The healing of a man born blind and the discussions arising out of this miracle.
John 9:1. . “And as He passed by,” possibly, as Meyer and Holtzmann suppose, on the occasion just mentioned (John 8:59), and as He passed the gate of the Temple where beggars congregated; but the definite mention that it was a Sabbath (John 9:14) rather indicates that it was not the same day. See on John 10:22.— ’ . “He saw a man blind from birth,” an aggravation which plays a prominent part in what follows. And first of all it so impresses the disciples that they ask ’ ; Their question implies a belief, repudiated by Jesus here and in Luke 13:1-5, that each particular sickness or sorrow was traceable to some particular sin; see Job passim and Weber’s Lehren d. Talmud, p. 235. Their question seems also to imply that they supposed even a natal defect might be the punishment of the individual’s own sin. This has received five different explanations: (1) that the pre-existence of souls had been deduced from Wisdom of Solomon 8:20, “being good, I came into a body undefiled”; (2) that metempsychosis was held by some Jews (so Calvin, Beza, and see Lightfoot, p. 1048); or (3) that the unborn babe might sin, see Genesis 25:26, Luke 1:41-44; or (4) that the punishment was anticipatory of the sin; or (5) that the question was one of sheer bewilderment, putting all conceivable possibilities, but without attaching any very definite meaning to the one branch of the alternative. A combination of the two last seems to fit the mental attitude of the disciples. The alternative that the man suffered for his parents’ sin was an idea which would naturally suggest itself. See Exodus 20:5, etc.— ; expresses result, not purpose; and the form of expression is “the product of false analogy, arising from imitation of a construction which really expresses purpose” (Burton, Moods, 218, 219).
John 9:1-7. The cure narrated.
John 9:3. Both alternatives are rejected by Jesus, ’ . And another solution is suggested, ’ . Evil furthers the work of God in the world. It is in conquering and abolishing evil He is manifested. The question for us is not where suffering has come from, but what we are to do with it. John 9:4. The law which is binding on all men Jesus enounces.— ’ Work, active measures to remove suffering, are more incumbent on men than resentful speculation as to the source of suffering. As to God’s connection with evil, the practical man need only concern himself with this, that God seeks to abolish it. The time for doing so is limited, it is , “so long as it is day,” that is as the next clause shows, so long as life lasts. [On in N.T. see Burton, Moods, 321–330.]— , suggested by the threats (John 8:59, etc.) and by the presence of the blind man.
John 9:5. ’ . We should have expected and not , and the Vulgate renders “quamdiu”. But the “when” seems to be used to suggest a time when He should not be in the world: “when I am in the world, I am the Light of the World,” as He immediately illustrated by the cure of the blind man.
John 9:6. , i.e., “in this connection,” ’ “He spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle,” “quia aqua ad manum non erat,” says Grotius; but that spittle was considered efficacious Lightfoot proves by an amusing anecdote and Wetstein by several citations. Tacitus (Hist., iv. 81) relates that the blind man who sought a cure from Vespasian begged “ut ’ oculorum orbes dignaretur respergere oris excremento”. Probably the idea was that the saliva was of the very substance of the person. Tylor (Prim. Culture, ii. 400) is of opinion the Roman Catholic priest’s touching with his spittle the ears and nostrils of the infant at baptism is a survival of the custom in Pagan Rome in accordance with which the nurse touched with spittle the lips and forehead of the week-old child. Virtue was also attributed to clay in diseases of the eye. A physician of the time of Caracalla prescribes “turgentes oculos vili circumline coeno”. That Jesus supposed some virtue lay in the application of the clay is contradicted by the fact that in other cases of blindness He did not use it. See Mark 10:46. But if He applied the clay to encourage the man to believe, as is the likely solution, the question of accommodation arises (see Lücke). The whole process of which the man was the subject was apparently intended to deepen his faith.
John 9:7. The application of the clay was not enough. Jesus further said: ’ . Elsner shows that “wash into,” , is not an uncommon construction. But John 9:11, which gives the same command in a different form, shows that the man understood that followed and not , The pool of Siloam, supplied from the Virgin’s fountain (Isaiah 8:6), lay at the south-east corner of Jerusalem in the Kidron Valley. On the opposite side of the valley lies a village Silwan representing the old name. The name is here interpreted as meaning “Sent” [ , missus; not , missio sc. aquarum, Meyer]. The word is so frequently used by Jesus of Himself that, notwithstanding what Meyer says, we naturally apply it here also to Himself, as if the noiseless Stream which their fathers had despised (Isaiah 7:6) and which they could trace to its source, was a fit type of Him whom the Jews rejected because they knew His origin and because he had no external force. His influence consisted in this, that He was . The blind man obeyed and received his sight. Cf. Elisha and Naaman. From the succeeding several interpreters conclude that means “came” home. Needlessly.
John 9:8. ’ ; “The neighbours, then,” who might or might not be at that time near the man’s home, “and those who formerly used to see him, that he was blind” [but is read instead of by recent editors], “said, Is not this he that sits and begs?”
John 9:8-12. The people discuss the man’s identity.
John 9:9. “Others” but evidently of the same description “said, This is he”. Besides those who were doubtful and those who were certain of his identity there was a third opinion uttered: “He is like him”. Naturally the opened eyes would alter his appearance. The doubts as to his identity were scattered by the man’s decisive .
John 9:10. This being ascertained the next question was, ; In reply the cured man relates his experience. He had ascertained Jesus’ name from some bystander; and it is noticeable that he speaks of Him as one not widely known: . . “I recovered sight”. The man, who now saw for the first time, “uses the ordinary language of men, though in strictness it was not applicable to his own case,” Watkins.
John 9:13. ’ . “They,” some of the neighbours and others already mentioned, “bring him who had formerly been blind to the Pharisees,” not to the Sanhedrim, but to an informal but apparently authoritative (John 9:34) group of Pharisees, who were members of the court.
John 9:13-34. The man is examined by the Pharisees, who eventually excommunicate him,
John 9:14. The reason of this action was that the cure had been wrought on a Sabbath. [“Prohibitum erat sputum oculo illinere Sabbato, sub notione aliquâ medicinali,” Lightfoot.]
John 9:15. ’ . looks back to the same question put by the people, John 9:10; the serving the same purpose. Their first question admits the man’s original blindness. The man’s reply is simple and straightforward.
John 9:16. And then the Pharisees introduce their charge and its implication, ’ . The miracle is not denied, rather affirmed, but it cannot be a work of God, for it has been done on Sabbath. Cf.John 3:2 and John 5:16. Some of their party, however, inclined to a different conclusion, ’ ; How can such a work be done at all, whether on Sabbath or any other day, by a sinner? This breach of the Sabbath law must admit of explanation. It cannot arise from opposition to God.— , as before among the people, John 7:43, so now among the authorities a pronounced and permanent cleft was apparent.
John 9:17. Differing among themselves, they refer the question to the man, ’ “You, what do you say about Him, on account of His opening your eyes?” The question is not one of fact, but of inference from the fact; the means “in that,” “inasmuch as,” and the Vulgate simply renders “Tu quid dicis de illo, qui aperuit oculos tuos?” Promptly the man replies, .
John 9:18. It now appears that their previous admission of the fact of the miracle was disingenuous and that they suspected fraudulent collusion between Jesus and the man; , “they did not believe” his account (John 9:19), ’ ; “until they summoned his parents”.
John 9:20. To them they put virtually three questions: Is this your son? Was he born blind? (for though you say this of him, emphatic, we do not believe it). How does he now see? The first two questions they unhesitatingly answer: This is our son who was born blind. This answer explodes the idea of collusion.
John 9:21. The third question they have not the means of answering, or as John 9:22 indicates, they shammed ignorance to save themselves; and refer the examiners to the man himself.— , his parents are no longer responsible for him. Examples of the Greek phrase are given by Kypke and Wetstein from Plato, Aristophanes, and Demosthenes, [better ] .
John 9:22. ’ . The reluctance of the parents to answer brings out the circumstance that already the members of the Sanhedrim had come to an understanding with one another that any one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah should be excommunicated, . Of excommunication there were three degrees: the first lasted for thirty days; then followed “a second admonition,” and if impenitent the culprit was punished for thirty days more; and if still impenitent he was laid under the Cherem or ban, which was of indefinite duration, and which entirely cut him off from intercourse with others. He was treated as if he were a leper. This, to persons so poor as the parents of this beggar, would mean ruin and death (see Edersheim, Life of Christ, ii. 183–4).
John 9:24. Baffled by the parents the Pharisees turn again, , a second time to the man and say: ’ . They no longer deny the miracle, but bid the man ascribe the glory of it to the right quarter; to God: not to Jesus, because they can assure him knowledge of their own, , that He is a sinner.
John 9:25. But they find in the man a kind of independence and obstinacy they are not used to. ’ . He does not question their knowledge, and he draws no express inferences from what has happened, but of one thing he is sure, that he was blind and that now he sees.
John 9:26. Thwarted by the man’s boldness and perceiving that it was hopeless to deny the fact, they return to the question of the means used. ; At this the man loses patience. Their crafty and silly attempt to lead him into some inconsistent statement seems to him despicable, and he breaks out (John 9:27): ’ . No more galling gibe could have been hurled at them than this man’s “Are you also wishing to become His disciples?”
John 9:28. It serves its purpose of exasperating them and bringing them to the direct expression of their feelings. ’ . “They reviled him.” On Bengel has: “Hoc vocabulo removent Jesum a sese”.
John 9:29. We know that Moses was a prophet, commissioned by God to speak for Him (for see Hebrews 1:1); and if this man is commissioned He must show proof of His being sent from God, and not leave us in ignorance of His origin.
John 9:30. This, in the face of the miracle, seems to the man a surprising statement: , “why, herein is that which is marvellous”. is the true reading. For the use of in rejoinders see Winer, p. 559, and Klotz, p. 242. It seems to imply an entire repudiation of what has just been said: “You utter an absurdity, for ’” The marvel was that they should hesitate about the origin of one who had such power as was manifest in the cure wrought on him.
John 9:31. This is elaborated in John 9:31: ’ . They themselves had owned it a work of God, John 9:24; but God is not persuaded or induced to give such power to sinners, but only to those who do His will. This man therefore, were He a sinner, would have been unable to do anything, not to speak of such a work as has never before been done. Watkins expresses it as a syllogism. (1) God heareth not sinners but only those who worship Him and do His will; (2) That God heareth this man is certain, for such a miracle could be performed only by divine power; (3) This man, therefore, is not a sinner but is from God.
John 9:32. , rather “from of old” than “since the world began”. Cf.Luke 1:70, , and Acts 3:21; Acts 15:18. To this there is no reply but abuse and dismissal.
John 9:34. ’ . “In sins thou wast wholly born, and dost thou teach us?” They refer his blindness to sin, and reproach him with his calamity. Sin, they say, was branded on the whole man; he was manifestly a reprobate. Yet we, the pure and godly, are to be taught by such a man!— , “they cast him out,” not merely from the chamber, but from communion. This is implied both in John 9:35 and all that Jesus says of the shepherds in the following paragraph.
John 9:35 to John 10:21. The good and the hireling shepherds.
John 9:35. ’ The action of the Pharisees threw the man on the compassion of Jesus: “He heard that they had cast him out,” and He knew the reason; therefore, , “when He found him,” as He wished and sought to do, His first question was: ’ ; Perhaps a slight emphasis lies in the . “Dost thou believe in the Messiah?”
John 9:36. The man’s answer shows that he was willing to believe in the Messiah if he could identify Him; and having already declared Jesus to be a prophet, he believed that He could tell him who the Messiah was. It may be taken for granted that although he had not seen Jesus since recovering his sight, he knew somehow that he was speaking to the person who had healed him; and was perhaps almost prepared for the great announcement (John 9:37): , “Thou hast both seen Him,” no doubt: with a reference to the blessing of restored eyesight; ’ . This direct revelation, similar to that given to the Samaritan woman (John 4:26), was elicited by the pitiable condition of the man as an outcast from the Jewish community, and by the perception that the man was ripe for faith.
John 9:38. ’ . He promptly uttered his belief and “worshipped” Jesus. In this Gospel is used of the worship of God: the word is, however, susceptible of a somewhat lower degree of adoration (Matthew 18:26); but it includes the acknowledgment of supremacy and a complete submission.
John 9:39. Summing up the spiritual significance of the miracle Jesus said: ’ . “For judgment,” for bringing to light and exhibiting in its consequences the actual inward state of men; “that those who see not may see,” that is, that those who are conscious of their blindness and grieved on account of it may be relieved; while those who are content with the light they have lose even that. With a kind of sad humour He points out how easily felt blindness is removed, but how obstinately blind is presumed knowledge. The blind man now saw, because he knew he was blind and used the means Jesus told him to use: the Pharisees were stone-blind to the world Jesus opened to them, because they thought that already they knew much more than He did.
John 9:40. Some of the Pharisees overheard His words, and unconsciously proved their truth by saying with indignant contempt: ; To which Jesus, taking them on their own ground, replies: , . If ye were ignorant, as this blind man was, aware of your darkness and anxious to be rid of it, your ignorance would excuse you: but now by all your words and actions you proclaim that you are satisfied with the light you have, therefore you cannot receive that fuller light which I bring and in which is deliverance from sin, and must therefore remain under its bondage. Cf.John 8:21.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on John 9". The Expositor's Greek Testament. https://www.studylight.org/
the Second Week after Epiphany