Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 9:6 - 9:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_9:6 f. For what reason Jesus anointed the eyes of the blind man with clay John does not inform us; but this does not justify us in leaving the question unanswered (Brückner). The procedure was certainly not adopted for the purpose of defying the hierarchy (Ewald) because it was the Sabbath, according to which view it would have had nothing to do with the healing itself. At the same time, it was equally far from being of a medicinal nature; for often as spittle was applied in the case of diseases of the eye (see Wetstein and Lightfoot), the means employed bore no proportion to the rapidity with which the cure took place, especially considering that the man was born blind; the same remark applies also to Mar_7:32; Mar_8:23. To treat the anointing with the clay as merely a means of awakening faith (comp. Lücke), or as a test of faith (Calvin), and, consequently, as having a purely psychological effect, is to represent the entire procedure as adopted solely with an eye to appearances, to making an impression on the blind man. On this view, accordingly, the ointment of clay had in itself nothing to do with the cure performed, which is scarcely reconcilable with the truthfulness and dignity of Jesus. Regard for this latter rather compels the assumption that the ointment was the real medium of the cure, and formed an essential part of the act; and that, accordingly, the spittle was the continens of the objective healing virtue, by means of which it came into, and remained actively in contact with, the organism. Comp. Tholuck and Olshausen, who characterize the spittle as the conductor of the healing virtue; Lange also, who, however, conjoins therewith the psychological action referred to above; and even Nonnus, though he draws a very arbitrary distinction, terming the spittle λυσίπονον , and the πηλός , φαεσφόρον . There is nothing against this mode of viewing the matter, in the fact that Jesus used a medium in so few of His miracles of healing, and in so many others employed no medium at all (as also in the case of the blind men of Jericho, Mat_20:20 ff.; Mar_10:46 ff.); for He must Himself have known when it was necessary and when not, though no clearer insight into the causal connection between the means and the result is vouchsafed to us. We have no authority for attributing to John a view of miracles which regarded them as mysteries, and which prevailed at a later date (De Wette, comp. B. Crusius); for with his christology he, least of all, would find occasion for its adoption; besides, that the procedure followed in the case of this miracle was unique, and thus its speciality was carefully substantiated by the judicial investigation which grew out of the occurrence. According to Baur (comp. Ewald, as above), the miracle was performed in this circumstantial way in order that it might wear the appearance of a work done on the Sabbath; the supposition, however, is incorrect, if for no other reason, because the healing by itself, apart altogether from the circumstances attending it, was a breaking of the Sabbath. Baur, indeed, regards the whole narrative, notwithstanding the remarkable circumstantiality and naive liveliness which mark it, as an invention; so also Strauss, Weiss, comp. the note after Joh_9:41. In harmony with his view of the figurative design of the entire healing, Luthardt (comp. also Godet) interprets the anointing with clay to mean: “He must become blind who wishes to receive sight” (the sending to the pool of Siloam being intended to typify the ἔρχεσθαι πρὸς αὐτόν , Joh_3:20 f.). But interpretations of this sort have no warrant in the text, and furnish at the same time unintentional support to the unhistorical view of those who treat the narrative as the mere vehicle of an idea,—a remark which holds good against Hengstenberg, who, like Erasmus[45] and others, regards πηλός , after Gen_2:7, as the symbol of creative influence, although in this case we have only to do with an opening of the eyes (Joh_9:10; Joh_9:14), and that by means of a subsequent washing away of the πηλός .
καὶ ἐπέχρισεν αὐτοῦ τ . πηλὸν ἐπὶ τ . ὀφθ . τ . τυφλοῦ ] According to this reading (see the critical note), ΑὐΤΟῦ must be referred to the spittle of Jesus; He rubbed the ointment made of it and the clay on the eyes of the blind man.[46]
εἰς τὴν κολυμβ .] not dependent on ὝΠΑΓΕ (comp. on Mat_2:23), which is not connected with ΝΊΨΑΙ even by a ΚΑΊ (against Lücke and Winer), but: Into the pool of Siloam, so that the πηλός is washed away into the pool by the process of cleansing which takes place on the edge of the basin. Comp. on the pregnancy of this mode of expression, Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 10; Winer, p. 387 [E. T. p. 517]).
On the Pool Siloam (Fountain, Isa_8:6; Luk_13:4 : Pool, Neh_3:15) and its doubtful situation,—which, however, Robinson (II. p. 142 ff.), following Josephus, re-discovered at the entrance of the Tyropoeum Valley, on the south-east side of Zion,—see Tobler, d. Siloahquelle u. d. Oelberg, 1852, p. 1 ff.; Rödiger in Gesen. Thes. III. p. 1416; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p. 371 ff. The expression κολυμβ . τοῦ Σιλ . denotes the pool formed by the fountain Siloam ( ὁ Σιλ ., Luk_13:4; Isa_8:6).
The washing in the pool of Siloam is no more to be regarded as a medicinal prescription than the application of the πηλός (the Rabbinical traces of a healing virtue of the water relate to the digestive organs, see Schoettgen), but was required by Jesus for the purpose of allowing the clay the necessary time for producing its effect, and, at the same time, this particular water, the pool of Siloam, was mentioned as being nearest to the scene of the action (in the vicinity of the temple, Joh_8:59, Joh_9:1), and as certainly also well known to the blind man. According to Lange, L. J. p. 635, the intention of Jesus, in prescribing the sacred fountain of the temple, was to set manifestly forth the co-operation of Jehovah in this repeated Sabbath act. But neither John nor the discussion that follows in Joh_9:13 ff.—in the course of which, indeed, the pool is not once mentioned—betray the slightest trace of this supposed mystery. This also in answer to the meaning imported by Godet into the text, that Siloam is represented as the type of all the blessings of which Christ is the reality, so that, in the form of an action, Christ says, “Ce que Siloé est typiquement, je le suis en réalité.” This does not at all harmonize with the narrative; in fact, on such a view, the confused notion would result, that the true Siloam sent the blind man to the typical Siloam in order to the completion of his cure,—that the Antitype, in other words, sent him to the Type!
ἀπεσταλμένος ] The name ùÑÄéìåÉçÇ (which even the LXX. and Josephus give in Greek as ΣΙΛΩΆΜ ) denotes originally missio (sc. aquarum), i.e. outflow; but John, adopting a typical etymology, renders it directly ùÑÈìåÌçÇ , missus, which in itself was grammatically allowable, either after the analogy of éÄìÌåÉã (see Hitzig on Isa_8:6), so that the word would be a strengthened particip. Kal with a passive signification, or, in virtue of the resolution of the dagesh forte in the particip. Piel into yod (see Tholuck, Beiträge zur Spracherklär. p. 120 ff.; Ewald, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. §156 a.). He thus finds, namely, in the name of the pool, a noteworthy typical reference, not indeed to Christ, the messenger of God, the true Siloam (as Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Corn. a Lapide, and many other earlier commentators, also Schweizer, Ebrard, Luthardt, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Hengstenberg, Brückner, Godet maintain), but to the circumstance that the blind man was sent to this pool by Christ. The pool of ùìåç has the “nomen et omen” of this sending away. The context naturally suggests nothing further than this.[47] Nonnus aptly remarks: ὝΔΩΡ ΣΤΕΛΛΟΜΈΝΟΙΟ ΠΡΟΏΝΥΜΟΝ ἘΚ ΣΈΟ ΠΟΜΠῆς . Comp. Euth. Zigabenus: ΔΙᾺ ΤῸΝ ἈΠΕΣΤΑΛΜΈΝΟΝ ἘΚΕῖ ΤΌΤΕ ΤΥΦΛΌΝ . It is arbitrary with Wassenberg and Kuinoel to pronounce the entire parenthesis spurious (it is absent only in Syr. and Pers. p.), a view to which Lücke also inclined, out of regard for John. But why should a fondness for typical etymologies have been foreign to John? Comp. the much more peculiar example of Paul in Gal_4:25. Such things leave the pneumatic character of the evangelist unaffected.
ἈΠῆΛΘΩΝ ] which he, being well acquainted with the neighbourhood, was able to do without any one to take him by the hand, ΤΥΦΛῷ ΠΟΔΊ (Eur. Hec. 1050), as, indeed, many blind men are able in like manner to find their way about alone.
ἦλθε ] namely, to his dwelling, as is indicated by the words οἱ οὖν γείτονες which follow. Jesus did not meet him again till Joh_9:35.
[45] Erasmus, Paraphr.: “paternum videlicet ac suum verius opificium referens, quo primum hominem ex argilla humore macerata finxerat. Ejusdem autem erat auctoris restituere quod perierat, qui condiderat quod non erat.” So substantially, also, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, and several others. Comp. also Iren. 5. 15.
[46] Note the naive, attractive circumstantiality which is characteristic of the entire narrative.
[47] Not to the fact that in ἀπεσταλμ ., which would denote “freely flowing, streaming,” a deliverance from certain evils was found, as Ewald supposes. It is quite a mistake to suppose any allusion to the water of baptism (Calovius, after Ambrose, Jerome, and others); as also to identify the name with ùìä in Gen_49:6 (Grotius). The simple and correct view is taken also by Bengel, De Wette, and several others; by Baeumlein with hesitation.