshausen), but a later one, see on Joh_8:12. The objection that the calmness which marks the transaction, and the presence of the disciples, are not in keeping with the scene which had occurred shortly before (Joh_8:59), and that therefore another day ought to be assumed (De Wette and others), has little force; for the calmness of the bearing of Jesus is anything but a psychological riddle, and the disciples might easily have gathered round Him again.
παράγων ] in passing by, namely, the place where the blind beggar was (probably in the neighbourhood of the temple, Act_3:2). Comp. on Mat_9:9, and Mar_2:14.
τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς .] So much the greater was the miracle; comp. Act_3:2; Act_14:8. The supposition, based on Joh_9:5, that this blind man represents the κόσμος , to which Jesus, having been spurned by the Jews, now turns (Luthardt), is the less warrantable, as the stress in that verse is laid on φῶς , and not on τοῦ κόσμου (comp. even Joh_8:12). This healing of the blind is not intended to have a figurative import, though it is afterwards used (Joh_9:39 ff.) as a figurative representation of a great idea.
τίς ἥμαρτεν , etc.] The notion of the disciples is not, that neither the one nor the other could be the case (Euth. Zigabenus, Ebrard, comp. also Hengstenberg); but, as the positive mode of putting the dilemma shows, that either the one or the other must be the case. See Baeumlein, Partic. p. 132. They were still possessed by the popular idea (comp. on Mat_9:2, also the book of Job, and Act_28:4) that special misfortunes are the punishment of special sins; against which view Jesus, here and in Luk_13:9 ff., decidedly declares Himself. Now, as the man was born blind, either it must have been the guilt of his parents, which he was expiating,—a belief which, in accordance with Exo_20:5, was very prevalent (Lightfoot, p. 1048), and existed even among the Greeks (Maetzner in Lycurg. in Leocr. p. 217),—or he himself must have sinned even whilst in the womb of his mother. The latter alternative was grounded in the popular notion that even an embryo experiences emotions (comp. Luk_1:41; Luk_1:43), especially evil emotions, and that the latter predominate (see Sanhedr. f. 91. 2; Beresh. Rabba, f. 38. 1, b.; Lightfoot), comp. Wetstein. The explanation of the question from the belief (which there is also no right to assume as presupposed in Mat_14:2) in the transmigration of souls (Calvin, Beza, Drusius, Aretius, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, and several others) is as inadmissible as the assumption of a belief in the pre-existence of souls (Cyril, De Wette, Brückner). For apart from the uncertainty of the fact whether the doctrine of the transmigration of souls was entertained by the Jews in the days of Christ (see Tholuck on the passage, and Delitzsch Psychol. p. 463 f. [E. T. p. 545 f.]), those two doctrines could not have been popularly known among the people, and therefore must not be assumed to have been held by the disciples, although it is true that the pre-existence of souls, both of good and bad, is an unquestionable article of doctrine in Wis_8:19 f., as also with Philo and the Essenes, with the Rabbins, and in the Cabbala (see Grimm on Wisdom of Solomon in the Exeget. Handb. p. 177 f.; Bruch, Lehre v. d. Prae-existenz d. Seel. p. 22). It is quite out of place, however, to refer to the heathen view of the pre-existence of souls (Isidorus and Severus in Corder. Cat). Tholuck’s suggestion, finally, that the thought, though obscurely conceived, is, that the blind man, through being born blind, is marked out as a sinner in virtue of an anticipation of punishment, both contradicts the words, and is altogether destitute of biblical support. In Luthardt’s view, the disciples, in accordance with Exo_20:5, regarded the second of the two supposed cases as alone possible, but mentioned the first as a possibility, in order that Christ might solve the riddle which they were unable to solve. Similarly Baeumlein and Delitzsch, who looks upon the question as the mere expression of perplexity resulting from a false premiss. It is an arbitrary procedure, however, to ascribe such a difference to two cases regarding which a question is asked in precisely the same form, or to treat the possibility in the one case as posited merely in appearance. The disciples considered both cases possible, and wished to know which of them was real. At the same time, however, they deemed a third case out of the question, and this was the error in the dilemma which they put forth,—an error which Jesus (Joh_9:3) lays bare and corrects by setting before them the Tertium datur.
ἵνα τυφλ . γενν .] The retributive result, in accordance with the teleological connection of the divine destiny. That the man was born blind might have been previously known to those who asked the question; or the man himself might just have informed them of the fact, for the purpose of adding force to his request for alms (Joh_9:8).