John 9:1

We have here sight given to a poor beggar that had been blind from his birth. Observe,

I. The notice which our Lord Jesus took of the piteous case of this poor blind man (Joh 9:1): As Jesus passed by he saw a man which was blind from his birth. The first words seem to refer to the last of the foregoing chapter, and countenance the opinion of those who in the harmony place this story immediately after that. There it was said, parēgen - he passed by, and here, without so much as repeating him name (though our translators supply it) kai paragō - and as he passed by. 1. Though the Jews had so basely abused him, both by word and deed gave him the highest provocation imaginable, yet he did not miss any opportunity of doing good among them, nor take up a resolution, as justly he might have done, never to have favoured them with any good offices. The cure of this blind man was a kindness to the public, enabling him to work for his living who before was a charge and burden to the neighbourhood. It is noble, and generous, and Christ-like, to be willing to serve the public, even when we are slighted and disobliged by them, or think ourselves so. Though he was in his flight from a threatening danger, and escaping for his life, yet he willingly halted and staid awhile to show mercy to this poor man. We make more haste than good speed when we out-run opportunities of doing good. 3. When the Pharisees drove Christ from them, he went to this poor blind beggar. Some of the ancients make this a figure of the bringing of the gospel to the Gentiles, who sat in darkness, when the Jews had rejected it, and driven it from them. 4. Christ took this poor blind man in his way, and cured him in transitu - as he passed by. Thus should we take occasions of doing good, even as we pass by, wherever we are.

Now, (1.) The condition of this poor man was very sad. He was blind, and had been so from his birth. If the light is sweet, how melancholy must it needs be for a man, all his days, to eat in darkness! He that is blind has no enjoyment of the light, but he that is born blind has no idea of it. Methinks such a one would give a great deal to have his curiosity satisfied with but one day's sight of light and colours, shapes and figures, though he were never to see them more. Why is the light of life given to one that is in this misery, that is deprived of the light of the sun, whose way is thus hid, and whom God hath thus hedged in? Job 3:20-23. Let us bless God that it was not our case. The eye is one of the most curious parts of the body, its structure exceedingly nice and fine. In the formation of animals, it is said to be the first part that appears distinctly discernible. What a mercy is it that there was no miscarriage in the making of ours! Christ cured many that were blind by disease or accident, but here he cured one that was born blind. [1.] That he might give an instance of his power to help in the most desperate cases, and to relieve when none else can. [2.] That he might give a specimen of the work of his grace upon the souls of sinners, which gives sight to those that were by nature blind.

(2.) The compassions of our Lord Jesus towards him were very tender. He saw him; that is, he took cognizance of his case, and looked upon him with concern. When God is about to work deliverance, he is said to see the affliction; so Christ saw this poor man. Others saw him, but not as he did. This poor man could not see Christ, but Christ saw him, and anticipated both his prayers and expectations with a surprising cure. Christ is often found of those that seek him not, nor see him, Isa 65:1. And, if we know or apprehend any thing of Christ, it is because we were first known of him (Gal 4:9) and apprehended by him, Phi 3:12.

II. The discourse between Christ and his disciples concerning this man. When he departed out of the temple they went along with him: for these were they that continued with him in his temptations, and followed him whithersoever he went; and they lost nothing by their adherence to him, but gained experience abundantly. Observe,

1. The question which the disciples put to their Master upon this blind man's case, Joh 9:2. When Christ looked upon him, they had an eye to him too; Christ's compassion should kindle ours. It is probable that Christ told them this poor man was born blind, or they knew it by common fame; but they did not move Christ to heal him. Instead of this, they started a very odd question concerning him: Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Now this question of theirs was,

(1.) Uncharitably censorious. They take it for granted that this extraordinary calamity was the punishment of some uncommon wickedness, and that this man was a sinner above all men that dwelt at Jerusalem, Luk 13:4. For the barbarous people to infer, Surely this man is a murderer, was not so strange; but it was inexcusable in them, who knew the scriptures, who had read that all things come alike to all, and knew that it was adjudged in Job's case that the greatest sufferers are not therefore to be looked upon as the greatest sinners. The grace of repentance calls our own afflictions punishments, but the grace of charity calls the afflictions of others trials, unless the contrary is very evident.

(2.) It was unnecessarily curious. Concluding this calamity to be inflicted for some very heinous crime, they ask, Who were the criminals, this man or his parents? And what was this to them? Or what good would it do them to know it? We are apt to be more inquisitive concerning other people's sins than concerning our own; whereas, it is more our concern to know wherefore God contends with us than wherefore he contends with others; for to judge ourselves is our sin. They enquire, [1.] Whether this man was punished thus for some sin of his own, either committed or foreseen before his birth. Some think that the disciples were tainted with the Pythagorean notion of the pre-existence of souls, and their transmigration from one body to another. Was this man's soul condemned to the dungeon of this blind body to punish it for some great sin committed in another body which it had before animated? The Pharisees seem to have had the same opinion of his case when they said, Thou wast altogether born in sin (Joh 9:34), as if all those, and those only, were born in sin whom nature had stigmatized. Or, [2.] Whether he was punished for the wickedness of his parents, which God sometimes visits upon the children. It is a good reason why parents should take heed of sin, lest their children smart for it when they are gone. Let not us thus be cruel to our own, as the ostrich in the wilderness. Perhaps the disciples asked this, not as believing that this was the punishment of some actual sin of his own or his parents, but Christ having intimated to another patient that his sin was the cause of this impotency (Joh 5:14), "Master," say they, "whose sin is the cause of this impotency?" Being at a loss what construction to put upon this providence, they desire to be informed. The equity of God's dispensations is always certain, for his righteousness is as the great mountains, but not always to be accounted for, for his judgments are a great deep.

2. Christ's answer to this question. He was always apt to teach, and to rectify his disciples' mistakes.

(1.) He gives the reason of this poor man's blindness: "Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but he was born blind, and has continued so to this day, that now at last the works of God should be made manifest in him," Joh 9:3. Here Christ, who perfectly knew the secret springs of the divine counsels, told them two things concerning such uncommon calamities: - [1.] That they are not always inflicted as punishments of sin. The sinfulness of the whole race of mankind does indeed justify God in all the miseries of human life; so that those who have the least share of them must say that God is kind, and those who have the largest share must not say that he is unjust; but many are made much more miserable than others in this life who are not at all more sinful. Not but that this man was a sinner, and his parents sinners, but is was not any uncommon guilt that God had an eye to in inflicting this upon him. Note, We must take heed of judging any to be great sinners merely because they are great sufferers, lest we be found, not only persecuting those whom God has smitten (Psa 69:26), but accusing those whom he has justified, and condemning those for whom Christ died, which is daring and dangerous, Rom 8:33, Rom 8:34. [2.] That they are sometimes intended purely for the glory of God, and the manifesting of his works. God has a sovereignty over all his creatures and an exclusive right in them, and may make them serviceable to his glory in such a way as he thinks fit, in doing or suffering; and if God be glorified, either by us or in us, we were not made in vain. This man was born blind, and it was worth while for him to be so, and to continue thus long dark, that the works of God might be manifest in him. That is, First, That the attributes of God might be made manifest in him: his justice in making sinful man liable to such grievous calamities; his ordinary power and goodness in supporting a poor man under such a grievous and tedious affliction, especially that his extraordinary power and goodness might be manifested in curing him. Note, The difficulties of providence, otherwise unaccountable, may be resolved into this - God intends in them to show himself, to declare his glory, to make himself to be taken notice of. Those who regard him not in the ordinary course of things are sometimes alarmed by things extraordinary. How contentedly then may a good man be a loser in his comforts, while he is sure that thereby God will be one way or other a gainer in his glory! Secondly, That the counsels of God concerning the Redeemer might be manifested in him. He was born blind that our Lord Jesus might have the honour of curing him, and might therein prove himself sent of God to be the true light to the world. Thus the fall of man was permitted, and the blindness that followed it, that the works of God might be manifest in opening the eyes of the blind. It was now a great while since this man was born blind, and yet it never appeared till now why he was so. Note, The intentions of Providence commonly do not appear till a great while after the event, perhaps many years after. The sentences in the book of providence are sometimes long, and you must read a great way before you can apprehend the sense of them.

(2.) He gives the reason of his own forwardness and readiness to help and heal him, Joh 9:4, Joh 9:5. It was not for ostentation, but in pursuance of his undertaking: I must work the works of him that sent me (of which this is one), while it is day, and working time; the night cometh, the period of that day, when no man can work. This is not only a reason shy Christ was constant in doing good to the souls and bodies of men, but why particularly he did this, though it was the sabbath day, on which works of necessity might be done, and he proves this to be a work of necessity.

[1.] It was his Father's will: I must work the works of him that sent me. Note, First, The Father, when he sent his Son into the world, gave him work to do; he did not come into the world to take state, but to do business; whom God sends he employs, for he sends none to be idle. Secondly, The works Christ had to do were the works of him that sent him, not only appointed by him, but done for him; he was a worker together with God. Thirdly, He was pleased to lay himself under the strongest obligations to do the business he was sent about: I must work. He engaged his heart, in the covenant of redemption, to draw near, and approach to God as Mediator, Jer 30:21. Shall we be willing to be loose, when Christ was willing to be bound? Fourthly, Christ, having laid himself under obligations to do his work, laid out himself with the utmost vigour and industry in his work. He worked the works he had to do; did ergazesthai ta erga - made a business of that which was his business. It is not enough to look at our work, and talk over it, but we must work it.

[2.] Now was his opportunity: I must work while it is day, while the time lasts which is appointed to work in, and while the light lasts which is given to work by. Christ himself had his day. First, All the business of the mediatorial kingdom was to be done within the limits of time, and in this world; for at the end of the world, when time shall be no more, the kingdom shall be delivered up to God, even the Father, and the mystery of God finished. Secondly, all the work he had to do in his own person here on earth was to be done before his death; the time of his living in this world is the day here spoken of. Note, The time of our life is our day, in which it concerns us to do the work of the day. Day-time is the proper season for work (Psa 104:22, Psa 104:23); during the day of life we must be busy, not waste day-time, nor play by day-light; it will be time enough to rest when our day is done, for it is but a day.

[3.] The period of his opportunity was at hand, and therefore he would be busy; The night comes when no man can work. Note, The consideration of our death approaching should quicken us to improve all the opportunities of life, both for doing and getting good. The night comes, it will come certainly, may come suddenly, is coming nearer and nearer. We cannot compute how nigh our sun is, it may go down at noon; nor can we promise ourselves a twilight between the day of life and the night of death. When the night comes we cannot work, because the light afforded us to work by is extinguished; the grave is a land of darkness, and our work cannot be done in the dark. And, besides, our time allotted us for our work will then have expired; when our Master tied us to duty he tied us to time too; when night comes, call the labourers; we must then show our work, and receive according to the things done. In the world of retribution we are no longer probationers; it is too late to bid when the inch of candle is dropped. Christ uses this as an argument with himself to be diligent, though he had no opposition from within to struggle with; much more need have we to work upon our hearts these and the like considerations to quicken us.

[4.] His business in the world was to enlighten it (Joh 9:5): As long as I am in the world, and that will not be long, I am the light of the world. He had said this before, Joh 8:12. He is the Sun of righteousness, that has not only light in his wings for those that can see, but healing in his wings, or beams, for those that are blind and cannot see, therein far exceeding in virtue that great light which rules by day. Christ would cure this blind man, the representative of a blind world, because he came to be the light of the world, not only to give light, but to give sight. Now this gives us, First, A great encouragement to come to him, as a guiding, quickening, refreshing light. To whom should we look but to him? Which way should we turn our eyes, but to the light? We partake of the sun's light, and so we may of Christ's grace, without money and without price. Secondly, A good example of usefulness in the world. What Christ saith of himself, he saith of his disciples: You are lights in the world, and, if so, Let your light shine. What were candles made for but to burn?

III. The manner of the cure of the blind man, Joh 9:6, Joh 9:7. The circumstances of the miracle are singular, and no doubt significant. When he had thus spoken for the instruction of his disciples, and the opening of their understandings, he addressed himself to the opening of the blind man's eyes. He did not defer it till he could do it either more privately, for his greater safety, or more publicly, for his greater honour, or till the sabbath was past, when it would give less offence. What good we have opportunity of doing we should do quickly; he that will never do a good work till there is nothing to be objected against it will leave many a good work for ever undone, Ecc 11:4. In the cure observe,

1. The preparation of the eye-salve. Christ spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle. He could have cured him with a word, as he did others, but he chose to do it in this way to show that he is not tied to any method. He made clay of his own spittle, because there was no water near; and he would teach us not to be nice or curious, but, when we have at any time occasion, to be willing to take up with that which is next hand, if it will but serve the turn. Why should we go about for that which may as well be had and done a nearer way? Christ's making use of his own spittle intimates that there is healing virtue in every thing that belongs to Christ; clay made of Christ's spittle was much more precious than the balm of Gilead.

2. The application of it to the place: He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. Or, as the margin reads it, He spread (epechrise), he daubed the clay upon the eyes of the blind man, like a tender physician; he did it himself with his own hand, though the patient was a beggar. Now Christ did this, (1.) To magnify his power in making a blind man to see by that method which one would think more likely to make a seeing man blind. Daubing clay on the eyes would close them up, but never open them. Note, The power of God often works by contraries; and he makes men feel their own blindness before he gives them sight. (2.) To give an intimation that it was his mighty hand, the very same that at first made man out of the clay; for by him God made the worlds, both the great world, and man the little world. Man was formed out of the clay, and moulded like the clay, and here Christ used the same materials to give sight to the body that at first he used to give being to it. (3.) To represent and typify the healing and opening of the eyes of the mind by the grace of Jesus Christ. The design of the gospel is to open men's eyes, Act 26:18. Now the eye-salve that does the work is of Christ's preparing; it is made up, not as this, of his spittle, but of his blood, the blood and water that came out of his pierced side; we must come to Christ for the eye-salve, Rev 3:18. He only is able, and he only is appointed, to make it up, Luk 4:18. The means used in this work are very weak and unlikely, and are made effectual only by the power of Christ; when a dark world was to be enlightened, and nations of blind souls were to have their eyes opened, God chose the foolish things, and weak, and despised, for the doing of it. And the method Christ takes is first to make men feel themselves blind, as this poor man did whose eyes were daubed with clay, and then to give them sight. Paul in his conversion was struck blind for three days, and then the scales fell from his eyes. The way prescribed for getting spiritual wisdom is, Let a man become a fool, that he may be wise, Co1 3:18. We must be made uneasy with our blindness, as this man here, and then healed.

3. The directions given to the patient, Joh 9:7. His physician said to him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam. Not that this washing was needful to effect the cure; but, (1.) Christ would hereby try his obedience, and whether he would with an implicit faith obey the orders of one he was so much a stranger to. (2.) He would likewise try how he stood affected to the tradition of the elders, which taught, and perhaps had taught him (for many that are blind are very knowing), that it was not lawful to wash the eyes, no not with spittle medicinally, on the sabbath day, much less to go to a pool of water to wash them. (3.) He would hereby represent the method of spiritual healing, in which, though the effect is owing purely to his power and grace, there is duty to be done by us. Go, search the scriptures, attend upon the ministry, converse with the wise; this is like washing in the pool of Siloam. Promised graces must be expected in the way of instituted ordinances. The waters of baptism were to those who had been trained up in darkness like the pool of Siloam, in which they might not only wash and be clean, but wash, and have their eyes opened. Hence they that were baptized are said to be phōtisthentes - enlightened; and the ancients called baptism phōtismos - illumination. Concerning the pool of Siloam observe, [1.] That it was supplied with water from mount Zion, so that these were the waters of the sanctuary (Psa 46:4), living waters, which were healing, Eze 47:9. [2.] That the waters of Siloam had of old signified the throne and kingdom of the house of David, pointing at the Messiah (Isa 8:6), and the Jews who refused the waters of Shiloa, Christ's doctrine and law, and rejoiced in the tradition of the elders. Christ would try this man, whether he would cleave to the waters of Siloam or no. [3.] The evangelist takes notice of the signification of the name, its being interpreted sent. Christ is often called the sent of God, the Messenger of the covenant (Mal 3:1); so that when Christ sent him to the pool of Siloam he did in effect send him to himself; for Christ is all in all to the healing of souls. Christ as a prophet directs us to himself as a priest. Go, wash in the fountain opened, a fountain of life, not a pool.

4. The patient's obedience to these directions: He went his way therefore, probably led by some friend or other; or perhaps he was so well acquainted with Jerusalem that he could find the way himself. Nature often supplies the want of sight with an uncommon sagacity; and he washed his eyes; probably the disciples, or some stander by, informed him that he who bade him do it was that Jesus whom he had heard so much of, else he would not have gone, at his bidding, on that which looked so much like a fool's errand; in confidence of Christ's power, as well as in obedience to his command, he went, and washed.

5. The cure effected: He came seeing. There is more glory in this concise narrative, He went and washed, and came seeing, than in Caesar's Veni, vidi, vici - I came, I saw, I conquered. When the clay was washed off from his eyes, all the other impediments were removed with it; so when the pangs and struggles of the new birth are over, and the pains and terrors of conviction past, the bands of sin fly off with them, and a glorious light and liberty succeed. See here an instance, (1.) Of the power of Christ. What cannot he do who could not only do this, but do it thus? With a lump of clay laid on either eye, and washed off again, he couched those cataracts immediately which the most skilful oculist, with the finest instrument and the most curious hand, could not remove. No doubt this is he that should come, for by him the blind receive their sight. (2.) It is an instance of the virtue of faith and obedience. This man let Christ do what he pleased, and did what he appointed him to do, and so was cured. Those that would be healed by Christ must be ruled by him. He came back from the pool to his neighbours and acquaintance, wondering and wondered at; he came seeing. This represents the benefit gracious souls find in attending on instituted ordinances, according to Christ's appointment; they have gone to the pool of Siloam weak, and have come away strengthened; have gone doubting, and come away satisfied; have gone mourning, and come away rejoicing; have gone trembling, and come away triumphing; have gone blind, and come away seeing, come away singing, Isa 52:8.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh_9:1-25

And as Jesus passed by He saw a man which was blind from his birth

Jesus and the blind man

I.

CHRONIC BLINDNESS.

1. A type of spiritual need (Joh_9:1; Eph_4:18; 2Co Luk_2:34; Isa_59:9; Pro_4:19; Isa_59:10).

2. Common to the human race (Joh_9:2; Rom_3:23; Psa_14:3; 1Jn_5:19; Rom_5:12; Rom_5:14; Rom_5:21).

II. HELP GRANTED.

1. For the glory of God (Joh_9:3; Joh_7:18; Joh_8:49-50; Joh_11:4; Joh_14:13).

2. Because the time was short (Joh_9:4; Joh_12:35; Joh_13:1; Joh_14:12; Mat_26:24; Luk_12:50).

3. To show Christs errand on earth (Joh_9:4; Joh_3:17; Joh_4:34; Joh_6:38; Luk_2:49; Psa_40:7; 1Jn_4:14).

4. To fulfil prophecy.

(1) As light of the world (Joh_9:5; Mal_4:2; Luk_1:78; Num_24:17; Isa_9:2; Isa_13:6).

(2) As opener of eyes of blind (Joh_9:6; Isa_29:18; Isa_32:3; Isa_25:5; Isa_42:7; Isa_24:16).

5. To reward faith (Joh_9:7; Mat_9:22; Mat_9:29; Mat_13:58; Mat_15:28; Act_3:16).

III. DOUBTS OF UNBELIEVERS.

1. As to the reality of the miracle (Joh_9:9; Joh_7:12; Mat_9:3; Mat_9:24; Mat_28:15; Act_1:13).

2. As to the fitness of the time (Joh_9:14; Mat_12:2; Mat_12:10; Joh_5:16; Joh_5:18; Luk_6:7).

3. As to the character of Jesus (Joh_9:16; Joh_7:20; Joh_9:24; Joh_9:29; Lu Mat_11:19; Mar_3:22). (S. S. Times.)

Jesus and the blind man

Here are three distinct types of character all seeking for information.

1. The gossip-loving neighbours whose sole desire seems to have been to see or hear some new thing.

2. The prejudiced Pharisees who are bound not to know anything that conflicts with their cherished views.

3. The parents who are afraid that they know too much.

4. The one man who did know something and was not afraid to own it.

I. THERE WERE MANY THINGS THE BLIND MAN DID NOT KNOW. He had never till now seen the light of day. Objects familiar to a child, grass, trees, sun, moon, etc., were unknown to him. His creed was very short and contained but one article, but this was the most important because containing that rarest of all knowledge--self-knowledge. What do you know, boy or girl? Something about grammar, arithmetic, geography, etc.? But do you know something about yourself? Here you are in the world; you know that in some sense, but do you realize it as the man did his blindness, so that it affects every action and thought? Do you know that you will not stay in the flesh forever? Yes, ever since I wrote in my copybook, All men are mortal. But do you know it as the man knew that he was blind, so that you are willing to accept the gift of heaven through Christ?

II. WHAT THE BLIND MAN KNEW HE KNEW THOROUGHLY. About this one article he had no question. There was no if or perhaps about it, no room for Agnosticism in it. He had only one answer for his neighbours and the Pharisees, and could not be cajoled or frightened out of what he knew. It is best to believe a little thoroughly than much superficially. Not that creeds are to be despised, but as a matter of fact every man has his own private creed which does not coincide with all the creed of his church, but which is a matter of experience. This mans creed was, One thing I know; whereas I was blind, etc. The deaf mutes creed was, One thing I know, whereas I was dumb, etc. So with the cleansed leper. These creeds differed in their premises, but they all led to the same conclusion, that there was one Healer. We may have been brought to our belief through different doors--one through that of sorrow, another through that of providential deliverance, etc., yet there is one conclusion, that Jesus is the only Saviour of sinners.

III. THE GRADUAL WAY IN WHICH HE APPROACHED TO A KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST.

1. He is only conscious of an unusual presence in the throng about him who exerts a strange influence over him, then stops and anoints his eyes, commands him to wash, which doing he sees. At once he says, A man that is called Jesus, etc. That is something. He has time to think the matter over.

2. When the next questioner asks, What sayest thou of Him? he answers unhesitatingly, He is a prophet. He is getting on rapidly now. Not more quickly do his newly-opened eyes take in the marvels of nature than his newly-awakened spiritual vision takes in the glories of Christs character.

3. Next he hears them call Jesus a sinner. Nay, he says, God heareth not sinners--a further step. The healer is a sinless one.

4. A moment later he avers that Jesus comes from God.

5. A little later comes worship of and faith in Christ as the Son of God, where he reaches the limit of knowledge.

IV. NOTE THAT VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST IS SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION. A child knows more than that beggar did of Christ, but he knew enough to do as he was bidden, and that was enough to save him. Christ did not wait until he fully apprehended His character before He healed him. He that willeth to do His will shall know, etc.

V. THERE IS ONE CLASS IN THIS STORY WHO MADE THEMSELVES THE WORLDS LAUGHING STOCK--the Pharisees. They would not believe their own eyes. They were so eager to establish their point that they made themselves ridiculous. There are many people now who disbelieve in the face of stronger evidence, and who do not believe for the same reason as the Pharisees--because they will not.

VI. AN OUNCE OF EXPERIENCE IS WORTH A TON OF THEORY. The blind man, alone and ignorant, had the advantage of the whole college of rabbis because he had experience on his side. He could establish a fact when they could only ask questions. It is better to know one thing than to guess a good many. (Sermons by the Monday Club.)

The history of the man who was born blind

1. The miracle, or the power of the love of Christ.

2. The trial, or the power of upright simplicity and gratitude.

3. The issue, or the victory of faith over the strongest temptation.

4. The profound interpretation and lofty significances of the event. (J. P.Lange, D. D.)

The healing of the man born blind

I. THE GREATNESS OF HIS AFFLICTION. His blindness

1. Deprived him of an important means of knowledge. The blind may acquire a word knowledge of men and things, but he is powerless to form any corresponding mental picture. Locke speaks of one who, after listening to an explanation of scarlet, thought it resembled the blast of a trumpet; and so of the man here. There he stands at the gate of the Temple; his features familiar to the worshippers, but the gorgeous service within, and all the life and beauty without, he had never beheld, and as he now stood beneath the Redeemers gaze he was unconscious whose pitying look rested on him. We are all born blind. The eyes of the soul are there, but they see not. For many years some have heard the disfiguration our moral visage described and the beauty of Jesus depicted, and are as insensible to both as this blind man.

2. Denied him a grand source of enjoyment. The eye is the channel of some of our purest pleasures. The blind know nothing of the beauties of nature, art, literature, friendship; and the spiritually blind are dead to the perception of a Fathers presence and a Fathers love.

3. Unfitted him for the discharge of lifes duties. Instead of being able to care for others, he needed others to care for him. He whose mind is blinded by unbelief, prejudice, or passion can never rightly discharge his duty. The light of Gods renewing grace within is the only sufficient qualification for doing the works of righteousness.

II. THE MANNER OF HIS CURE.

1. There was the Divine employment of a material element. A medicinal value was attributed to the saliva, but the clay could only have further injured the eyes. So that the ointment was not an assistance to Divine power but only to human faith.

2. There was implicit obedience to the Divine command. Without question or debate, and actuated only by hope of cure, the man did as he was told. Whatever God appoints as a condition of blessing we are bound to instantly accept. If He commands us wash in the Saviours blood, and move with the feet of prayer to the place of healing, it is for us not to question but to obey.

3. There was the evident operation of Divine power. The clay and Siloam were only outward and visible signs of Christs curative energy. The cure of spiritual blindness is possible only to the power of God. Neither priestly incantations nor clay-cold creeds can make the blind to see.

III. THE CHARACTER OF HIS TESTIMONY.

1. It was the embodiment of personal experience. He does not attempt to explain the how of the cure, nor does he allow himself to be shaken by the Pharisees objection to the Author of his cure. He keeps to the one thing he knows. There is no evidence so valuable as experimental. If we have been brought out of darkness into marvellous light no objector can destroy that fact of consciousness.

2. It was sustained by visible proof. His neighbours could not at first agree as to his identity, there was so great a change. So by their fruits regenerate Christians are known.

3. It was borne with unflinching boldness. He dared and suffered that which a Jew dreaded most. It is an easy thing to confess Christ when the confession involves no sacrifice. But to witness for Him when convenience and custom would counsel silence; to lose a good situation rather than deny our Lord--that requires courage. But Christ made up to the man more than he had lost, and so He will do to us. (W. Kirkman.)

Opening the eyes of one blind from his birth

I. THE PRELIMINARIES OF THIS MEMORABLE MIRACLE.

1. A strange question (Joh_9:2).

2. A conclusive reply (Joh_9:3).

3. A solemn reflection (Joh_9:4).

4. A glorious announcement (Joh_9:5).

II. THE PECULIAR MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS WROUGHT.

1. The action (Joh_9:6).

2. The command, Go (Joh_9:6) The design of which was

(1) To try the mans faith, as Naamans was tried.

(2) To give greater publicity to the miracle.

3. the result, Came seeing (Joh_9:7).

III. THE VARIOUS DISPUTES AND ENQUIRIES WHICH THE MIRACLE OCCASIONED. Several parties are introduced.

1. The mans neighbours and casual acquaintances (Joh_9:8-12).

2. The Pharisees (Joh_9:13, etc.).

3. Our Lord (Joh_9:35, etc.).

Congenital blindness

While I was living in Geneva I became acquainted with Dr. Dufour of Lausanne, just after his successful operation on a patient blind from birth. The case is by no means unprecedented, but it is not common, and when it occurs, the study of the processes by which one thus put in possession of a new sense comes to the intelligent use of it, and to the power of apprehending anything in the mind by means of it, is a study of the profoundest interest both to the physician and to the mental philosopher. There are very apt to he circumstances unfavourable to such study. The form of blindness from birth which is susceptible of cure is that of congenital cataract; and this is often so complicated with other defects of the organ of vision that even after it is removed the patient cannot see distinctly; or there is a deficiency of the intellectual faculties; or the original blindness was not complete, so that the ease does not furnish an example of the actual beginning of vision; or the operation is effected at an age at which the child cannot give a full and intelligent account of his sensations. The case which Dr. Dufour treated was that of a man of twenty, both whose eyes had been covered from birth by an opaque chalky deposit which barely permitted him to perceive a difference between light and darkness; only when a strong colour was made to shine obliquely into the pupil he had been able to recognize the difference between red, yellow, and blue. But he had never seen the form of anything, a surface, or an outline. After the operation the patient was kept for a considerable time in a dark room with the eyes bandaged; and at last when the healing was sufficiently advanced, he was brought to the light. He groped, and sought for leading, and behaved so like a blind man that the doctor began to doubt whether there was not a deeper seated blindness that would defeat the effect of his operation. The patient was seated with his back to the window, and the doctor, in front, moved his hand to and fro over his black coat. Do you see anything? he asked. Yes, said the patient; I see something light. (He already knew the difference between light and darkness). What is it? Its--its--its-- This is all that could be got from him. The doctor tried once more, putting his hand before the patient, sometimes at rest, sometimes in motion. Do you see anything move? Move? The doctor kept trying, and the patient gazed intently; but the most of an answer that could be got from the young man was that he saw something white. The next day the patient was seated again as before, and the doctor showed him a watch. He said at once, I see something bright. Is it round or square. No answer. Do you know what square means? He made the shape with his hands, and likewise a circle. But all the time, looking eagerly at the watch, he was totally unable to tell whether it was round or square. The next day the same question was put, with the same failure to answer. At length the doctor let him touch the watch. Instantly he spoke up: Its round! Its a watch! Two strips of paper were shown him. He could not tell by the eye which was the longer, or whether they were of equal length, until he was allowed to touch them. He was shown two pieces of paper, one square, the other round. Do you see any difference between these papers? Yes. What is the difference? No answer. Well, one of them is round and the other square; which is the square? He hesitated awhile, and being told to touch them, he laid his hand on the square piece, and, feeling the corner of it, exclaimed, This is the square! Then he handled the round piece attentively, and from that time forth had no difficulty in distinguishing round objects by the eye. The results of a long series of careful experiments with this patient is thus summed up: His visual sensations were clear and definite enough, but he had no power of interpreting them. Each sensation required a special intellectual act of comparing the impression on the eye with the impression on the touch. The image of external objects impressed on his retina was nothing to him but an assemblage of outlines and colours, in which he perceived no order, and from which he derived no notion, whether of form, or of distance, or of motion. This result corresponds to the result reached in the half-dozen like cases that have been studied and recorded, beginning with Cheseldens famous case in 1728. The incident of restoration of sight to the blind has been used in modern fiction by Wilkie Collins in Poor Miss Finch, and by Bulwer in The Pilgrims of the Rhine, and used in a way utterly irreconcilable with fact or possibility, Shakespeare, as might be expected, deals more shrewdly with the subject (King Henry VI, part 2). Now, it is a very notable fact, that in the gospel accounts of the healing of the blind, written in an age when it had not been heard since the world began that anyone had opened the eyes of a man born blind, there is not a syllable that is inconsistent with the facts of psycho-physiology as they have been demonstrated so many centuries later. The most ingenious tale writers of our own day fall inadvertently into such inconsistencies. These plain narrators of eighteen hundred years ago avoid them. How? They must have been going by facts that they had seen. It was in my thought to speak of the paedagogic interest of the case. Dr. Dufour was so unprepared for the incapacity of perception in his patient, that he was ready to believe his operation a failure, because of the slenderness of the first results. Is there any commoner source of discouragement to teachers than their own mistake in taking too much for granted? Is it easy to underestimate the acquired knowledge of a little child? A careful statistical study of The Contents of a Childs Mind, lately made by the examination of candidates for the primary schools of Boston, yielded results of a sort most instructive to the teachers of primary classes, as showing how often those notions which we should assume as a matter of course as being part of the mental furniture of the least and dullest, are lacking in the minds even of bright children. (L. W. Bacon, D. D.)

Characteristics of blindness

I knew such a blind man once--sharp, shrewd, clever. I was staying on the Cornish coast and the good man of the house sat in the settle by the fire. I was anxious to make his acquaintance and seeing he was blind, I said, with as much sympathy as I could, Yours is a great affliction, my friend. To my astonishment he got up and turned upon me angrily, and denied it utterly. No, it is not, said he--not a bit. And he groped his way out. His wife hurried in to apologise and explain. Oh, sir, I am so sorry; I meant to have asked you not to say anything about my husbands blindness. He always gets so angry. You know, he thinks eyes are such stupid things. And he can do a great deal more without his eyes than many men can do with them. That blind man opened my eyes. I watched henceforth most carefully, and I think I learned this--that, generally speaking, a blind man is not conscious of his infirmity. A deaf man sees that he is deaf, but a blind man cannot see that he is blind. As the result of my altered manner I got an invitation to address some two or three hundred blind people. I was almost shocked at the reason given for asking me. He wont pity us. Not pity the poor blind!--why, it was the appeal that had often diverted my earliest pence from some indulgence. But I knew what they meant, and was glad that they had discerned my knowledge--the blind only know that they are blind by being pitied. (M. G. Pearse.)

Characteristics of the miracle

1. It is only related by St. John.

2. Like each of the few miracles in St. John, it is described with great minuteness and particularity.

3. It is one of the four miracles wrought in Judaea, or near Jerusalem, mentioned in St. John. He records eight great miracles together: four in Galilee--turning the water into wine, healing the noblemans son, feeding the multitude, and walking on the water (chaps. 2, 4, and 6); and four in Judaea--purifying the Temple, healing the impotent man, restoring sight to the blind, and raising Lazarus (chaps. 2; 5; 6; and 9).

4. It is one of those miracles which the Jews were especially taught to expect in Messiahs time: In that day shall the eyes of the blind see out of obscurity (Isa_29:18).

5. It is one of those signs of Messiah having come, to which Jesus particularly directed John the Baptists attention: The blind receive their sight (Mat_11:5).

6. It was a miracle worked in so public a place, and on a man so well known, that it was impossible for the Jerusalem Jews to deny it. It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to bid any well-instructed Christian observe the singularly instructive and typical character of each of the eight miracles which John was inspired to record. Each was a vivid picture of spiritual things. Hengstenberg observes, that three of the four great miracles wrought by Christ in Judaea, exactly represent the three classes of works referred to in Mat_11:5 : The lame walk, the blind see, the dead are raised up (Joh_5:1-47; Joh_9:1-41; Joh_11:1-57). (Bp. Ryle.)

General remarks on the miracle

More miracles are recorded as to the blind than any other disease. One of palsy, one of dropsy, two of leprosy, two of fever. Three dead were raised, but four blind were restored to sight. Some writers extend the number to six (Mat_12:22). Isaiah alludes oftener to curing the blind than to the removal of any other form of misery. This miracle strikes us with the greater power--the only one born blind (verse 82). (W. H. Van Doren, D. D.)

Miracle authenticated

Renan declared himself ready to believe a miracle in case it be examined and established by a committee especially nominated and authorized beforehand for that purpose. Should we not be almost tempted to speak of a holy irony of history, which has already fulfilled this arbitrary demand many centuries before it was uttered? For, in truth, an examination is here conducted by the most acute and hostile eyes, the witnesses are called, opinions are heard, and the various possibilities are weighed against each other as though on gold scales--and what is the result? It is this. While the miracle remains incomprehensible, its invention is inconceivable. I know what your answer will be when I ask you, whether you regard these particulars as invented--the astonishment of the neighbours; the diversity of opinions; the dissention of the Pharisees; the cunning and forbearance of the parents; the immovable calmness, the increasing frankness, the confidence of the man in presenting the knowledge of his experience as of equal weight with the knowledge of the Pharisees; and that humble confession of his faith in our Lord. We are no more surprised that the restored blind man was cast out than we hear him confessing after this event that Christ is the Son of God. It would excite our wonder more if one or the other of these circumstances had not been mentioned. In fact, as we look at the critical objections that are presented with the most important air imaginable, we can hardly refrain from asking, Are these men serious or jesting? (J. J. Van Oosterzee, D. D.)

Instances of blindness

Homer, Ossian, Milton, Blacklock (only saw the light five months, yet linguist and poet), Sanderson, celebrated Mathematician and Lucasian Professor at Cambridge (blind before one year old); Euler, mathematician; Huber (Nat. Hist., Habits of Bees); Holman, traveller round the world; William Metcalf, builder of roads and bridges; John Metcalf (Manchester), guide to those travelling through intricate roads by night, when covered with snow, afterwards a projector and surveyor of roads in different mountainous parts, most of the roads about the Peak, and near Buxton, were altered by his direction; Laura Bridgman, neither sight, hearing, nor speech, yet learned to know herself a sinner, and Christ a Saviour; Milburn, the blind American preacher; Prescot, the historian; Goodrich (Peter Parley); Rev. J. Crosse, Vicar of Bradford. Hence learn

1. Gods sovereignty in creation: Why were you born blind? Mat_11:26).

2. Gods goodness in providence: that blind men so often see more than those who have sight. The blind are proverbially cheerful.

3. Gods riches in grace.

Spiritual blindness

A gentleman, in passing a coal mine in Pennsylvania, saw a field full of mules. In answer to his inquiry a boy told him: These are the mules that work all the week down in the mine; but on Sunday they have to come up to the light, or else in a little while they go blind. So with men. Keep them delving and digging in dust and darkness seven days in a week, and all the days of the fifty-two weeks in a year, and how long can they be expected to have any discernment for Divine things? The eyes of their understandings are necessarily bedimmed.

Christs sight of sinners

This man could not see Jesus, but, what was better, Jesus could see him; and we read, As Jesus passed by, He saw a man which was blind from his birth. Many other blind men there were in Israel, but Jesus saw this man with a special eye. I think I see the Saviour standing still, and looking at him, taking stock of him, listening to his quaint speeches, noting what kind of man he is, and exhibiting special interest in him. This morning there is one in the Tabernacle who cannot see Jesus, for he has no spiritual eyes; but I am convinced that my Master is now looking at him, searching him from head to foot, and reading him with discerning eye. He is considering what he will make of him by-and-by, for he has the great and gracious intent that He will take this sinner, who is spiritually like the blind beggar, and enlighten him, and give him to behold His glory. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The compassion of Christ

He saw, etc. This was enough to move Christ to mercy, the sight of a fit object. (J. Trapp.)

Types of character in relation to Christ's work

As this chapter is the history of one event, its several sections may be thus treated;--Those who consciously need the work of Christ; those who are speculatively interested in it; those who are malignantly prejudiced against it; those who are heartily interested in it; and those who are experimentally restored by it. Looking at the blind man as representing the consciously needy class note

I. THE WRETCHEDNESS OF THEIR CONDITION.

1. This man was afflicted with blindness. Those windows through which the soul looks out upon, and which the soul lets in the beauty of Gods creation, had never been opened.

2. He was afflicted with beggary. He lived perhaps all his life on the precarious charity of those who visited the temple.

3. He was afflicted with social heartlessness. With what pain must he have heard the question of Joh_9:2. This was a common error among the Jews; but the whole book of Job seems to have been written to correct it, and Christ Himself exposed it (Luk_13:1-4). The sufferings of individuals are no just criterion of moral character. Spiritually all in their unregenerate condition are as needy as this man. Alas! but few realize it.

II. THE NATURE OF THEIR DELIVERANCE. This is

1. The predetermined work of God (verse 3). Christ does not mean that either was free from sin, but that sin was not the cause of the blindness, but that the blindness was to afford scope for His remedial agency. Gods restorative agency reveals Him often in more striking aspects than even His creative and preserving.

2. Was effected by Christ (verse 4). This He did

(1) Systematically, not capriciously or desultorily, but by a Divine programme. He did the right work in the right place, on the right person, at the right time.

(2) Diligently. He knew that His work was great, but His time limited. These works suggest that

(a) There is a Divine purpose in every mans life.

(b) A Divine work.

(c) A Divine limit.

(3) Appropriately (verse 5). He assumes a character corresponding to the exigencies of the sufferer. To the woman at the well He was living water; to the sisters of Lazarus, the Resurrection and the Life.

(4) Unasked; as He passed by.

(5) Instrumentally (verse 6). (D. Thomas D. D.)

Christ and the blind man

I. INFIRMITIES AND DISABILITIES MAY BE THE OCCASIONS FOR SHOWING THE DIVINE POWER AND GRACE. But that the works of God should be made manifest in him was the infallible solution of this trouble. The calamities and penalties under which multitudes lie are clearly of their own intelligent seeking. If the works of God are made manifest in them, it is but the stern and startling exhibition of the fact that he is not mocked, and that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Here we have illustration of how small and empty our measures and judgments are apt to be, when they would gauge the purposes and deeds of the Infinite. What confusion and rebuke when he stoops to offer the true explanation! In a flash, as it were, he solves much of the mystery of the existence of evil and sorrow in the world. He does not deny the means by which they have appeared. Adam or ones parents may have violated some beneficent rule of life and the child comes into being, having the marks of it, the curse of it. A remote or near offender may have doomed Byron to the clubfoot, and Cowper to melancholia, and the Emperor William to a withered arm. The keenest experts are often baffled in tracing the genesis of disease. All agree that affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground. Here God has prepared the ground on which to display the marvels of his power. Beautiful characters may appear, as the brilliant blossom on the ugly and thorny cactus. And not for the observers sake simply, but chiefly for those subject to infirmity is it laid upon them. If patience and restfulness of spirit and self-forgetfulness can be thus developed, it is well. These are Gods works. Philosophy may infuse stubbornness, said Cecil, but religion only can give patience. If correct estimates of worldly and unworldly treasures can be gained only in the white heats of furnace pains, then these are well. Every untoward condition of our human life has some beneficent and glorious possibility in it. God only knows what that is. He only can bring it out.

II. DILIGENCE IS IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES.

III. OUTWARD MEANS THE TEST OF FAITH. Some ignore His Church, its ordinances and methods, as needless in the regeneration of society or of the individual. But some movement must be made to catch its message; some step toward its cleansing pools; some regard for its simplest rites there must be before any who have closed their eyes lest haply they should perceive can obtain the Christly healing.

IV. JESUS REVEALS HIMSELF TO THOSE WHO SUFFER FOR HIS SAKE AND CONFIRMS THEIR FAITH. They who escape the great fight of affliction because they are Christs do it perhaps to their own loss. Not so real, so vivid, is He to those who have much beside. Fame and ease and abundance may dull that strong and saving sense of His presence which is the disciples chief need. (De Witt S. Clark.)

Christ and the blind man

Wherever help was most needed thither His merciful heart drew Him, and whoever craved pity and succour gravitated to Him as streams to the sea. Others, who are immersed in their own satisfactions, may find this a very comfortable and happy world. They do not see the sorrows for which they have no sympathy, and pass by the griefs which they do not feel. In their presence the wounded instinctively hide themselves away, and the eloquence of want is suppressed and silent. While the gardener is bending over the prone and helpless plant, seeking how he may lift it up and restore it to bloom and beauty, wise botanists begin to botanize--Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

I. THE PROBLEM. Here is a problem, old as man is old, and wide as the world is wide, the vast problem of evil--the existence of pain in the universe of a good God. Jesus does not say that this man or his parents had never sinned. All pain is not penal. Pain may be remedial, medicinal--a means of grace, a surgery of soul--a crucible of character, a revelation of the Divine goodness, an ultimate disclosure of the Divine glory. His blindness is an infirmity, not a punishment. It is something given, and not something inflicted.

II. THE MIRACLE. The works of God are at last to be made manifest. The method of the miracle here as everywhere is a method which keeps the miraculous as close as possible to ordinary means and agencies. He always sought some fulcrum in nature on which to rest the leverage of supernatural power. He startles with results, never with processes. He honours nature even when He would transcend nature. But the works of God are made manifest in no startling and spectacular way. As the dawn widens into the day, so this child of darkness is led into the marvellous light. Having anointed the blind mans eyes, Jesus said, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam. He sends him away from Himself, away from His own ministry, to the ministry of nature, to the recuperative energies which are beating in every pulse of creation. There is a human as well as a Divine side in all this great mystery of human healing and human redemption. The man is a small but necessary factor in the redemptive process, in the ultimate result. When Jesus would test our faith He gives us not merely something to believe but something to do. Action is the ultimate speech of conviction, the measure of its strength, the test of its sincerity. The faith that worketh is a faith which may be counted on. The test of a locomotive is not the noise in the whistle, but the pull in the cylinders. Every escape from ignorance into intelligence, from weakness into power, from savagery into civilization, from darkness into the light, is by way of the Pool of Siloam--is a salvation by faith.

III. THE TESTIMONY. The return of this man, radiant in the joy of vision, was the sensation of the hour. He was not overawed by their authority, nor deceived by their sophistry. He could not be coerced into suppression nor corrupted into a lie. Against all blandishment and all abuse that indomitable man was loyal to his benefactor and true to himself.

IV. THE RECOGNITION. Such fidelity was too rare and too precious to fail of its reward. (Boston Homilies.)

The opening of the eyes of a man born blind

Even amid the fury of the crowd Christ was entirely self-possessed, and the incident here recorded may have been introduced by the Evangelist for this, among other reasons, that he might bring out, by the force of the contrast that is here suggested between the excited violence of a multitude and the calmness of Christ, the vast, nay, infinite, superiority of Jesus to all other men. He was not excited. The beginning of all good to the sinner is when Jesus sees him thus; even as it was His perception of the ruined state of man, at first, that moved Him to become the Redeemer of the race. Now here we have a great general law pervading the Providence of God. It does not explain the origin of evil, but it shows how God brings good out of evil, and therefore helps to reconcile us to its existence. The anointing of the eyes with clay formed in the manner here described, was better calculated to make a seeing man blind, than to make a blind man see. Why, then, was such an application made? Perhaps to help the faith of the man who was to be cured. It gave him something to build upon. It gave him something to build upon. It raised his hope--nay, it led him to expect a cure; and that helps to account for the promptitude of his obedience. Then the command, Go, wash in Siloam, suggests that in spiritual operations God has His work, and we have ours. Now let us observe two things in this brief account of a great miracle. The first is, the promptitude of the mans obedience. He went away, therefore, and washed. Without any delay; without any reluctance; probably, also, without any misgiving--he went and did what he was told. Then observe also the perfection of the cure, He came seeing. Seeing is a thing which, in all ordinary cases, needs to be learned. What Jesus did for him, He did perfectly; and when He opens the souls eyes, they see clearly and correctly wonderful things out of Gods law, I have time now for only two practical lessons and to get them we shall go back to the very beginning of this remarkable chapter.

I. The first is, THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF A CALM AND UNTROUBLED SPIRIT IS ESSENTIAL BOTH TO THE PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE WORKS WHICH OUR FATHER HAS GIVEN US TO DO. Peace of spirit is essential if we would keep ourselves abreast of our opportunities and do each work at its own hour. Let us try to imitate the Saviour here; and to this end let us cultivate entire confidence in God, for trust in Him is peace.

II. The second practical lesson is, THAT THE RAISING OF QUESTIONS IN THE DOMAIN OF MERE SPECULATION INTERFERES WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESSING DUTIES OF PRACTICAL LIFE. Not the speculative, but the practical, demands our care. (W. M. Taylor.)

The Saviour and the sufferer

I. THE SAVIOUR. What He was then in giving sight, He is still in giving salvation. Notice His peculiar traits in this miracle.

1. Compassion. Christ saw the blind man before His disciples saw him, and His look awakened their interest. Everywhere we read of His sympathy with those in trouble. He saw what others would gladly refrain from seeing--the woes of men (Joh_9:1).

2. Omniscience. He saw the past history of this man and His parents; and saw, too, his future history, how boldly, nay, how doggedly he would confess Christ, and how abundantly he would glorify God. He saw in this blind beggar splendid possibilities. So He saw Paul in the persecuting Saul, the reformer in the monk Martin Luther. So He sees what every man may become under Divine grace (Joh_9:2-3).

3. Activity. Seeing these possibilities in this man He set at work to bring them out. His aim was to make out of this beggar a man of God. Toward this all instrumentalities combined--the clay, the pool, the tests to the mans character from neighbours and rulers. Do we realize that Jesus is taking the same pains to bring out of us the best that is in us (verse 4-7)?

4. Kingly authority. He gave His command like a king, Go, wash. There were man-made customs in the way, but He brushed them aside as one who spoke with authority. The hearts of men need just such a Master as this (Joh_9:7).

6. Divine power. Only the Divine physician could give sight to the blind-born. And only the Son of God has the right to claim the faith and worship of men (Joh_9:7; Joh_9:35-38).

II. Turn we now to THE SUFFERER: A most interesting character, as unfolded by the Gospel writer. Note his condition, and his steps from darkness to light.

1. His darkness. He was like the sinner, who cannot see God; whose nature is undeveloped, and who gropes in ignorance. Note texts showing blindness as a type of sin (Joh_11:10; Joh_12:35; Rev_3:17; Isa_60:2; Eph_4:18; 1Co_2:14).

2. His opportunity. One day Jesus of Nazareth passed by, looked upon him, and called to him. This was the opportunity of his life. Such an opportunity comes to every soul when Gods Spirit strives within him, or Gods Church invites him to salvation.

3. His obedience. This was the obedience of faith.

4. His transformation. A wonderful change, from darkness to light, placing the man in new relations with the universe. But it is a greater change when God converts a soul and makes all things new.

5. His testimony. Notice how positive, how repeated, how consistent was this mans testimony to the work wrought in him. He did not falter when his witnessing cost him expulsion from the synagogue. So should everyone tell his experience of salvation. (J. L. Hurlbut.)

The Light of the world

Jesus was passing out to avoid stoning; but without fear or hurry. An object of misery arrests His attention, and in spite of danger He stops.

I. A SAD CASE. The blind man had never seen father, mother, friend, books, landscape. As the miracle was a sign of salvation, blindness is typical of the condition of the sinner.

1. The blind man was reduced to the necessity of guiding himself through the lower sense of touch. He picked his way through the streets with the point of his staff or the instinct of his dog. So the sinner guides himself by merely earthly considerations. He feels his way by the staff of interest, pleasure, opinions of others, etc.

2. The blind man has no idea of distance or of the relation of one object to another. He knows only those things he can feel all over. He may grope round a tree, but he can form no idea of its position in the landscape; he may have some idea of the earth he treads on, but none of its relation to the heavenly bodies. So the sinner has no proper notion of the connection between this life and the next, or of the relation of spiritual things to God. He may be more than usually expert in other departments, even as a blind man may have a more delicate touch; but in this region he is helpless.

3. One point of difference is to be noted. This mans blindness was a misfortune (Joh_9:2-3). He was not to blame for it; but the sinners blindness is culpable. He has kept his eyes shut so long that the capacity for seeing has gone. Satan blinds the sinner, it is true, as the Philistines blinded Samson; but as Samson was to blame for letting himself fall into the enemies hands, so is the sinner.

II. A SINGULAR SAYING (Joh_9:4-5).

1. An essential dignity. These are strange words if Jesus was a mere man. Had He been insane we could have put them aside; but He had a mind of exquisite balance. Had He been a vain man, we might have set them down to vanity, but we know He was humble. Had He been untruthful, we might have pronounced them false; but we know that He was incapable of a lie. Therefore we can explain them in harmony with His general character only when we understand them as used by one who was God.

2. An official subjection. Though God, Jesus as incarnate was in a condition of voluntary humiliation. Yet the must refers not to external compulsion, but to an inner impulse; it was the language of love within.

3. A limited opportunity. His work was to be done in a given time. This would elapse when His hour was come, and He would say, It is finished.

III. A GRACIOUS CURE. Christ had no stereotyped method. He varied the accessories, probably from so, me reference to the character of the individuals (Mat_9:1-38; Mar_8:23). It seems strange that He should seal up the mans eyes into a blinder darkness; but sometimes He acts in this way (e.g., Saul)

when He opens the eyes of the soul. In any case, the whole procedure was a trial of the mans faith, for there was nothing in the means.

IV. A SIMPLE TESTIMONY (Joh_9:11), which was consistently maintained, and was impregnable because experimental. He was not to be argued or bullied out of it. So with the convert. When men ask How? He cannot tell; he only says, I went and heard such a sermon, etc., and I came away and believed, and now I am a new man. There is no evidence like this. Lessons:

1. Let us beware of uncharitable judgments, and guard against supposing that uncommon suffering indicates uncommon sin. Job was not a sinner above others, but God was glorified in him above many.

2. Let us work while the day lasts. Dr. Johnson had the night cometh engraved on the dial of his watch; let us have the truths they teach written on our hearts.

3. Let us have compassion on the blind; and if we cannot open their eyes, let us, at least, seek to mitigate their misery.

4. Let us tell simply and eagerly what Christ has done for us. (Christian Age.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 9:1-3. And as Jesus passed by — The word Jesus is not in the Greek, which is παραγων ειδεν ανθρωπον τυφλον, and passing on; he found a man blind from his birth — This chapter, therefore, seems to be a continuation of the preceding. As Jesus and his disciples (having left the temple, where the Jews were going to stone him) were passing through one of the streets of the city, they found a blind beggar, who, to move the people’s compassion, told them he was born in that miserable condition. The disciples, on hearing this, asked their Master whether it was the man’s own sin, or the sin of his parents, which had occasioned his blindness from the womb. It seems the Jews, having derived from the Egyptians the doctrines of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, supposed that men were punished in this world for the sins they had committed in their pre-existent state. The purport of that doctrine was, that, if a man behaved himself amiss, his soul was afterward sent into another body, where he met with great calamities, and lived in a more miserable condition than before; whereas a more advantageous situation, and happier condition than the former, were supposed to be the rewards of distinguished virtue; a notion which they borrowed from the Pythagoreans, and which seems to be hinted at by Josephus, (Bell., lib. 2. cap. 12,) and is plainly referred to, Wis 8:19-20; compare Mat 14:2; Mat 16:14. “From the account which Josephus gives, however, of this matter, it appears, the Pharisees believed that the souls of good men only went into other bodies; whereas the souls of the wicked, they thought, went immediately into eternal punishment: an opinion somewhat different from that which the disciples expressed on this occasion. For, if they spake accurately, they must have thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had been a sinner, and was now punished for his sins then committed, by having his soul thrust into a blind body. Nevertheless, from what they say, we cannot certainly determine whether they thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had lived on earth as a man, which is the notion Josephus describes, or whether they fancied he had pre-existed in some higher order of being, which was the Platonic notion.” Now the disciples might possibly have been acquainted with these opinions, and might put the question in the text, on purpose to know their Master’s decision on so curious a subject. It seems more probable, however, as Theophylact has observed, after Chrysostom, that, as they were plain, illiterate fishermen, they had not heard of any such notions. Another opinion imbibed by the Jews during their captivity was, that all their sufferings descended upon them from the crimes of their forefathers, and were wholly unmerited on their part. It was this opinion which drew from the pen of Ezekiel that severe remonstrance and animated vindication of the ways of Providence, in his eighteenth chapter. Some remains of this opinion might have possessed the minds of the apostles: and they might have supposed they saw in the man born blind a case which could not be accounted for, but by supposing him to suffer for his parents’ guilt. But our Lord showed them that the case admitted of a very different solution; Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents — So as to bring this suffering upon him; nor was the punishment of either the chief design of this dispensation of Providence; but that the works of God — Namely, his miraculous works; should be made manifest in him — Particularly his sovereignty, in bringing him into the world blind; his power, in conferring the faculty of sight upon him; and his goodness, in bearing witness to the doctrine by which men are to be saved.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. As Jesus passed by—Did this take place as Jesus passed from the excited scene at the close of the last chapter? Or is there an interval of some days, and the opening of a new event? In favour of the former view is the obvious sense of the language implying no break, and the fact that the temple where that scene took place was an ordinary place for the beggar to post himself for alms. On the contrary, however unexcited Jesus may have been, the disciples could scarce at such a moment have been in a mood for proposing a dry speculative question upon the first object they meet. Nor is it natural to understand the Sabbath-day of Joh_9:14 as any other than the weekly Sabbath. We hold, therefore, that John here gives a separate narrative, of a very illustrative kind, of an event which occurred probably the Sabbath after the scene which closes the last chapter.

From his birth— And therefore the cure was beyond human power, and so supernatural and miraculous.

§ 84.—RESTORATION OF THE BLIND-BORN AND FOURTH DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, Joh_9:1—Joh_10:21.

The event here narrated, with its appended discourse, must, in order to be understood in its completeness, be taken into one reading from Joh_9:1 to Joh_10:39. It takes place at the Feast of Tabernacles. Through chapter ix the spiritual lords of Jerusalem show themselves false shepherds, as the blind-born is a true representative sheep; and through Joh_10:1-21 Jesus contrasts the true shepherd with the false. Three months after, at the Feast of Dedication, (Joh_9:22-39,) Jesus takes occasion to resume the same thread of discourse, and the angry Jews, in resentment for his rebukes, drive him from their capital.

The immediate narrative exhibits a thorough hostile sifting of one of our Lord’s miracles by the exciting authorities. First, it was the case of one born blind; a kind of case never curable (Joh_9:32) by natural means. Second, the reality of the blindness was notorious, and yet was thoroughly examined by the authorities. Third, there was no escape from the conclusion of the reality of the miracle. It was attested by the man himself, by his parents, by his neighbours, by Jesus and his disciples. It was finally undenied by the Lord’s enemies. It was moreover attested and recorded by John, our Evangelist, himself an eye and ear witness of the whole transaction.

After the performance of the miracle, Joh_9:1-7, the case is examined by the neighbours, Joh_9:8-12; the man is brought before the authorities and examined a first time, Joh_9:13-17; the parents are brought before them and examined, Joh_9:18-23; the man is recalled and re-examined and cast out, Joh_9:24-34. Jesus finds and receives him, passing condemnation on his rejecters, whom in the next chapter he contrasts with the good Shepherd.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh_9:1. The connection of this narrative with what precedes and what follows is variously stated. Westcott, e.g., supposes that the occurrence took place at the feast of Dedication (Joh_10:22 : “Then was the feast of dedication,” etc.). It is here assumed that it is immediately connected with the previous chapter—that the miracle was wrought in the evening of the festival Sabbath, in the morning of which Jesus declared Himself to be the Light of the world. The blind beggar might be seated not far from one of the temple gates (Act_3:2). Blind from his birth.—“The miracles recorded in John’s Gospel stand out each as a type of its class. Hence stress is laid on this special fact” (Westcott).

Joh_9:3. Our Lord does not mean in the words “Neither hath this man sinned,” etc., that the man and his parents were not sinners (Rom_3:23); but that this special calamity was not the result of special criminality or transgression.

Joh_9:4. I must, etc.—The better reading is ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι, We must work (א, B, D, L), with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, etc.

Joh_9:5. As long as I am in the world, etc., or better When I am, etc. (ὄταν).—This evidently refers back to the preceding discourse (Joh_8:12 ff.). Whilst it is true that Christ is ever the light in the spiritual world: “for the day of Christ’s presence has no evening: His sun never sets” (Augustine in Wordsworth): yet His immediate visible manifestation, the day of His activity in which He gave sight to the blind and relief to the wretched, would soon pass away, φῶς (not τὸ φῶς, the light).—I.e. light manifesting itself in various ways—here healing the blind physically and spiritually.

Joh_9:6. The application of saliva to the eyes (which was considered salutary), and the making of the clay especially, were in Jewish eyes, and according to rabbinical tradition, a serious breach of the Sabbath law.

Joh_9:7. Siloam (הַשִׁלחַ from שָׁלַח, to send forth).—Now Birket Silwân, lying south from the temple area, at the foot of Mount Moriah, at the mouth of the Tyropœon valley (see note, p. 268). “Sent.”—The waters of the pool were intermittent, and were popularly supposed to be specially sent with healing power; and doubtless there is a hidden reference in the name and its interpretation to Jesus—the Sent of God.

Joh_9:8. The neighbours, etc.—Those in whose vicinity the blind man lived. Probably the scene now recorded took place on the day following the miracle. “Who saw him before that he was a beggar” (ὅτι προσαίτης ἧν) is the reading of all the best MSS.

Joh_9:9. Others said, No, he is like him.—No, οὐχί: א, B, C, L, etc. He.—ἐκεῖνος.

Joh_9:11. A man, etc.—Better The man called Jesus. The blind man said nothing regarding our Lord’s claim to be Messiah; but the words imply that Jesus was well known, and most likely the man who had been healed knew Him who had been so much talked about in Jerusalem.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Joh_9:1-12

Jesus, the light of the world, heals the man born blind.—It was at the close of a festival Sabbath day (Joh_9:14, “Now it was Sabbath on the day,” etc.) that Jesus, passing through some place of public resort apparently, “saw a man,” etc. The late afternoon was wearing toward evening, and sitting by the way, conspicuous among the moving crowds, was this blind beggar, known to some extent by the populace (Joh_9:8). Jesus “saw” this poor man, the narrative tells us. And in the case of the Saviour, to see human misery was to be moved to relieve it. We are to think of Him looking compassionately on the blind beggar. Our great High Priest was ever “touched with the feeling of our infirmities.” The difference between divine and human pity is strikingly brought out in the manner in which the disciples regarded this pitiful case. The Lord’s seeing of the blind man led Him to heal; the disciples’ seeing led them to moot a subtle question regarding the origin of such infirmities. Jesus proved that He was the light of the world—

I. In giving sight to the blind.—

1. Jesus had been rejected in the temple, His well-established claim to be the light of the world set aside with scorn, and He Himself assailed violently. But that did not stay His beneficent activity as the world’s light, any more than the clouds can hinder the sun from shining, although they may shut out his beams from the earth, as the Jews shut out the healing rays from their souls. On the high levels of faith His light is undimmed.

2. And here we find the rays of Christ’s love and mercy directed to one sorely in need of them. This man whom Christ restored was one whose case was evidently past all human power. He was known to have been hopelessly blind from his birth; and evidently people were convinced that in some way his affliction was connected, with special sin (Joh_9:2). This was an opinion familiar to the Jewish people. So that not only was the man a special sufferer; but according to this belief his affliction was the result, so to speak, of a divine decree

3. Thus his restoration would manifestly be a work, not only of mercy, but of divine power; and in this case, where the cure was so extraordinary and so manifest, it could not fail to impress all who witnessed it, that here was One more than man, and that this work, performed by Him, was indeed a work of God (Joh_9:4-5), and must have been wrought by One sent from God. Only He who “formed the eye” (Psa_94:9) could thus be able, or could give power, to heal the eyes to which sight had been denied from birth. It is the Creator who forms the seeing eye, who every day is working this miracle million-fold among the tribes of earth and air by slow gradation. He, therefore, who is able thus, as it were, to carry out and perfect the work of the Creator, must have heavenly power.

II. In the evident fulfilment of the ancient prophecies.—Jesus proved Himself to be the promised “Sun of Righteousness,” the light sent to lighten the Gentiles, etc.

1. In all His miracles our Lord had not only the immediate end in view, such as the alleviation of human suffering, etc., but the general and comprehensive end of manifesting forth His glory as the Messiah, and thus the glory of His Father (Joh_2:11; Joh_11:40-42; Joh_12:27-29).

2. This also was to be one of the glories of Messiah’s reign, one of the signs of His working: “The eyes of the blind shall be opened” (Isa_35:5). And at the beginning of His public ministry our Lord proclaimed this as part of His mission (Luk_4:18). When John sent from his prison cell two of his disciples to ask, “Art Thou He that should come?” etc., Jesus in answer pointed to His teaching and works in proof of His mission. And at the head of these He places the fact, “The blind receive their sight” (Mat_11:2-5).

3. This then was an undoubted sign of Messianic times and of the working of Messiah, and prominence is given to it on account of the included spiritual meaning to which the miracle points. Messiah was to give sight to the spiritually blind. Thus was there placed before the people an evident proof of the truth of Christ’s claim (Joh_8:12).

III. The awakening of faith in the heart of the man who was healed.—

1. This, so far as the afflicted man was concerned, was the end for which this miracle was wrought. Not only would Jesus restore him to sight, but rescue him from a deeper spiritual blindness—let a more glorious light shine into his soul than the natural light which he now saw for the first time (2Co_4:6).

2. And it was doubtless as a means of quickening that faith that Jesus in this instance used outward means toward the end in view. This poor man did not see Jesus, and the anointing of his eyes with the clay brought him into contact with the Saviour, showed him the source of the power (as Mar_7:32-37). From ancient histories we learn that saliva jejuna was held in repute as a remedy for blindness, and clay was considered to have sanative properties. May not all these things have been tried in this man’s case and failed? But now they were to become aids to this man’s faith, to show whence was the healing power.

3. Further, he was sent to wash in Siloam as a test of the trustful obedience of faith. Is there not bound up with the mention of this fountain, and the interpretation of its name, a spiritual meaning? Was it not in reference to the pouring out the water of that spring at the feast of tabernacles that Jesus had pointed to Himself as the true Siloam, sent of God to heal men’s diseases, to bring them spiritual life (Joh_7:37-39)?

4. The man went forth trusting in the word of Christ; and he went not in vain. No direct promise had been made; but he believed that He by whom He was sent would not mock him. “He came seeing”—in a double sense; for now he believed that the divine Teacher, of whom so much was spoken, was indeed “the sent of God” (Joh_9:30-33). It was a notable miracle; many were cognisant of it; and it was a convincing answer to the opposition and calumnies of the Jews.

5. All believers spiritually go through the same experience as this blind man. Men by nature are poor, miserable, blind, etc. Of themselves they can do nothing to alleviate their wretchedness. “Grace, grace alone, availeth.” The “Sent of God” alone can bring them from darkness to light. But the means He prescribes must be used: they may seem humble enough; but they lead, if used in faith, to the same blessed result, e.g. “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching,” etc. (1Co_1:21). Have we listened to Christ’s gracious command, obeyed it, and have we spiritually received sight? If not, then hear His invitation (Rev_3:18).

Joh_9:2-3. The problem of human suffering.—No thinking man can look abroad unmoved on the spectacle of human pain, and the question that is so fully investigated in the Book of Job must come up for answer. Especially perplexing is the apparently indiscriminate apportionment of suffering and calamity. The good have to bear them as well as the wicked. Often, indeed, the wicked flourish, whilst on the good adversity descends. How can this occur under the government of a just and merciful God? Many, trusting to reason alone for a solution of the problem, have reached either pantheistic ideas regarding evil, considering it only the condition of a higher good, or have embraced materialistic conceptions of the universe, regarding it as the result of the working of laws formed and directed by no intelligent lawgiver.

I. Our Lord did not deny the general connection between sin and suffering.—

1. It is true that in the widest sense suffering is the result of sin. The subtle poison, the dreadful moral disorder, has become widespread and universal in the world. And further, therefore, when suffering overtakes us, it is because we are parts of the great sinful whole.

2. But it must be remembered that suffering often is directly and unmistakably connected with particular sins. This awful conclusion we cannot escape. The transgression of God’s natural laws brings speedy punishment on the transgressor. So too does the transgression of His moral laws, especially where the breaking of them is effected through physical channels.

3. Then there is the vast amount of suffering brought on those who are innocent, through the crimes, sins, and follies of others. Much of the misery in our great cities especially is caused in this way. The children of the intemperate man, e.g., ragged, half starved, pinched, and wretched, bear in this way the iniquity of their father. It is a sad and even overwhelming picture, an awful commentary on the apostolic word, “The wages of sin,” etc.

II. But whilst this is so, our Lord shows us that it is not our part to endeavour to establish the connection between special suffering and special sin.—

1. For in reality we have no infallible means of judging. It is enough if we judge ourselves, and we cannot always do even that perfectly—much less can we investigate fully and pronounce sentence upon the lives of our fellows.

2. Then there are undoubtedly two classes of sufferings, i.e. those which are the direct and immediate result of special sins, and those tribulations which God permits to come even upon His own people for His own wise purposes and their good.

3. There are many who forget this fact, and neglect the warning of our Lord not to judge others (Mat_7:1). When they hear of calamity overtaking others, they are too ready often to consider it as a divine judgment sent on account of special sin. If some who thus judge would only remember how great would be their own danger in that case! Our Lord rebuked this spirit when some came to tell Him of the eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell (Luk_8:1-5).

4. Under this condemnation, therefore, would come those who would charge the sufferers from wars, pestilences, conflagrations, storms and floods, etc., as sinners above all others; or think that those into whose family circle come misfortunes of various kinds must always be guilty of secret transgressions. Carefulness and charity in judging others should ever be exercised. And whilst it must be recognised that much of the terrible suffering in the world is the direct consequence of gross sinfulness, yet it is also clear that much of the world’s suffering is often remedial, or is intended as a trial of the faith and patience of the saints.

III. There is a divine purpose of love in much of human suffering.—

1. It was so, Jesus told His disciples, in the case of this man. His “light affliction” was to be a means of manifesting God’s works. A sifting inquiry followed this miracle. The enemies of our Lord tried their utmost to overturn the clear testimony to the fact. But their efforts resulted only in their own confusion. The clear proof of the miracle resulted in showing forth the glory of Christ as the light of the world, and gave the lie to their calumnies.

2. The miracle also testified to Christ’s power as the spiritual physician. He not only healed the physical vision of this man, but the spiritual. May not this blindness have been in the plan of God for this man’s salvation? Might it not have been a means of keeping him from some way of sin into which he might otherwise have gone? Various conjectures might be made as to the divine purposes fulfilled in this man’s affliction. But in regard to the chief purpose of it, it is safe to say that God will never permit any one to endure in vain in His service.

3. The divine purpose in and use of tribulation are recognised by all believing men (Psa_119:71).

“Sweet are the uses of adversity.”—Shakespeare.

And when affliction comes on Christian men because of their sins directly, it is intended for their profit. Just as pain is a warning to keep from danger, so affliction is often an admonition to beware of sin.

4. And suffering that is not directly but indirectly caused by the sin of others shall become a means for showing forth the works of God. “The poor ye have always with you,” said Jesus to His disciples, thus confiding the wretched to their sympathetic care. And where do care and love show so like God’s as in the care and love of a true mother for the weak and feeble member of her flock? And where is more of the Christ-spirit shown than in the means used by His people for the alleviation of sorrow and suffering? And where are greater triumphs seen of the grace of Christ overcoming than in the case of many on whom sore affliction has been laid, and to whom it has become even here a crown of glory?

5. Add to all this that whilst suffering is the general result of moral evil, it forms in a measure a check to the supremacy of the latter. To what awful lengths might not moral evil go, further than what we see even, did not this salutary check bar its progress! In every way there is a divine purpose of good to man in affliction. If men could not believe this they might well despair.

In view of this Christian men, whilst ready

(1) to judge themselves, and to inquire earnestly when affliction comes for what purpose it has been sent, what sin has been gaining dominion over them, are at the same time

(2) to be slow in judging others. God gives us no right to judge what He alone can know perfectly. But

(3) in imitation of our Master we have a divine mission to fulfil toward those who are afflicted—a mission of mercy and love in His name and spirit to

“Raise the fallen, cheer the faint,

Heal the sick, and lead the blind.”

Joh_9:2-3. Healing the blind.—This is a signal miracle. The healing of the man born blind was what could not be effected naturally. The circumstances of this blindness were the occasion of these words in Joh_9:2-3. We have first:

1. A question of Christ’s disciples. The design and proposal of this question might be twofold:

(1) that it was simply and positively their opinion that all maladies of the body come from the antecedent demerit of sin, according to which all men’s sufferings are the effects of their personal sins, either as sin past and committed, or future and foreknown to God; or

(2) that the opinion was proposed for argument’s sake, occasioned by a former passage in Joh_5:2. Christ’s rejoinder. The words do not contradict Scripture. They mean that sin was not the cause of his blindness. Having removed the false cause, He subjoins the true: “That the works of God,” etc. These words not only exhibit the erroneous curiosity of the disciples, but show the charity of Christ in clearing the man’s innocence and vindicating God’s proceedings. The design of the words in this view is prosecuted in three propositions:—

I. Men are prone to charge God’s judgments upon false causes.—

1. These false causes are:

(1) sin on his part that suffers;

(2) hatred on God’s part.

2. The principles inducing men thus to charge God’s judgments upon false causes:

(1) the fallibility of the rule, and the falseness of the opinion by which they judge;

(2) their inability in discerning, joined with their confidence in pronouncing;

(3) the inbred malice of our nature.

II. Not always the sin or merit of the person afflicted, but the will of God that afflicts, is sometimes the sole, but always the sufficient, reason of the affliction.—This is apparent from several scriptures. To produce one. See the whole series of Job’s sufferings resolved into this by God Himself. The necessary distinction between punishments and afflictions must be observed. The divine proceeding is cleared from injustice on three reasons:

1. His absolute, unaccountable dominion, etc., over the creature;

2. The essential equity of the divine nature;

3. The unerring, all-disposing wisdom of God.

III. Though God’s will and power be a sufficient reason of any evil inflicted upon men, yet He never inflicts it but for the great end of advancing His glory, and that usually in the way of their good.—This glorious design of bringing these calamities on men is expressed in these words, “That the works of God,” etc. And the works that God intends thus to glorify are usually these:

1. The miraculous works of His power;

2. The works of His grace.

Let us apply this resolve of Christ, in the words of the text, to all the rugged instances of Providence.—“The peremptory way in which men often judge is highly odious to God, more especially on account of the cause of it—curiosity. This is but one remove from rebellion, as breaking through all the bounds God has set about the secrets of His counsel.”—South.

Joh_9:4. The works of God.—Genuine spiritual religion does not end in acts of worship. It will spur men to effort for the good of others, to do the works of God. Such was Christ’s life here. He not only prayed, engaged in acts of devotion; He preached the gospel to the poor, fed the hungry, healed the sick, relieved the wretched, and went about continually doing good.

I. The works of God should embrace all life’s activity.—

1. If men desire special work after the example of Jesus, it is easy to find it. The Judge of all will not reward those who merely say, “Lord, Lord!” etc. Those who feed the hungry, etc. (Mat_25:40), shall inherit the kingdom.

2. But work for God cannot be confined within special limits. All labour should be made religious, the whole life should be consecrated (1Co_10:31). This is the end of redemption. Men are made “new creations,” and fitted for the divine service. There is no true distinction—should be none—between what are termed the sacred and secular spheres. “Ye shall be to Me a kingdom of priests” (Exo_19:6). Christ shall make His people kings and priests unto God, etc. (Rev_5:10), and they shall in the heavenly, perfect state “serve Him day and night in His temple.”

3. Those who become citizens in His kingdom consecrate the whole life to Him. What cannot be consecrated were best left undone. Religion was intended to raise our ordinary life higher. Christ’s gospel is not a system that requires men to remove from the society of their fellows to some calmer region, where there are no rude interruptions to the life of devotion. It is a religion for men and women who are striving onward and upward.

4. The gospel sets the seal of its approval on every honest occupation (1Co_7:20-21). In doing the common duties of life, “not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of God,” we are doing His work.

5. In this, too, Jesus is our great example. When at the close of His ministry He said, “I have glorified,” etc. (Joh_17:4), did He not include those preparation years spent in labour and silence at Nazareth? Thus to men in every rank and station He fitly says, “We must work the works,” etc. It is forgetfulness of this truth that tends to stunt the Christian growth of too many. Their practical life-work is not done with a single eye to God’s glory, and becomes a clog on their spiritual progress.

II. Spheres of service.—

1. The general principles laid down should be a guide in every sphere of service. There is one work, however, that must go before all others, if these are to be done for God. It is the work of believing: it is the spring of all genuine work for God (Joh_6:29).

2. Then our common daily work will be consecrated. St. John mending his fishing-nets, St. Paul labouring at tent-making, were serving God, even as when preaching the gospel. The true Christian workman will prosecute his handiwork “as ever in the great Taskmaster’s eye” (Milton). And if all hand labour were done thus, how much better would it often be done!

3. Then there is the work of providing for those depending on them by God’s people. It is a part of Christian duty especially commanded (1Ti_5:8).

4. Young people have a most important work given them to do—the work of training and preparing themselves for life’s duties. Diligence in study, care of health, strengthening of the moral nature, are all incumbent to fit them for the higher duties that will by-and-by engross them.

5. Then there is the work of training the young. Evil increases apace in the heart; good grows slowly. Teachers, parents, have thus a pressing, important work to do. This is truly a divine work, the work of Him who sent Jesus, His only Son, to save men. Soon those children will take their place in life, to work good or evil in their day, pretty much in accordance with the training and example they have received. It is a noble yet serious work to train the young for duty here and their eternal destiny; and in this training, first and all through, believing should be kept in the foreground. Need here for faith and prayer!

6. Thus all through life devotion and action will be blended. They are the warp and woof of every true spiritual life. And thus, if lived in the spirit of devotion,—every talent used, every opportunity seized, every duty entered upon not from selfish motives, but from a desire to do God’s will and finish His work—then the whole life will be an acceptable service.

III. Limits of service.—

1. Our own imperfection and sinfulness, the sin and opposition of the world, may circumscribe and mar our service; but those barriers we must overcome.

2. But there are limits of time. It was so with Christ in His earthly ministry. How promptly and eagerly therefore did He make use of every opportunity!

3. So we have but a day given to us in which to do our work, nor can the length of that day be determined. For some it merely dawns. With others it is eclipsed at noonday. For all it comes to an end. It is inevitable, this onward march of life. The diurnal sweep of the heavens, the seasons in their changeful round, every heart-beat—all proclaim

“The day of life fleets fast away,

And none its rapid course can stay.”

Eventide, with its closing shadows, is swiftly approaching, when our work must be laid aside, and we wait in silence until it is judged on that great day.

Joh_9:4. “The night cometh, when no man can work.”—The sense of the text lies in these three positions:—

I. There is a work appointed to every man to be performed by him while he lives in the world.—Man as he is—

1. A part or member of the body politic—hath a temporal work, whereby he is to approve himself a good citizen in filling the place of a divine, a lawyer, etc.

2. As a member and subject of a higher and spiritual kingdom, he has also a spiritual calling or profession as a Christian, and the work that this calls him to is threefold:

(1) to make his peace with God;

(2) to mortify the flesh and sin;

(3) to have his heart purified through the operation of the Holy Spirit implanting within it the graces and virtues of the Christian life.

II. The time of this life being once expired, there remains no further opportunity or possibility of performing this work.—The word “day,” as the expression of the time of human existence, here may denote three things:

1. The shortness of it.

2. But also the sufficiency of our time: short as it is, yet it equals the business of the day.

3. Then by a day is denoted to us the determinate stint and limitation of our time.

III. The consideration of this ought to be the highest and most pressing argument to every man to use his utmost diligence in the discharge of this work.—

1. Because of the difficulty of the performance of that work; and

2. Because of its necessity: especially is this so with regard to a man’s salvation.—Abridged from South.

HOMILETIC NOTES

Joh_9:2-3. Sin and suffering.—

1. The Master looked on the blind beggar with an eye of pitying love, and the resolve to work a gracious work in him. The disciples seemed to regard him simply as an interesting problem or case.

2. Among the Jews suffering and calamity were regarded as consequences of sin; and in a sense all suffering results from sin, regarded either as failure or transgression. The whole creation participates in this result (Rom_8:22). Our Lord did not deny this connection between sin and suffering (Joh_5:14). The Decalogue contains this idea in a striking form (Exo_20:5-6; Num_14:18, etc.). Modern science reaffirms the truth in its doctrine of heredity; the slums of our great cities give a terrible affirmation of it. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, i.e. the suffering at least descends. Revelation brings in the element of hope, however. It is only to the third and fourth generation of those who hate God that this doom applies. To those who love Him He shows mercy; and even where suffering does follow sin in this case, it is made to serve merciful ends.

3. But though this is true, none of human kind can truly and infallibly pronounce judgment in individual cases. Men suffer individually as a part of the whole of humanity. But they cannot always say this particular calamity is the result of that particular sin. It may have been—in some glaring cases it cannot be denied, e.g. the physical results following drunkenness, etc.; but, generally speaking, where the connection cannot be directly traced, we have no right to suppose that such a special connection exists. The Book of Job was written to teach this among other truths.

4. The disciples seem to have entertained the Jewish ideas on this subject—hence their question. In regard to the first part of their question, some suppose there is a reference to the idea of the transmigration of souls. But that doctrine does not seem to have been held by the Jews generally. A few of such sects as the Essenes may have held ideas approximating to it, or some may have expressed the truth of the soul’s pre-existence in terms which seemed to imply this doctrine. (But see Wordsworth’s Ode to the Intimations of Immortality, and Henry Vaughan’s The Retreat, for an expression of ideas not far removed from metempsychosis.) Others think the disciples were alluding to a rabbinical fancy that a child might sin before birth (Gen_25:22; Psa_51:5; Luk_1:41); others, again, that this man had been punished by anticipation for some crime he was to commit during his lifetime (Tholuck, etc.). But such attempts to account for the disciples’ question are somewhat far-fetched. For though the disciples did hold the almost universal ideas as to the nature of Messiah’s kingdom, etc., it does not appear that they were much conversant with or affected by the subtleties of rabbinic lore. There is much to be said for Chrysostom’s idea that the disciples wished to show that both suppositions were baseless—in short, that they were combating the popular view. “The man could not have brought it on himself; and the prophet (Eze_17:2 seq.) warns not to impute such calamities to the sins of others.” But this explanation seems hardly to agree with our Lord’s answer to the disciples. It seems a direct answer to a direct inquiry. Two other explanations of the first part of the disciples’ question seem to afford the simplest and best solution of the difficulty, according to Trench:

(1) “The man could not have brought the affliction on himself, for he was born blind. How and why then was it laid upon him? Or

(2) they failed to perceive at the moment when they asked their question the self-contradiction involved in the first alternative.”

Joh_9:7. The pool of Siloam.—In the summer of 1880, one of the native pupils of Mr. Schick, a German architect long settled in Jerusalem, was playing with some other lads in the so-called pool of Siloam; and while wading up a channel cut in the rock, which leads into the pool, slipped and fell into the water. On rising to the surface, he noticed what looked like letters on the rock.… He told Mr. Schick of what he had seen, and the latter, on visiting the spot, found an ancient inscription, concealed for the most part by the water. The pool is of comparatively modern construction, but it encloses the remains of a much older reservoir, which, like the modern one, was supplied with water through a tunnel excavated in the rock. This tunnel communicates with the so-called spring of the Virgin, the only natural spring of water in or near Jerusalem. It rises below the walls of the city, on the western bank of the valley of the Kidron, and the tunnel through which its waters are conveyed is consequently cut through the ridge that forms the southern part of the Temple hill. The pool of Siloam lies on the opposite side of this ridge, at the mouth of the valley called that of the Cheesemakers (Tyropœon) in the time of Josephus, but which is now filled up with rubbish and in large part built over. According to Lieutenant Condor’s measurements, the length of the tunnel is 1,708 yards; it does not, however, run in a straight line, and toward the centre there are two culs-de-sac, of which the inscription now offers an explanation. At the entrance, on the western, or Siloam side, its height is about sixteen feet; but the roof grows gradually lower, until in one place it is not quite two feet above the floor of the passage.—Sayce, “Fresh Light,” etc.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Joh_9:2. Causes of affliction—Affliction may come upon a man either in his own person or in that of some one of his family; but it may not in the remotest degree have been brought on him by any sin at which God would thus mark His displeasure, or for which He would thus exact punishment. And we hardly know a more interesting or consoling truth than this, if you come to consider how it may be made to work among those who are “distressed in mind, body, or estate.” For there is nothing more common with a Christian, when God visits him with a bereavement or trial, than that he anxiously inquires what particular sin he has committed, for which the bereavement or trial is to be taken as the chastisement. And the inquiry is a wholesome one: it is but that which Job so pathetically urges, “I will speak in the bitterness of my soul; I will say unto God, Do not condemn me; show me wherefore Thou contendest with me.” It becomes the Christian, when he is in trouble, to “search and try his ways,” that he may see whether some particular fault be not pointed out by the particular affliction. This is what so often aggravates affliction, and gives it a character which renders it intensely more difficult to endure. Visit a Christian mother, who has been suddenly deprived of a much-loved child, and very probably she is exclaiming in the bitterness of her anguish, “Alas! I must have made an idol of that child: God would never have thus removed the child except to punish my idolatry; and thus, miserable that I am, the child has died for its mother’s sin.” And undoubtedly it is but too possible that the mother may be right; she may have made an idol of her child; and God, who is “a jealous God,” has often to take rough ways of loosening our affections when we suffer them to grow entangled with the creature. But may not the child have died, and yet not have been made an idol? Yes, indeed: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.” It does not at all follow, from the sudden removal of the child, that it has been made the object of an undue, inordinate affection. There may have been other and wholly different ends proposed by the bereavement than the correction of an idolatrous regard. If there have been this idolatrous regard, undoubtedly its correction is one of the proposed ends; and the sorrowing parent does right in considering whether or not she have deserved such correction. But what we insist upon is, that the bereavement is not necessarily any proof of the idolatry; whereas the heart-broken mother is almost sure to conclude that it is, and thus to write bitter things against herself, adding a new pang to affliction, a sharper and severer than the mere loss could cause.—Henry Melvill.

Joh_9:3. The divine end of affliction.—We cannot but dwell with the greatest interest on these words: “that the works of God might,” etc. They seem like a shield of protection thrown gracefully by our blessed Redeemer round the most helpless of our race. They give a kind of dignity to deformity, not only securing it from contempt, but requiring for it respect; denouncing not merely those who could treat it with ridicule or neglect, but those also who fail to discern in it a means for advancing God’s vast, if inscrutable, purposes. I would have the words graven as a motto over every asylum for the blind, the deaf, the crippled, the dumb. They would teach the supporters of such noble institutions that they were doing something more than mitigating a certain species of human misery: that they had under their care one of those mighty hosts by which God wages war with principalities and powers. Oh, who can fail to look hereafter with something more than pity on the deformed, on those wanting in the common organs or faculties; to look on them with a measure of the very feelings excited by the spectacle of instruments employed to the highest ends; if he remember that of every blind, and of every dumb, and of every maimed person there may be good ground for saying, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him”?—Idem.

Joh_9:2-3. The meaning and purpose of pain and sorrow for God’s people.—“It pleased the Lord to bruise Him!” Strange pleasure this, surely, to dwell in the heart of the All-beneficent. Is it not the nature of the heavenly Father to give joy? Does He not delight rather in the laughter than in the tears of men? Why, then, should He find pleasure in the bruises of that heart in which there was no violence and no guile? Nay, but look deeper. The prophet tells us that the bruises of the Servant of God were the source of His prosperity: “When Thou shalt make His soul an offering, He shall prolong His days.” Wherever the soul is offered, wherever the will is given, there is a fresh access of life. Did not He find it so in the garden of Gethsemane? When did the angels come to Him with that strength which prolonged His days? Was it not when He took the Father’s cup in His band and said, “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt”? No wonder that the Father was pleased to bruise Him; the bruising of His soul was the surrender of His will, and the surrender of His will was resurrection begun. The pressure of the flower brought out its perfume; the breaking of the alabaster box diffused its fragrance till it filled all the house. It recompensed the Father for the unloveliness of the past; it made atonement for the sins of the world. Art thou chafing under the hand of thy God? Art thou murmuring that He should seem to look on complacently while thy desire is being thwarted, while thy will is being denied? What if He is complacent? What if He is pleased to bruise thee? Thinkest thou that there cannot be a divine benevolence which rejoices in thy moment of pain? Knowest thou not that there is a pain which gives cause for rejoicing? There is a pain which is the proof of convalescence, the sign that death is not yet. There is a pain which tells that the wound has not mortified, that there is life left in the mutilated member. There is a pain which is symptomatic of purity, which cannot be felt by the impure. No conscience can feel the wound of sin but the tender conscience; no spirit can perceive its own unrest but the regenerated spirit. Ought not the sight of such pain to be dear to thy Father’s heart? Must not thy Father strive to produce such pain? What pleasure to Him can be the vision of thy perfect satisfaction with the earth? what is that but the vision that thou wert not made for Him? But if He shall see thee unsatisfied with the earth, then indeed it is meet that He should be glad, for by the very want which earth cannot fill He knows assuredly that thou art made for Himself alone. It is pleasing to thy Father’s heart to see the travail of thy soul.—Dr. Geo. Matheson.

Joh_9:4. True labourers.—Two men I honour, and no third. First, the toil-worn craftsman, that with earth-made implement laboriously conquers the earth, and makes her man’s. Venerable to me is the hard hand,—crooked, coarse—wherein, notwithstanding, lies a cunning virtue, indefeasibly royal, as of the sceptre of this planet. Venerable, too, is the rugged face, all weather-tanned, besoiled, with its rude intelligence; for it is the face of a man living manlike. Oh! but the more venerable for thy rudeness, and even because we must pity as well as love thee! Hardly entreated brother! For us was thy back so bent; for us were thy straight limbs and fingers so deformed: thou wert our conscript, on whom the lot fell, and, fighting our battles, wert so marred. For in thee, too, lay a God-created form, but it was not to be unfolded; encrusted must it stand with the thick adhesions and defacements of labour, and thy body was not to know freedom. Yet toil on, toil on; thou art in thy duty, be out of it who may; thou toilest for the altogether indispensable—for daily bread. A second man I honour, and still more highly: him who is seen toiling for the spiritually indispensable, not daily bread, but the bread of life. Is not he, too, in his duty, endeavouring toward inward harmony, revealing this, by act or by word, through all his outward endeavours, be they high or low;—highest of all, when his outward and his inward endeavour are one,—when we can name him artist; not earthly craftsman only, but inspired thinker, who, with heaven-made implements, conquers heaven for us! If the poor and humble toil that we have food, must not the high and glorious toil for him in return, that he have light, have guidance, freedom, immortality? These two, in all their degrees, I honour; all else is chaff and dust, which let the wind blow whither it listeth. Unspeakably touching is it, however, when I find both dignities united; and he that must toil outwardly for the lowest of man’s wants, is also toiling inwardly for the highest. Sublimer in this world know I nothing than a peasant saint, could such now anywhere be met with. Such a one will take thee back to Nazareth itself: thou wilt see the splendour of heaven spring forth from the humblest depths of earth, like a light shining in great darkness.—Carlyle.

Joh_9:4. The sacredness of true work.—All true work is sacred; in all true work, where it but true hand-labour, there is something of divineness. Labour, wide as the earth, has its summit in heaven. Sweat of the brow; and up from that to sweat of the heart; which includes all Kepler calculations, Newton meditations, all sciences, all spoken epics, all acted heroisms, martyrdoms,—up to that “Agony of bloody sweat” which all men have called divine!… Who art thou that complainest of thy life of toil? Complain not. Look up, my wearied brother; see thy fellow-workmen there, in God’s eternity; surviving there, they alone surviving: sacred band of the immortals, celestial body-guard of the empire of mankind.—Idem.

Go! let your deeds His praises prove;

To all make manifest His love;

Like brethren live and journey on.…

Make known His promise to the earth,

Bliss unto all of mortal birth;

To you the Master shall be nigh;

For you He has been raised on high.

Joh_9:4. Man’s highest happiness in the completion of the work given him to do.—The only happiness a brave man ever troubled himself with asking much about was happiness enough to get his work done. Not “I can’t eat!” but “I can’t work!”—that was the burden of all wise complaining among men. It is, after all, the one unhappiness of a man—that he cannot work; that he cannot get his destiny as a man fulfilled. Behold, the day is passing swiftly over, our life is passing swiftly away, and the night cometh, wherein no man can work. The night once come, our happiness, our unhappiness,—it is all abolished, vanished, clean gone; a thing that has been: “not of the slightest consequence” whether we were happy as Eupeptic Curtis, as the fattest pig of Epicurus, or unhappy as Job with potsherds, as musical Byron with Giaours and sensibilities of the heart; as the unmusical meatjack with hard labour and rust! But our work!—behold, that is not abolished, that has not vanished: our work, behold, it remains, or the want of it remains—for endless times and eternities, remains; and that is now the sole question with us for evermore! Brief brawling Day, with its noisy phantasms, its poor paper crowns tinsel-gilt, is gone, and divine everlasting Night, with her star-diadems, with her silences and her veracities, is come!—Idem.

Joh_9:5. The word of Christ the true guide of men.—The world truly, which knows and criticises everything, God not excepted, demands first the test of sight ere it will submit to the word of the Lord. But the result is in accordance with this spirit. The world lies, and abides in wickedness (1Jn_5:19) until the end of this dispensation. But we shall call in our own experience to counsel us. Oh, how often have we been sensible of the fact that our reputed seeing has been simple deception and illusion, when we have undertaken anything, and sought to carry it through apart from God! How often do people determine on a course which they gain nothing by! How often are we careful in vain and for nothing! How often do we hope vainly because we have not been careful and hoped in accordance with the divine word! What are even the greatest spirits, the wisest of men, otherwise but little children who know not how to help themselves? They are “blind leaders of the blind” who point each other to the way where God’s word is not. Without this word of the living God all the most ingenious and splendid lights which are kindled in the world avail nothing. With the word of Jesus men can implicitly find their way. His word clears the eyes. It is certain, beloved, that when a soul does what the Gospel commands, turns neither to the right hand nor to the left, considers neither what this man or that says, even though it should have to press through nothing but difficulty and perpetual mockery—so truly as there lives a God in heaven, who has given His only begotten Son for us all, that soul will attain to the end it has in view; for God is true, and what He has promised that He will surely perform.—Translated from Lecher, “Predigt.”

Joh_9:7. Spiritual blindness and its cure.—This man did not act as at first Naaman the Syrian did when he came to Elisha at Samaria. Had the blind man thought that this going to wash in Siloam was a very small matter—had he thought, What can this pool in especial do for me?—or had he thought it too much and had said, Why send me such a distance, I, a blind man? how shall I get through the crowds? why should I make myself a laughing-stock with these clay-bedaubed eyes?—then he would not have come seeing. But he went as Jesus commanded. His faith resulted in obedience, and stood its first test.… Thus, too, obedience is a part of every Christian life. Faith and self-will agree like chaff and wheat. The evangelist himself found the fact worthy of note that Jesus had sent the man to the pool of Siloam, and calls attention to this—that the word Siloam is by interpretation Sent; for people do not send a blind man about. This was truly a blind obedience. And the Christian must blindly obey God’s word, as a child well trained obeys his father.… Blindly, as Noah entered the ark, and Abraham left fatherland and kindred. How can it be otherwise? We are blind by nature.—Idem.

“All our knowledge and our thought

Are with darkness veilèd round,

Where God’s Spirit hath not brought

Light within us to abound.”

Translated from Clausnitzer.

How shall one who is blind see if he will not implicitly obey his Physician and Saviour? if he first seeks to examine the instruments by which he will be operated upon? would seek to test the salve which he must rub in? when he desires to study the prescription which has been written for him?—Idem.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

V

Christ The Light Of The World Over Against The Blind. The Healing On The Sabbath Of The Man Who Was Born Blind, With The Symbolical Co-Operation Of The Temple-Spring Of Siloam. The Day Of Christ, And Christ The Light Of That Day. The Light Of The Blind A Judgment Of Blindness On Those Who Imagine They See. Symbolism Of Light, Of Day, Of Day‘S Works. (All Light Of The Sun Should Be Used, After The Example And Spirit Of Christ, To Produce Light; Hence Too All Efforts Of Culture A Symbolical Creation Of Light, Pointing To Him Who Creates Light In The Real Sense Of The Term.) The Excommunication, Of The Germinant Separation

John 9

1And as Jesus [he] passed [was passing] by, he saw a man which was [omit which was] blind from his birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master [Rabbi], who did sin [who sinned], this man, or his parents, that he was born [should be born] blind?

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]1 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.2 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]3 said, Is not this he that sat and begged [sitteth and beggeth]? 9Some said, This is he: others said, [said, Nay, but,]4 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]5 Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight [I went therefore (οὖν) and washed and received sight]. 12Then said they [They said] unto him, 13Where is he [that man, ἐκεῖνος]? He said [saith, λέγει], 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]6 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]7 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]8 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 answered9 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],10 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]. Then11 said they to him again12 [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,13 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, ὅλος] 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]?14 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]15 your sin remaineth.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[The account of the blind man and the miracle wrought on him, with its consequences, is uncommonly life-like, full of circumstantiality and characteristic details which could not have been invented, and clearly show that the writer was an eye-witness of the scene. All attempts of modern skeptics to turn the miracle into a medical cure of inflammation of the eyes (Ammon), or to explain it from a misunderstanding of Joh_9:39 (Weisse), or from a mythical imitation of the healing of Naaman, 2Ki_5:10 (Strauss), or from dogmatic design (Baur), are baseless and exploded conjectures. Comp. Meyer, p. 391, 5th ed.—P. S.]

Joh_9:1. And in passing by (καὶπαράγων). This history is evidently connected [by καί] in respect to time and place with the preceding chapter [with ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἷεροῦ, 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 παράγων (comp. Mar_2:14), not to the beggar, but to Jesus Himself. It is obviously the participle of the preceding, even though doubtful παρῆγεν οὕτως. 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, ἐκγενετῆ ς=ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός, 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 πηλός, 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;17 the question is merely as to the dilemma: this man or his parents?18 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.19 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 (ἀλλ’ ἵνα); namely, to this end was he born blind [τυφλὸςἐγεννήθη]. 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 εἷδεν.

[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 αἰὼν οὖτος and μέλλων 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:20 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;21 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 ὅταν 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 ὅταν, 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.).22On 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: πηλὸς φαεσφόρος; 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: νιψαι εἰς 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.23

Which is, when translated, One Sent.—The designation שִׁילוֹחַ (Greek in the Sept. and in Josephus Σιλωάμ) 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 שָׁלוּחַ sent, [missus], or the sent. According to Hitzig the form is derived from שָׁלוּחַ as ילּוֹד from יָלוּד and John has correctly translated: ἀπεσταλμένος (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.24 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.—Ἀναβλέπειν 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.25 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 [σύ is emphatic] of him, because, etc.—John introduces this statement with the characteristic οὖν 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 οὖν 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 ἕως ὅτου. 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 αὐτός [αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς—αὐτόν—αὐτός] 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 ἵνα 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 άποσυνάγωγος 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, 1841.26According to this the Mischna does not recognize several grades of excommunication;27 it knows of but one. the נִדּוּי, 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 ἀποσυνάγωγος 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 ‎‎קָהָל‎ 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 ἀνάθεμα (Rom_9:3) or ἀνάθεμα, μαρὰν ἀθά (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.28

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 καί) 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 ἐν τούτῳ: in this matter, herein, but: in respect to this one, namely Jesus, previously the subject; and we render the γάρ 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 ὅλος (not simply ὅλως) 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 נִדַּח ,נָדָח=ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω, 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., (ἵνα).—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 καί (see Joh_14:22; Mar_10:26). Thou hast seen Him. Tholuck construes the word ὁρᾷν 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 καί—καί 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 προσκυνεῖν 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 εἶναι μετ’ αὐτοῦ 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, οἱ μὴ βλέποντες 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 συνετοί not merely inasmuch as they thus look upon themselves, but as men who really were so in comparison with the ὅχλος ἀγράμματος. So too in the practical field, where the δίκαιοι are confronted with the ἁμαρτωλοί the δίκαιοι are in very truth relatively righteous and the ἁμαρτωλοί 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 δικαιοσύνη and σύνεσις. The recollection of this parallel has induced many commentators to see in the words εἶ τυφλοὶ ἦτε 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-gloriousness that turns the Old Testament dawn into a dazzling brightness, legal righteousness into self-righteousness (=impenitence), and represses the consciousness within them that in the presence of the broad day they are still blind, i.e. in need of New Testament illumination.

Between Chrysostom and Augustine there is then no real antithesis. If a man is to acknowledge himself to be blind (Augustine), there must needs be a relative gleam of light (Chrysostom); if he prematurely deem that he possesses sight, he abuses this very glimmering of light with evil consciousness, making himself then totally blind. But forasmuch as the emphasis lies upon this evil consciousness, both interpretations are onesided. If ye knew not that ye falsify yourselves, ye would through sincerity arrive at self-knowledge, and your sin (with the guilt the sin also) would be taken from you. But as, on the contrary, ye pretend against your better consciousness that ye see and that ye have always possessed sight, ye, with your need of light as with the light that has arisen upon you, fall into blindness and your sin remaineth (because the guilt remains). Thus in the saying, there is a dissembling, whereby they contradict their own deepest consciousness. Self-blinding results in self-hardening on the part of the intellect. Hence: if ye did not in reality know better how it is with you, etc.; but now ye haughtily dissemble, etc. This undoubtedly: your eyes are in some faint degree illuminated, but just sufficiently to render you entirely blind.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. “That of which Dr. Paulus regretted the absence in the tales of the miracles, a thorough investigation, is in this instance present in the form of a judicial examination on the part of the most embittered antagonists.” Tholuck.

2. The fact that in all cases evil is in a general sense connected with sin, had at an early period been individualized by natural Phariseeism; this is to be found among Gentiles as well as among Jews. Gentiles and Jews agreed in the disposition to see in the misfortune of an individual the punishment of his sin, in the wretch a man hateful to God (comp. Act_28:4), or at least to regard his affliction as a curse entailed upon him by the sin of his parents. It is indeed in many instances impossible to mistake the immediate connection between sin and punishment in the life of an individual; neither can we shut our eyes to the fact that parents are frequently to blame for the misery of their offspring. That Jesus did not unconditionally reject this reference, the following passages demonstrate: Mat_9:2; Joh_5:14; Luk_23:28. Nevertheless He does here reject the Pharisaical rule that in all cases extraordinary sufferings may be immediately traced to extraordinary sins,—a rule already contradicted by the book of Job. Luk_13:1, He likewise repudiates the judicial condemnation of afflicted sinners by sinners as yet unvisited by God, whether the guilt of the former be more or less apparent. The thing, however, most abhorrent to Him is the perverted view men take of misfortune and suffering in themselves, as though they were as bad as sin, nay, as if they were in the strictest sense of the word, evil itself, conducing to the perdition of souls, Mat_5:10-11; Luk_15:16-17; Mat_16:24; the present passage. Consistent Phariseeism saw in the lowliness of Jesus His unworthiness, in His defencelessness His guilt, and, after having crucified Him, in His cross His curse, whilst Jesus recognized therein His own glorification and the salvation of the world.

3. The declaration of Jesus: “Neither this man hath sinned, nor his parents,” opens to us a glimpse of the profoundest depths of life. There might still be a genealogical cause for the malady,—a cause, however, far remote and contained in the guilt of generations long since dead. But at the same time He teaches us to meditate upon the clear teleology, the removal of evil to the glory of God, rather than ponder over the particular causality of individual evil.

4. That the works of God might be made manifest in him (Joh_9:3). A clear and Christological teleology of evil, as also of the permission of sin. The old world of evil, debased by sin, is destined to be destroyed29 by the new wonder-world of Christ; similarly, the centre of evils, sin itself, is to be destroyed by the wonder of His life as the centre of His miracles.

5. The works of Christ the very works of God (Joh_9:4).

6. Christ’s day is the day of the world, from which proceeds all the day-light of the world until the last day (Joh_9:4-5). The day’s work of Christ is the day’s work of the world, the source of all New Testament days’ works until the last day. The night of His death-time is the termination of His work; it contains for unbelievers the principle and germ of the Last Judgment and the night of eternity.

7. The history of the man who was born blind is the portrait or type of the great and sudden conversion of an upright man; the portrait of a simple, wise, cheerful, vigorous and valiant manner of belief; the portrait of a leading from belief in the living God of miracles to the Personal Christ; the portrait of a Jewish inquisition, as of the impotence of hierarchic excommunication.

8. Christ is the real Sun-light of the world (Joh_9:5), as His work is the real day’s work in this Sun-light. Christ, in co-operation with the sacred temple-water of Siloam, appears as the real Shiloah and temple-fount itself. Christ has come into the intellectual world for judgment, to transform the seeing into blind men and to endow with sight those who are blind. The distinction in this fact between human guilt and divine dispensation in judgment is to be observed; similarly the distinction between the Christological purpose (the operation of Christ) and the final design (the glory of God).

9. The brook of Siloam was the true temple-spring at the foot of the temple-mount, outside of the sanctuary; hence at an early period it was a symbol of prophetic spiritual blessing, the fulfilment of which symbol has appeared in the Messiah, See Isa_8:6.

10. The discouraged disciples of Jesus, who had at this time in Jerusalem hoped for His glorification within the precincts of the temple—see John 8—and were now obliged to accompany Him in His flight from the temple to escape the stoning, stood in need of special encouragement. This was afforded them in the healing of the blind man, whose confession might even put them to shame. Here too we see how in every situation Jesus above all things restores to His dejected people first courage, confidence, and therewith presence of mind and true composure.

11. It is remarkable that the Pharisees do not directly prosecute Jesus Himself on account of this Sabbath-day healing. Probably because He called the temple-spring of Siloam into co-operation.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The history of the man who was horn blind; 1. The miracle or the power of the love of Christ; 2. the trial or the power of upright simplicity and gratitude; 3. the issue or the victory of faith over the strongest temptation; 4. the profound interpretation and lofty signification of the event.—The question of the disciples, 1. with regard to its purport, 2. with regard to the motives which prompted it.—The answer of Jesus to the question of the disciples—in the most general sense all sufferings are to this end: God will glorify Himself in the sufferers.—The obscure causes of human sufferings often evade our glance, but the divine purpose is ever clear.—Above all things we should keep in sight the divine purpose and our duty in view of it.—Christ the real Light of the world: 1. hence a creative Light, not only luminous but illumining (the Light of the blind); 2. hence likewise the Day of the world, Light and Life; 3. hence, too, the Accomplisher of the great day’s work of the world.—The exhortations of God to the day’s work of Christ: 1. The day’s work (as type, archetype, copy); 2. the warnings (of day, of night).—Christ the Light of our day’s work.—The irrecoverable day of our life.—The Lord, the Giver of light and life when Himself in peril of death.—The beggars at the temple-gates (comp. Acts 3).—The night cometh, etc.—Christ, the Healer, in His employment of natural remedies: 1. He does not need them; 2. He uses them for the sake of the one who is to be healed; 8. He consecrates them as the foretokens of Christian therapeutics.—Christ the Light of heaven, and earth’s Fountain of salvation.—He the real Siloam, or all good is of God’s sending: 1. The typical embassador, the spring; 2. the real Embassador; 3. the embassadors sent in His likeness and after His example (His disciples).—How the Pharisees do not consider the what in the miracle of Jesus, but the how. A characteristic of the Pharisaic spirit.

Parallels and antitheses: The man who was born blind and the impotent man (John 5).—The blind man and the Pharisees.—The blind man and those who were favorably disposed in that tribunal.—The blind man and his parents.—The blind man and his neighbors.—Good intentions and their evil consequences.—Character of the laity and spirit of Protestantism in our history.—The power of moral indignation.—The blind beggar transformed into a clear-sighted preacher before the Jewish tribunal.—The prudence as well as heroic courage in the confession of the man who was born blind.—The power of facts.—The victory of personal, spiritual experience over traditional ordinances.—One thing I know.

Characteristics of the hierarchical spirit of persecution: 1. Malevolent examination; 2. hypocritical exhortation; 3. anathematization. How impotent when opposed to the bravery of a faithful soul!

The development of the blind man’s faith instructs us as to the nature of true faith: 1. The heart before the head; 2. trust before knowledge; 3. the thing before the name; 4. acting and confessing before worshipping.—Darkness a result of misused light.—Obduracy a result of perverted awakening.—Falsehood turns light into blindness, as sincerity changes blindness into the beginning of sight.—The conversion of the faint, gleam of light into a blinding glare the cause of fatal darkness.—When the morning comes, the birds of day that could not see during the night, obtain sight; on the other hand, the night birds, which can see in the absence of daylight, become blind.—These have light enough to see and hate the darkness, to long for and love the light and to be enabled to see in it; the others have light enough to see the light, to hate it and to be blinded by it.

Starke: Zeisius: As Christ omitted not to do good, even in the heat of persecution; so too should we after His example, etc.—The benignity of Christ always anticipates men and affords them more effectual help than they in their penury can desire.—Happy is he who, seeing a wretch, takes pity on him.—A blind man a poor man.—Zeisius: Brother, be not over hasty in pronouncing judgment on the misfortune of thy neighbor!—How fortunate it is for many a one that he is lame, etc.; he is thus saved from hell.—God knows how to make use of our infirmities for the glory of His name.—With Christ we must be attentive to the signal and purpose of God in His service, that we may neglect nothing.—Hedinger: Time and opportunity to do good. Grasp them and lay up none for the morrow.—Zeisius: To every man God has appointed the limit of his activity and labor; this goal is soon attained.—Bibl. Wirt.: Now or never!—The same: The works of God often seem strange to our eyes, nay, utterly foolish and preposterous;—but how gloriously is His purpose accomplished!—Canstein: The more speedily a man grasps and executes the word of Christ, the more quickly and powerfully he experiences His help.—The same: The manifold speeches and opinions of men concerning the actions of God serve to make these the better and the more widely known.—Osiander: The ordinance of God, to care for the poor.—Canstein: When a man is enlightened by the Holy Ghost, he becomes so changed that even his acquaintances and friends do not know him.—The same: It is a good thing to tell of the misery from which we have been delivered and of the loving-kindness that God has shown us.

Joh_9:15. In this answer: Simplicity, truth, frank avowal.—Zeisius: True miracles, the move they are investigated, the more they are recognized and shine forth, whilst, on the contrary, in false miracles the more apparent does the deceit become.

Joh_9:22. Hedinger: It is a sin and a shame to fear men more than God.

Joh_9:26. O how sorely the wicked often strive to fell a child of God! but their attempts are fruitless.—If enemies of the truth are unable to gain their point, they grow bitter and wrathful and begin to curse and revile.—Zeisius: Despised simplicity baffles the superiors (rulers) in Israel.—He rightly confesses Christ, who, for His name’s sake, gladly suffers himself to be cast out by the wicked.—Zeisius: They who for confession of the truth are rejected and accursed by the world, are graciously looked upon by Christ and blessed by Him with a larger measure of divine light, etc.—Hedinger: How speedy is the operation of grace in a willing soul!—Bibl. Wirt.: Faith has its steps.—Zeisius: Faith in Christ, the Son of God, is no frigid approbation, but such a fervent affection and stirring of the soul, that the whole heart together with all the remaining powers of the man are forcibly impressed into the service of Him on whom he believes.—Cramer: No punishment more fearful than privation of sight.—The same: The first step towards help is the acknowledgment of sin.—Zeisius: Hypocrites are always the wisest and most sharp-sighted in their own eyes, even though they are in very deed blinder than bats.

Braune: Do not ponder over the origin of evil; work with helpful, divine love! How repulsive is the appearance of a blind eye, unavailable for sight; how glorious the clear lustre of the friendly eye in the upright man! Equally repulsive is the blinded man whose inner eye is destroyed by evil lusts, and equally glorious is the recognition of a clear enlightened spirit.—Gossner: When a man is delivered from his spiritual blindness, people say: Is not this he who formerly did thus and so? In this way they testify to his reformation. But for them it is a shame.—A man whose heart has been enlightened by Jesus and changed by His grace can not be recognized any more.—Thus it is to this day: Pharisees cling to the form and reject Him for whose sake the form is, and to whom the form is to lead. They hold to the letter which kills them and with the form and the letter strike dead the life of the spirit, although the letter should be a receptacle, a vessel of the spirit.—“They cast him out.” But he is not at all offended at this; on the contrary, it was a happy thing for him, for they did but cast him out of their hypocrisy.—Blessed proscription, that separates us from connexion with blind and malicious men and brings us nearer to Christ.—He who proscribes believers, proscribes not them, but himself.

Schleiermacher: But what are the works of God in this connection? None other than the manifestation of love in all human misery. For love is the strength of God and whatsoever proceeds from it is the work of God.—Yes, God has given man eyes to know Him; the intellectual ability is there, but it is opened and awakened only by Him who has come to change darkness into light.—It is in order that the works of God should be made manifest that God has permitted the human race to sit in darkness.—The parents of the blind man. Here we see one of the sad instances of the consequences of handling anything that appertains to faith, to the innermost sanctuary of man’s conviction, with outward violence, for the purpose either of disseminating or crushing it.

Heubner: See examples of remarkable blind men, Didymus,30 Milton,31 etc, [Add: Homer, Prescott, the American historian.—P. S.]—The want of the external sense is said to sharpen the inner one.—It is the duty of gratitude to bear witness to our Saviour even before His enemies.—The parents of the blind man a type of all who, in order to escape the enmity of the world, draw back from the fellowship of the children of God.—False zeal for the old (here Moses) blinds men.—Simple-minded laymen have a sounder eye, a more correct judgment than false proud scholars and theologians.—Besser: Christ hastens with rapid and ever more rapid steps in the career of blessing in which He with His servants is at work.—Their cursing is before God nought but blessing.—It was the misfortune of Israel that he was wise in his own eyes (Isa_5:21) and thought himself clean and whole (Pro_30:12).

Footnotes:

[1]Joh_9:4.—Instead of the first ἐμέ, B. D. L., the Coptic and other translations read: ἡμᾶς. The idea presented by the passage furnishes us with the motive for the dissimilarity between ἡμᾶς δέ and πέμψαντός; this dissimilarity, however, was doubtless the cause of the two words’ being made the same—several Codd. wrote ἐμέ at the beginning also, whilst Cod. L., the Coptic and other translations placed ἡμᾶς in the second place likewise. [The first ἡμᾶς is probably genuine, the second a correction occasioned by it. Cod. Sin.* sustains ἡμᾶς in both clauses. Alford reads ἐμέ and μέ, Tischend. (ed. viii.) ἡμᾶς twice—P. S.]

[2]Joh_9:6.—According to Codd. [Sin.] A. B. C.,** etc.: α ὐ τ ο ῦ τὸν πηλόν. His clay (paste), the earth-ointment prepared by Him. Tischendorf omits τοῦ τυφλοῦ, in accordance with the not decisive testimony of [Sin.] B. L. [Tischend. roads in ed. viii. ὲπέχρισεν αὐτοῦ τὸν πηλὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς. So also Alford (ed. vi.), and Westcott and Hort, except that the latter, with B. C.1 adopt ἐπέθηκεν (put, spread), instead of ἐπέχρισεν. Lange, Meyer and Ewald retain τοῦ τυφλοῦ. He spread His clay upon the eyes (of the blind man). Noyes translates: He anointed his eyes with the clay; Alford in his N. T.: He spread (but in the text of his Com. he reads ἐπέχρισεν, anointed) the clay upon his eyes; Lange: Er schmierte seinen (den von ihm gemachten) Teig auf die Augen des Blinden; Ewald: Er strich diesen Brei auf die Augen des Blinden.—P. S.]

[3]Joh_9:8.—[The true reading is προσκαίτης, beggar, instead of the τυφλός, blind, of the text. rec., and is sustained by א. A. B. C.1 D., etc.—P. S.]

[4]Joh_9:9.—[ ἕλεγον, οὐχί, ἀλλ’ (א. B. C., etc.), for the text. rec. which omits these words.—P. S.]

[5]Joh_9:11.—Εἰς τὸν Σιλωάμ B. D. L. X. [Also Iren. and Cod. Sin. The text. rec. τὴν κολυμβήθραν τοῦ, after Cod. A. and Vulgate is explanatory.—P. S.]

[6]Joh_9:14.—Instead of ὅτε we should read, according to B. L. X. [Sin.] and several translations: ἐν ᾖ ἡμέρᾳ.

[7]Joh_9:17.—B. D., etc., Lachmann, Tischendorf: οὐκ ἔστιν οῦτος παρὰ θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος.

[8]Joh_9:16.—Lachmann supplies οῦν, in accordance with A. B. D. [Cod. Sin., Tischend., Alf.—P. S.]

[9]Joh_9:20.—According to Lachmann, the οῦν after ἀπεκρ. is not to be expected here, upon consideration of the subject-matter, and is supported by B. only. Similarly the δέ in Cod. A., etc., and the αὐτοῖς seem to be additions, against which are B. L. X., etc.

[10]Joh_9:25.—The καὶ εῖπεν [text. rec.] is omitted according to Lachmann and Tischendorf by reason of [Sin.] A. B. D., etc.

[11]Joh_9:26.—According to Codd. B. D. K., etc., ου̇͂ν. [Text. rec. δέ.—P. S.]

[12]Joh_9:26.—Πάλιν [text. rec.] omitted by many Codd. [Sin.1 B. D.] in opposition to Cod. A. [Sin.3a], etc., was perhaps left out on account of a misapprehensive assumption of a collision with the πάλιν of Joh_9:15. That πάλιν, however, has reference to the preceding question of the people.

[13]Joh_9:28.—The construction has the power of making the following words which they uttered, to be looked upon as the substance of their revilings. This seemed inadequate and probably occasioned the reading: οἱ δὲ έ̓λεγον in D. L., etc.

[14]Joh_9:35.—Codd. B. D. and the Ethiopian translation read: τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, because Jesus was wont thus to designate Himself. [This reading is sustained by Cod. Sin. and adopted by Tischend., ed. viii. and Westcott and Hort.—P. S.]

[15]Joh_9:41.—The οὖν before ἁμαρτία is wanting in [Sin.] B. D. K. L., etc.

[16][So also Lücke and Alford; while Olshausen, Meyer, Stier and Trench (on the Miracles, p. 233) side with Lange as to the date.—P. S.]

[17][This is the meaning of ί̓να, which is τελικῶς (not merely ἐκβατικῶς) and expresses the merited consequence according to the divine intention.—P. S.]

[18][So also Meyer, while Euthymius Zig., Ebrard and Hengstenberg put into the question the meaning: Neither one nor the other can be possible in this case; Stier: this man, or—this being out of the question—his parents; Alford and others: the question was vaguely asked without any strict application to the case in hand, merely taking it for granted that some sin must have led to the blindness. The disciples held the popular Jewish opinion that every evil must be the punishment for a particular sin. This is decidedly denied by Christ here, and Luk_13:9 ff. The general connection of sin as the cause, and evil as the result, is undoubtedly taught in the Bible from the first introduction of sin, Genesis 3. But since sin is in the world, evil in particular cases may be a school of discipline of God’s love, as the misfortunes of Job, the blindness of Tobit, Paul’s thorn in the flesh, and the many trials and troubles to which the children of God are often more subject in this life than the ungodly; for “whom the Lord loveth, He chastiseth” (Heb_12:6; Pro_3:12; Rev_3:19).—P. S.]

[19][Pre-existence was taught by Philo, the Essenes and Cabalists. See Grimm, Comm. on Sap., p. 177 f., and Bruch, Doctrine of the Pre-existence of Soul (Strassburg, 1859), p. 22, (translated in Bibliotheca Sacra for 1863, pp. 681 ff). See Meyer in loc. Stier, however, doubts the applicability of the passage, Wis_8:19-20.—P. S.]

[20][Or, as Luthardt also expresses the antithesis, Heilsgeschichte and Heilsaneignung, or the day is the time of Christ’s Wettgegenwart (presence in the world), the night the time of His Weltgeschiedenheit (absence from the world).—P. S.]

[21][A physician in the time of Caracalla who wrote a poem on medicine in hexameter.—P. S.]

[22][In the two accounts of Tacitus (Hist. iv. 8) and Sueton. (Vesp. John 7) of the restoring of a blind man to sight by the emperor Vespasian, the use of saliva jejuna is recorded. Pliny (Hist. Nat., xxviii.7) mentions it as a usual remedy in cases of disorders of the eyes. See Wetstein’s note, p. 902.—P. S.]

[23][The typical reference of the waters of Siloam to the cleansing and healing water of baptism (Ambrose, Jerome, Calovius, and even Trench), is unsuitable.—P. S.]

[24][This conjecture is unnecessary; blind beggars generally have a guide, and I have known three blind men (one a music teacher, another a preacher), who without aid could find any familiar locality within a considerable distance.—P. S.]

[25][Yet even in the great Sanhedrin there were men like Nicodemus (Joh_8:50) Joseph of Arimathea (Luk_23:50), and possibly Gamaliel (Act_5:34 ff.), who might have asked this question concerning Jesus.—P. S.]

[26][The last work was occasioned by a controversy between the celebrated Dr. F. W. Krummacher and the rationalistic preacher Paniel, in consequence of a sermon of the former preached in Bremen, on the Anathema of Paul, Gal_1:8.—P. S.]

[27][Three according to the older view; 1. to be shut out from the synagogue for thirty days; 2, the repetition of this exclusion accompanied by an anathema or curse; 3, final exclusion.—P. S.]

[28][Comp. the Excursus on Anathema in my ed. of Romans pp. 302 ff.—P. S.]

[29][The verb aufheben is here used (as often in the Hegelian philosophy) in the double or triple sense of tollere, conservare, elevare; e.g. childhood is aufgehoben—abolished, preserved and elevated—in manhood.—P. S.]

[30][Didymus, the last distinguished teacher of the Alexandrian School of theology, a follower of Origen. He wrote several commentaries and an able work on the Holy Ghost, and died at a great age in 395. St. Anthony, the father of monks, once told him: Do not mourn over the loss of those eyes with which even flies can see, but rejoice in the possession of those spiritual eyes with which angels in heaven see the mysteries of God.—P. S.]

[31] [Milton repeatedly alludes to his blindness, e.g., in Sonnet XIX. commencing:

“When I consider how my life is spent

Ere half my days, in this dark world and wide,

And that one talent which is death to hide,

Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent

To serve therewith my Maker,” etc.

In the third Canto of Paradise Lost he hails in the sublimest strains the holy light, and mourns its loss to him:

……“Thee I revisit safe,

And feel thy sov’reign vital lamp; but thou

Revisit’st not these eyes, that roll in vain

To find thy piercing ray, and find no dawn.”

I add the following most touching and eloquent allusions of the great poet to his terrible affliction:

… .“Thus with the year

Seasons return; but not to me returns

Day, or the sweet approach of ev’n or morn,

Or sight of vernal bloom, or summer’s rose,

Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine;

But cloud instead, and ever-during dark

Surrounds me, from the cheerful ways of men

Cut off, and for the Book of knowledge fair

Presented with a universal blank

Of Nature’s works to me expunged and razed,

And Wisdom at one entrance quite shut out.”

“O dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon;

Irrevocably dark! total eclipse,

Without all hope of day!”

. … . “These eyes,

Bereft of light, their seeing have forgot;

Nor to their idle orbs doth sight appear

Of sun, or moon, or star, throughout the year,

Or man, or woman. Yet I argue not

Against Heaven’s hand and will, nor bate a jot

Of heart or hope; but still bear up, and steer

Right onward.”

There is also a beautiful poem on Milton’s blindness by Miss E. Lloyd, in which this passage occurs:

“On my bended knee

I recognize Thy purpose clearly shown;

My vision Thou hast dimmed, that I may see

Thyself, Thyself alone.”—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 9

1. The Man Born Blind, Healed. (Joh 9:1-7.)

2. The Healed Man Questioned. (Joh 9:8-26.)

3. Reviled and Cast Out. (Joh 9:27-34.)

4. Jesus Reveals Himself to Him. (Joh 9:35-41.)

The healing of the man born blind is a type and an illustration of how Christ, the Light, communicates light and how he who follows the Light walks no more in darkness, but has the light of life. (Joh 8:12.) And before He healed the man He testified that His day of activity on earth as Man was rapidly drawing to its close. (Joh 9:4-5.) The clay and the spittle did not effect the opening of the eyes; it was the power of Christ. The blind man went and washed in the pool of Siloam and came seeing.

The conflict the blind man had is interesting and instructive, but too lengthy to follow in our annotations. The Pharisees exhibit their hatred against Him Who healed the blind man and they did all in their power to discredit the miracle and Him Who performed it. They questioned the man to confound him, but did not succeed. Then they questioned the parents, but they were afraid to say how their son had received his sight, for the Jews had agreed that if any man confessed Him as Christ he should be put out of the synagogue. Then they questioned the man again and he gave them an excellent testimony. “Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.” And when after repeated questionings the healed one expressed his firm belief that He Who gave him sight was of God, they cast him out.

But they only cast him into the arms of the loving Lord. He heard of what had been done to the man, and He sought for him. Then He revealed Himself to him as the Son of God. The man believed and worshipped Him. He was thrust outside of Judaism and in that outside place Christ found him, and he believed on Christ. Like everything else in the Gospel of John this anticipates the position of true Christianity. It is outside of the camp of Judaism, outside of that which has rejected Christ. “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” (Heb 13:13.)

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 9:1-3

Sin a Disease

I. The instinct that there is a connection between sin and penalty is universal and from God. The grossest forms of sacrifice that have made the name of religion horrible had their root in a true instinct. The revelation of God in Christ came not to uproot this belief, but to interpret it, to guide it, to lead it to bear fruit. Bodily sickness is to a certain extent the lot of all, and we may not show ourselves anxious to connect it with the notion of punishment for specific acts. We have learned, too, since the days of the first Christians, something more of the laws of health than they were acquainted with, and this knowledge tends to reduce within narrower limits the afflictions which we designate as judgments. But the tendency to view sin and punishment as different things and the connection between them as arbitrary, is unhappily not less strong in the full light of the nineteenth century than in the glimmering dawn in which the first Christians walked.

II. Jesus said, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents." We are to understand this answer with reference to the question which provoked it. The man had, we are sure, been a sinner and his parents also. But there was no special unrighteousness, either in the parents or the child, which had brought on them this sad calamity.

The works of God were to be made manifest in this man—not one work only; therefore not the miracle of a sudden restoration to sight by itself. The miracle is a sign—a witness, that is, of the nature of Him who wrought it. The incident which opened the eyes of the poor vagrant is one of those which have let in light upon a sin-blinded world.

III. In all evil, in disease and in disorder, is a work of God made manifest; because we see these things to be evil through the light which is His. That sin is seen to be sin; that disease and death are recognised as the enemies of a Divine order; that we are aware, as St. Paul became aware, of a body of death to which we are bound prisoners; that, in fine, we feel the punishment of sin is matter for profound thankfulness. That we know our degradation is, at least, to know the height from which we have fallen. Sin is inextricably bound up with punishment, and if the thought is terrible, there is one more terrible still, and that is the thought of sin without punishment.

A. Ainger, Sermons in the Temple Church.

References: Joh 9:1-3, S. Cox, Expositions, p. 153, 4th series, p. 163; Homilist, vol. iv., p. 397. Joh 9:1-7.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xv., p. 349. Joh 9:1-8.—Homilist, new series, vol. v., p. 136. Joh 9:1-41.—Contemporary Pulpit, vol. x., p. 301.

Joh 9:2-3

The Discipline of Sorrow

It is not very easy to see, nor is it necessary for us to determine, in what way the disciples thought that a man could be born blind in consequence of his own sins. They may have supposed that it was done in a kind of anticipatory justice, and that God, knowing beforehand that the man would commit some sin, punished it before it was done, by causing him to be born blind. However this may be, the intention of the whole passage is abundantly clear. Our Lord is checking and rebuking that tendency which is strong in all minds, and very strong in some, so to trace back suffering and sin as to find the cause of their unhappiness in some particular wrong thing which has been done.

I. Let us see how far we are safe to connect any present sorrow with sin, and what is the true view and the right use of a trial. It is mercifully ordered, in the natural body, that when there is any mischief going on in any part, it is almost sure to set up pain. So I would lay it down, that everyone who is in any way distressed, should look first to see if there is anything wrong, of which that pain is meant to be the index and the monitor. But when that is once done, I would not dwell there, but I would turn straight to the future. I would consider, not, For what past thing is this sent? but, What coming thing is this to bring about? To what design of God is this meant to give effect?

II. And this is the way by which a sorrow shall quicken and elevate and ennoble a man. For the danger of sorrow is the want of elasticity. If there were more spring, it would do you more good. And that onward look to some happy expected end, is just that which induces that play of mind, and that hopefulness, without which no sorrow will ever fulfil its mission. To look back, shuts a man to the past, and sets him grovelling in its ashes. To see a dawn of brighter things, to take the darkness as the signal that Christ is near, to have faith in a good tomorrow, to realize the greatnesses that are waiting, and, by believing them, to command the manifestation of the works of God—this is to bring in the covenanted dawn, and cancel the bitterness of the present hour; this is the true office of grief, and this is the secret of a sanctified sorrow and a glorified God.

J. Vaughan, Sermons, 1868, p. 21.

References: Joh 9:3, Joh 9:4.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 756; vol. xvi., No. 943.

Joh 9:4

The principle which makes work Christian is the will and the glory of God. In the midst of our working life, in the midst of our religious thought, in our times of devotion, in our hours of prayer, Jesus speaks to us and bears His unflinching testimony, calling upon the Christian to persevere, making his work true.

He does it, I submit to you, in three ways.

I. He does it because He has robed Himself in our humanity. Robing Himself in our humanity, Jesus has added a dignity to our nature. It was made in the image of the Eternal; it was created indeed with that stamp upon it which even original sin could not altogether wipe out. But Jesus, by the Incarnation, has done something more. He has robed Himself—most high God—in that nature; thereby He has added dignity; and by the fact that you have been dignified, by your nature being taken into God, by that fact you are taught that the dignity of that nature is never satisfied, unless entirely you aim in your work to do God’s will, and set forth God’s glory. So He has borne and is bearing His witness.

II. He bore it further, by Himself toiling and teaching in that nature; He showed to you and me not only its dignity—He showed its power. The power of human nature is all but infinite—all but infinite as seen in the work it can do, when it is assisted by the power which our blessed Master exerted most—by the power of God. You have, in a sense, power to do even as God does, rising up into the life of God.

III. Need I add that He witnessed to it by His death? Not only by being robed in humanity, not only by showing the power of humanity to God; but by dying in this humanity; by exhibiting to us, in this way, the immensity of the value that God placed upon it, He taught us its only end in labour. If the Christian is to do his work, it does not matter about the dimensions of its outward expression; it does not matter about the texture of the material; the great point for you and me to see to, is that the principle lying behind it be real, one that is maintained in its reality by the grace of the blessed Spirit, by the example of our divine Redeemer—that principle being that its aim and object are the will and the glory of God.

W. J. Knox-Little, Characteristics of the Christian Life, p. 1.

Christ’s words and Christ’s work

In these words of our Lord there is nothing which peculiarly belongs to His Divine nature, nothing even which belongs to Him as a prophet; they were spoken as by One who was in all points tempted like as we are, by One who became fully partaker of our flesh and blood. They are His words spoken as He is our great example. It is no presumption, no claiming to ourselves any portion of His power, if we pray and labour to be able to repeat them ourselves truly.

I. We must work, and that diligently; but not Satan’s work or our own, but the works of God. The soil must bear much, but its strength must not be wasted on weeds, however luxuriant; it must bear that which will be kept for ever; we must work while it is day, for the night is coming. Even while working busily, and working the works of God, we must not forget our own infirmity, we must remember and repeat Christ’s words in the text—for in them He speaks as one of us, and not as our God. "The night cometh, when no man can work," the day which is so happy to us, and we would fain hope not unprofitably wasted, is yet hastening to its close. It is of no less importance that we should remember that the time is soon coming when we cannot work, than that we should avail ourselves of the time present, to work in it to the utmost.

II. One difficulty which arises is this, that in one sense we are working the work of God probably already; for certainly the particular business of our profession, or calling, or situation, is to us the work of God. This seems to me one of the most dangerous snares of all; we are busy, and we are busy about our duty, so that the more we work, we fancy that we are doing our duty more, and the very thing which seems to be our help is unto us an occasion of falling. That it should not be so, two things are to be observed: First, that we say to ourselves that we are busily engaged in our duty, and that our duty is God’s work. It would be well if we said this not to ourselves only, but to God in one short prayer: "Lord, I am Thy servant, this is Thy will and Thy work; bless me in it for Christ’s sake." The second caution is contained in the latter words of the text. The shortness of our own life bids us remember that we are but God’s instruments, appointed to labour for a little while on a particular little part of His great work, but that neither its beginning nor its finishing belongs to us, neither can we so much as understand the vastness of its range.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 164.

References: Joh 9:4.—J. Keble, Sermons from Lent to Passiontide, p. 367; W. Cunningham, Sermons from 1828 to 1860, p. 303; D. Fraser, Metaphors of the Gospels, p. 305; F. Meyrick, Church of England Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 208; G. Litting, Thirty Children’s Sermons, pp. 43, 67; A. Jessopp, Norwich School Sermons, p. 160; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. x., p. 354; T. Gasquoine, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 342; H. W. Beecher, Ibid., vol. ii., p. 35; vol. x., p. 36; vol. xxviii., p. 121; E. H. Ward, Ibid., vol. xiv., p. 318; H. P. Liddon, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 84. Joh 9:4, Joh 9:5.—S. Cox, Expositions, 4th series, p. 179. Joh 9:6.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 383; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 340.

Joh 9:6-7

If we find that in the exercise of His miraculous power, our Lord in many instances, in a greater or less degree, employs means, the question naturally arises, in what relation do these means stand to the result?

I. Now, in the first place, it is obvious that the means employed, for instance in the miracle related in the text, were of themselves quite inadequate to produce the result by the operation of the ordinary uniform laws of nature. To suppose them so capable would be in fact to eliminate the miraculous altogether.

II. Further, it must be noticed that the means employed by our Lord, although quite inadequate to produce the result, yet seem to have a certain relation of appropriateness to that result. And it is surely more rational to regard them as not indeed either necessary or adequate in themselves to the production of the effect, but yet as real and not merely apparent means tending towards that end, so that the miraculous power may be said in these instances to have been applied in endowing common material things with healing properties which they did not by their own nature possess.

III. In the sacraments, as in the miracles, we have an outward and visible sign, and an inward and spiritual grace, the former being the means by which the latter is conveyed. There are, indeed, two points of distinction between them, which, rightly considered, will only serve to render the parallel more striking. First, the boon conferred by the miracle is itself open and visible, and, therefore needs no pledge to assure the recipient of its existence, while the grace of the sacrament is inward and spiritual, and the outward part of the sacrament is thus not only the means by which the grace is bestowed, but also a pledge to assure the faithful they have verily and indeed received it. And secondly, the miracles being isolated and exceptional applications of Divine power, their conditions are governed by no general law, and it cannot be inferred that in other cases a repetition of the same means will be followed by the same result. On the other hand, the sacraments being given as continued ordinances for man’s use during all time as long as the Church is militant here in earth, the supernatural element may be regarded as a permanent and uniform energy, and therefore, if the prescribed conditions, both subjective and objective, are all duly fulfilled, the same result, the same gift of Divine grace, may invariably be expected.

T. H. Orpen, Oxford and Cambridge Journal, Oct. 18th, 1883.

References: Joh 9:6, Joh 9:7.—S. Cox, Expositions, 4th series, p. 194. Joh 9:6-24.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. xvi., p. 122. Joh 9:8-17.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xvi., p. 228. Joh 9:8-23.—Homilist, new series, vol. v., p. 241. Joh 9:18-28.—Ibid., vol. xvii., p. 140. Joh 9:21.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiv., No. 1393; D. Cook, The Dundee Pulpit, p. 97.

Joh 9:24-25

This history is of especial interest, because it gives us so completely the history of the spiritual progress of a man who in the day of our Lord’s flesh was privileged to be brought into very near connection with Him, and who was one of the first that was permitted to suffer for His sake.

I. Observe then that the first movement of Christ towards this blind man is clearly one of free grace. There is not even so much as a prayer on the part of the blind man for the purpose of moving our Lord’s compassion. So we find here an instance of that which is at the root of all true Divinity, namely, the love of God in seeking those who have no eyes to see Him, the coming of the Son of man, not to wait until the lost sheep come back of their own accord to seek Him, but Himself to seek and to save that which was lost.

II. The first step then towards the illumination of the blind man is on the part of Christ, and the second is the demand of an act of faith in return. Christ anoints the man’s eyes with clay, but that does not give them sight. The outward sign of the clay is applied, and seen to be inefficient, until faith has taken the man to the pool of Siloam, when by the command of Christ, the blind man washes and remains blind no longer. The man’s knowledge of Christ was eminently progressive; it began with an act of grace, even as baptism is granted us freely without our asking for it, and it was continued by an act of faith.

III. The washing in the pool of Siloam was for this man the new birth of water and the Spirit, which fitted him to go on to perfection in the knowledge of Divine mysteries; the blind man had learned by means of his healing, and had been convinced still more clearly by his arguments with the Pharisees, that his healer must be of God, or He could do nothing; he needs only one step further, namely, to be permitted to see in Jesus not merely a man sent from God, but the Son of God Himself. Jesus announced Himself as such; there was quite enough in what had already occurred to make good the assertion; faith seized with joy upon the announcement of the Son of God actually present in the flesh; "Lord, I believe," said the man to whom Christ gave sight, and he showed his faith by worship. The story shows that there is such a thing as spiritual progress; the knowledge of Christ is a growing, an increasing knowledge: to those that have, that improve what has been given to them, more will be given.

Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 5th series, p. 202.

References: Joh 9:24-38.—Contemporary Pulpit, vol. i., p. 163.

Joh 9:25

I. The text points to the extreme importance of having, in religious matters, the witness to the truth of God within ourselves. There are three easily conceivable attitudes of mind which we can assume with respect to the faith of Christ. We may either accept Christianity by a sort of educational and traditional habit, because we were taught to believe it in our childhood, and because we have never, since then, seen any particular reason for maintaining a contrary opinion; or we may accept it, because we have subjected it, together with its antagonistic systems, to the process of a careful examination and scrutiny, and have found that it satisfies our intellectual requirements in a way which every other system has failed to do. Or yet again, we may accept it, partly perhaps for both of the above reasons, but more than all because, having brought our hearts and lives into contact with the truth which it proclaims, we have felt the power and realized the comfort which they are able to bestow. This last may be called the "experimental," the first two being respectively the "notional" and the "intellectual" modes of belief. Now it is perfectly clear that of the three modes of Christian belief, the last is the only one which will bear any amount of strain and stress that may happen to be put upon it.

II. If I am a Christian from custom and habit, my Christianity is liable to be endangered by many of the adverse influences which are sure to encounter it, as I pass on through life. It will provide me with no security in the hour of temptation. It will fortify me with no principle, and raise me to no height of moral elevation. And if I am a Christian simply from force of reasoning—even then I shall be at the mercy of every antagonist who comes with greater power of intellect than I possess, and with greater display of reasoning, to assail my position. I hold my faith by a merely temporary tenure. We are not safely placed unless our religion is of a personal, experimental character. We may be beaten in argument by a cleverer man, or by one who is better trained in disputation than we are; but no power whatever can argue you out of facts.

G. Calthrop, Penny Pulpit, No. 1016.

References: Joh 9:25.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 145; W. M. Punshon, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 85; H. P. Hughes, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiv., p. 193.

Joh 9:29

Truths temporary and truths eternal. The arguments of the Pharisees, both as regards miracles, and as regards the suspicion with which we should look on a doctrine opposed to the settled opinions of our lives, have in fact, in both cases, a great mixture of truth in them; and it is this very mixture which we may hope beguiled them, and also beguiles those who in our own days repeat their language.

I. For most certain is it that the Scripture itself supposes the possibility of false miracles. The case is specially provided against in Deuteronomy. The Pharisees might have said "Here is the very case foreseen in the Scriptures; a prophet has wrought a sign and a wonder, which is at the same time a breach of God’s commandments. God has told us that such signs are not to be heeded, that He does but prove us with them to see whether we love Him truly, knowing that where there is a love of Him, the heart will heed no sign or wonder, how great soever, which would tempt it to think lightly of His commandments. Shall we say then that this is not a just interpretation of the passage in Deuteronomy? Shall we say that this is the language of unbelief or of sin? Or rather, shall we not confess that it is in accordance with God’s word, and holy, and faithful, and true." And yet this most just language led those who used it to reject one of Christ’s greatest miracles, and to refuse the salvation of the Holy One of God.

II. The error lies in confounding God’s moral law with His law of ordinances; precisely the same error which led the Jews to stone Stephen. This is the difference between positive ordinances and moral laws; the first serve their appointed number of generations by the will of God, and then are gathered to their fathers and perish; the latter are by the right hand of God exalted, the same yesterday, today, and for ever. The practical conclusion is, that whilst we hold fast, with an undoubting and unwavering faith, all truths which by their very nature are eternal, and to deny which is no other than to speak against the Holy Ghost, we should listen patiently, pass no harsh judgment on those who question other truths not necessarily eternal, while they declare that they are, to the best of their consciences, seeking to obey God and Christ.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 250.

References: Joh 9:31.—J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, Part I., p. 468; Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes: Gospels and Acts, p. 145. Joh 9:32.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii., No. 1065. Joh 9:35.—Contemporary Pulpit, vol. i., p. 179; Bishop Stubbs, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv., p. 49.

Joh 9:35-36

This is the very question which Jesus still puts to the conscience of every man, and on the answer given to it does the salvation of every man still depend. How often also is the answer which our hearts would return, the very same with that which was made by the blind man to Christ: "Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him?"

I. First, let us see what the question means. It is plain that it means more than a mere nominal belief, like that of a person who had learnt his creed by heart, and had been told in his childhood who Christ was, without having in after life thought about Him at all, and yet without having his old belief overthrown, so that, if he should be put in mind, he would still possess it. Such a belief on the Son of God is no belief at all. We know that the belief spoken of in the text is a true and lively assurance that Christ is indeed the Son of God, from whom we shall receive our eternal sentence of happiness or misery, according as we please Him or no; and any man who does hold such an assurance strongly cannot easily avoid being influenced by it in his conduct.

II. There are many who, in a very strict sense, may be said not to know who the Son of God is: (1) Those who consider Him as a great prophet, but are never led to regard Him with that faith and love and adoration which His character, as revealed in the Scriptures, demands. (2) A second class of persons, who do not know the Son of God, consists of those to whom the expression of the Apostle, that we walk by faith and not by sight, appears, if they would confess the truth, utterly wild and unreasonable. Many of these men attend church, express their belief in the Gospel, and not unfrequently lament and condemn the progress of infidelity. This they do not out of pretence, but thinking themselves very sincere; they have a respect for Christianity, and they propose to themselves, when they think of such things, to profit from its rewards hereafter. But if those labourers in the parable, who were called early in the morning, had passed the day in idleness, resolving to begin their work at the eleventh hour, they would in vain have asked for the wages of their labour. If we live by sight, we must not expect to die by faith.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. i., p. 146.

References: Joh 9:35, Joh 9:36.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xviii., No. 1088. Joh 9:35-38.—H. W. Beecher, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 623, Ibid., Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 58; J. R. Harington, Ibid., vol. vii., p. 211; Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Oxford University Herald, June 20th, 1885; W. Hay Aitken, Mission Sermons, vol. i., p. 51. Joh 9:38.—W. F. Hook, Sermons on the Miracles, vol. ii., p. 119. Joh 9:39.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxx., No. 1798; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 27. Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 261; vol. xix., p. 303; F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of St. John, p. 259. Joh 9:41.—S. Baring Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 8. John 9—G. Macdonald, The Miracles of Our Lord, p. 61. Joh 10:1-10.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 273.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 7

METEMPSYCHOSIS

Joh 9:1-3. This word means the transmigration of souls, a doctrine, long ages ago, exceedingly prevalent in India, China, Japan, and many other Oriental countries, going on the hypothesis that the Deity created all human souls at the beginning of the world, and ever since they have been inhabiting mortal bodies, at death passing out and taking possession of a baby somewhere in the world and living again, and so on. A sect of religious philosophers, called Theosophists, has recently appeared in this country, now scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, one of whose prominent tenets is this reincarnation of human souls, none going away, but, as they move on through different ages, accumulating wisdom, and rising to a higher spiritual development, so that eventually, rising above the earth, they will inhabit ethereal worlds. They quote this Scripture very prominently in the maintenance of this heathen dogma of reincarnation, which their speakers especially emphasize, “And passing along, He saw a man blind from his birth; and His disciples asked Him, saying, Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he may be born blind?” The Theosophists stoutly claim that this is a recognition of the pre-existence of the man before his natural birth. I trow, the disciples simply spoke a little inadvertently, and did not aim to recognize the responsible existence of the man before his natural birth. “Jesus responded, Neither did he nor his parents sin, but in order that the works of God may be manifest in him.” Hence, you see, our Lord negatives the whole matter, putting His veto on the hypothesis of the man’s pre-natal sin, and at the same time affirming that his blindness had not resulted from any especial sin of his nor his parents, but, at least incidentally, was a providential provision for the mighty work he was about to execute.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 2. (Joh 9:1-41; Joh 10:1-42.)

The Going forth out of the Fold with Christ: Salvation, Freedom, Sustenance.

We have seen thus on God’s part the sanctuary opened, God revealed in Christ in grace and truth, -the Life the Light of men. We have not yet seen the response to it on man’s side. We have not seen the Light received, and Christ become as the result of this the Object for the heart. We find this in the present section; and the power of the revelation, by which henceforth the walk is with and in obedience to Him. But this involves in other respects also a complete change. For Judaism as a legal system implies throughout a shut up heaven, the veil which in it hung before the face of God. To Moses himself is said, "Thou canst not see My Face." Thus the soul brought to God is necessarily, by that fact, outside of Judaism. As the epistle to the Hebrews teaches us, to be "inside the veil" means therefore, of necessity, to be "outside the camp."

God also not being revealed, the light not having come, Judaism is but a fold in which the sheep meantime are shut up in the darkness. This is their safeguard indeed, until the expected Guide and Shepherd comes, though not giving the security of the Shepherd’s presence. Thus also there is bondage yet, not liberty; and, though they may be fed in the fold, it is not the place of pasture. So, when the Shepherd comes, it is to lead out of the fold, and this section is a true Exodus. It is the going forth which we shall find actually accomplished in the history of the Acts, the Exodus of the New Testament. Here we have it in its principles; and the Gospel of John in this once more displays its character as anticipative of Christianity. It is, in fact, that "beginning" from which John dates in his first epistle; Christ Himself being the Root necessarily out of which all things spring; and here anticipatively with His work accomplished, the Prophet of the new era now at hand.

1. The historical basis here is given at length: an instructive example of one to whom light is communicated, not less spiritually than physically. His simplicity and firm adherence to the truth so far as he knows it are beautiful, spite of the opposition of the leaders of the people, over whom his straightforward honesty of heart gains a manifest victory. He is given the privilege of being cast out for Christ’s name, even before he knows the glory of Him for whom he suffers. Cast out, he receives the revelation of the Son of God and worships; the first of the many to form the flock of the good Shepherd, outside the fold. As a follower of the Light, he walks no more in darkness, but has the light of life.

(1) Passing on out of the hands of His persecutors, the pitiable condition of a man blind from birth arrests the Lord’s attention; and the disciples (of whom we now hear for the first time during His present visit to Jerusalem) inquire as to a matter full of perplexity to such as believed with the Rabbis in every physical evil as the result of some specific sin. Was this man so born for sin committed even before birth? or was it for the sin of his parents? Neither explanation of it seems to satisfy them; and indeed, looked at, as they contemplate it, as mere punishment, it must be ever hard to satisfy oneself as to the inequalities of it that seem upon the face of the things. The Lord lets in the light of a higher purpose, as applicable to any other as to the man then before Him, -"that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Of course, the sin which has come into the world has been the cause of all the evil in it; and, of course, there is very commonly specific punishment for specific sin. With this the heart can have no rest, however, until we realize that God is manifesting Himself in all human history; for this cannot be in mere righteousness only, but in love as well. We have a whole book in the Old Testament devoted to the working out of this problem of the mission of evil, which in Job’s case was mistaken by his friends in the same fashion as the disciples, question would indicate here. But if the manifestation of God in His works be the great overruling purpose everywhere, then not only must there be in general love as well as righteousness, but in every one of His works there must be love. Where love is not, there God is not: if "God is love." And here the miracle (or as Scripture would speak of it from its having this very character of manifesting God, the "sign") is only a special manifestation of Him who everywhere is the same God.

The Lord adds that the day for His activity as Man upon the earth is hastening to a close. For Him also, in that sense, the night is coming; and for the world also, from which He, the Light of it, is soon to be taken. This is not in contradiction to the truth that Christianity, with its wondrous blessings, was to follow His ascension to heaven: for Christianity is not the "light of the world," but the taking out of it a people, whose place is to be with Christ where He is, and whose blessings are "spiritual blessings in heavenly places." This is in perfect keeping with what is the doctrine now before us, the abandonment of the Jewish fold, and the gathering of Jews and Gentiles into one, outside it. For Christians it is the night that is passing, not the day; but a night in which we see far into heaven.

The Lord now spits upon the ground, and making clay with the spittle anoints the eyes of the blind man with the clay. That might seem as if it would rather confirm his blindness than remove it, and the typical significance speaks in the same way: for out of the ground man was made, and the spittle, connected so often with humiliation and reproach, adds such thoughts to the lowly condition which manhood in itself implied for Him. Thus with Christ the very grace which brought Him down so low was misunderstood and cavilled at by the pride and self-righteousness of scribes and Pharisees, and seemed, in fact, but to make the blind eyes blinder. The plain fact of His humanity became for them an unanswerable argument against His claim of divinity, as we find shortly here. But there is a remedy which will change all: "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam," says the Lord; and then that we may recognize the spiritual meaning of this, the interpretation of the name is added, "Sent." These interpretations (found in the Gospel of John alone) are in themselves significant, as we have seen already (Joh 1:41-42), of the going over of spiritual blessing to the Gentiles, and the present one is again perfectly in keeping with the subject here. The water is the type of the Spirit, and the spring gushing from the temple-mount, where normally rested the cloud of the divine presence, the place of the "Father’s house," was an apt figure of Him in His gracious working, who was to come after the Lord’s ascension, "sent" to declare the Rejected One.

How differently does this poverty now appear when it is seen as the self-abasement of divine Love in quest of men, the poverty by which they are to be made rich! And how does the application of. Him thus open the eyes indeed to all other things! "He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing."

(2) Immediately the conflict begins; and first as to the man himself. So different is he with the light in those blank and sightless eyes, that they cannot at first believe it is the same. Then comes the question, what has made this change; and he refers it to the "man called Jesus." There is as yet little knowledge indeed of the One who has had compassion upon Him. Still it has taken hold, and a little germ of faith, scarcely to be distinguished as that at first, increases amid opposition, even by means of it, until, having learned to own Him as a prophet, the glory of the Son of God is finally revealed.

The picture of hierarchic pretension with its blindness and hostility to the truth is complete. The Pharisees question the man, the parents, the man again. That the unbribed power of God has acted they have no wish to take into their argument. If He has, let Him have the praise of it: that hinders nothing the condemnation of Him with whom God has chosen to ally Himself, for His share in the matter. Did He not make the clay upon the Sabbath-day? The man with clearer insight affirms that God does not hear sinners: if He were not of God He would not be owned of God after this manner.

They have no argument to meet this; all the more earnestly do they denounce it. A man wholly born in sins, -for was not his blindness proof enough of that? -to be teaching them! So they cast him out of the synagogue: they have before decided that if any should confess that the Worker of these mighty deeds was Christ, he should be cast out. Thus the open rupture with the disciples of Christ has begun on the part of the synagogue.

(3) He is cast out; but cast only in this way into the company of Christ at whom all this is aimed. Nor will he be long left without the blessedness of such companionship. Again Jesus finds him, as before He found him, now to complete the work which He had then begun. "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" He asks; and he, though not knowing Him in that glory which is His, yet with full confidence in his Guide, inquires, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him?" He is following on in the track of the light that is come to him, and now has reached the Source of it. "Jesus said to him, Thou hast even seen Him, and He that speaketh to thee is He." At which, with the straightforward simplicity that had baffled the Pharisees, and now yields itself with complete conviction to the completing truth, he answers, I believe, Lord;" and worships. He has not found merely a creed: he is brought to God. That which we did not apprehend in the woman is now unmistakably seen in the once blind man: he is morally and spiritually, as well as physically enlightened; he is in the light, and the light also is in him.

And the Lord, who came not into the world for the purpose of judging it, but for its salvation, nevertheless by the fact of His presence in it, has brought judgment into it. The necessary effect is found that the (consciously) blind -the seekers therefore of light -are brought to see-, while the pretentious seers -the men of this world’s wisdom -are made blind. The Pharisees ask where they are to be classed -with the blind or with the seeing. The Lord answers them that they have classed themselves: they say, "we see," Had they been blind, the sin that now was theirs would not have remained to them.

2. By the will of the Jews themselves therefore, the flock of Christ are now outside the fold. From His own side the Lord now confirms this: for He had come as the Shepherd into it, to lead out His sheep into a larger place. The principle of the fold is now to be given up: restraint is now to be exchanged for freedom, -a freedom made safe by an Object for the heart, controlling it by its affections, and by a living guidance which is realized as that of perfect wisdom, indissolubly united to as perfect love.

(1) That Israel were the sheep of Jehovah had been the theme of the prophets of old. He who came into this fold to exercise authority must do so under the plain warrant of Jehovah Himself. And Ezekiel had prophesied in His Name that He would raise up for them "one Shepherd" who should feed them, even His "servant David" (Eze 34:23): that Greater one of David’s line, of whom that king had only been the fore-runner and type. This was, of course, Messiah, the Lord’s Anointed; and every mark that pointed out the Anointed pointed out the Shepherd of Israel also. These marks combined constituted the "door," or way of entrance by which the true claimant of such prerogative would come. All else were but thieves and robbers: men seeking their own gain in ways of treachery and violence. The entrance by the door was possible but to One, -the true Shepherd, -to whom the porter would open. He, so coming, would call His own sheep by name and lead them out.

The interpretation that would apply all this to the New Testament ministry in general, is so forced and really arrogant in its assumption, as scarcely to need notice. The one expression, "His own sheep" can apply to no under-shepherd; and who but He could call them by name, and lead them out? To Him alone every thing applies in the simplest and fullest way. Coming at the time definitely predicted by Daniel, confessedly of David’s line, born at Bethlehem, displaying the signs that none other eves did, and that unique character which could not permit confounding Him with any other, -He came through the door manifestly. And the Spirit of God in the prophesyings at His birth, at His presentation in the temple, in the testimony of the Baptist, and the visible anointing which preceded this, opened the door of the fold. Now the sheep were beginning to hearken to His voice, calling them each by his name with a knowledge which individualized them all, with perfect and tender knowledge. These were His own sheep, but not all the sheep in the Jewish fold; and this is the strange thing that now becomes manifest, that though He who has come is the Shepherd of Israel, it is not Israel as a whole that knows His voice. Like many of the eastern folds, this one is found to have other sheep than His sheep. The call is an appeal to faith which not all have; and by it is wrought a separation, which sets them outside of the fold of Judaism altogether.

He "leadeth them out:" -stronger still in the next sentence: "when He has put forth all His own." For the principle of the fold is now to be abandoned. The law is not of faith;" and faith is the sole productive energy in man for God: "faith, if it have not works, is dead," so necessarily productive is it, as surely as it is living: and "faith worketh by love." But law is a system of prohibition, whose inspiring principles are self-interest and fear; while "there is no fear in love." "Love seeketh not her own."

The law was a prohibitory fence thrown around men, the curb upon a will which was naturally lawless, which it could not change, and which fretted against it. Hence it was bondage and not liberty: under which the very children of God were as servants, and not sons (Gal 4:1; Gal 4:3; Gal 4:7); and which therefore did not yield for the Father’s heart that which would satisfy Him. Every way the fold must go: Christ must put forth all His sheep; the putting forth implying however the strange power that a legal system yet may have even over true believers. How needful indeed this putting forth, and the history of the resistance to it, the Acts with the book of Revelation will by and by declare to us.

As we know, they were not all His sheep that lay in that Jewish fold; and His presence in it was that which tested this, and drew the line of separation. His sheep were they who recognized the Shepherd’s voice; not merely knew Him by external testimony, but in the response of their hearts to what appealed to them as no other. Hence they were drawn, and followed Him in that wondrous path in which they found Him ever before them, in the track of light His footsteps left. And the Shepherd adds with regard to them, in the deep satisfaction of His own heart, "A stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." They are not obliged to know whose voice it is, nor to be learned in theological disquisitions. There is but one Voice for which they have ear or heart; and from another voice they flee; for from any who would simulate that Voice, or claim authority over them beside, they do right in suspecting evil. For the sheep ordinarily, apart from what may appeal to them in the need of others, their best safety is in flight.

(2) But those to whom He is speaking understand nothing of what He is saying; the Lord therefore repeats and emphasizes His claim as the Shepherd of the sheep; dwelling upon their happiness with Him, in contrast with those who would make them a prey, or at least follow their own interests and leave them as a prey to others. He as the Good Shepherd would lay down His life for them; and that as the expression of the Father’s love.

He begins with the assertion of His being the door of the sheep. It is not a question of the fold any more: there is no longer a fold; His sheep were in it, but are now ideally outside it altogether. The flock is His, and in His hand; and He is the only way of entrance into it. He receives into the fellowship of His people. Others that had come before Him were only thieves and robbers, with no title, and seeking no interests but their own; but His true sheep had never been deceived; and amid the multitudinous voices now, His voice, so unlike all others, rings out still, clear and distinct in its appeal to those in consciousness of their need and guilt. Where is there another who could propose to meet all the unrest in human hearts for every one who should come to Him? and who but He has done it?

Again He declares: "I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." Salvation -a strange thing in this sense to the Jew -here lies at the very beginning of the blessings belonging to the flock of Christ; not as a possible attainment, but as a gift of unconditional grace, never therefore to be revoked. This positive assured security of His people tells at once that He and they are outside the legal fold. So the liberty that is associated with this speaks also: "He shall go in and out;" that is, the fold is no longer a place of confinement for him. He may in New Testament liberty go back to find in the Old Testament what God has given of Christ in it; but he belongs to it no more. Then also "he shall find pasture": the true place of it is certainly outside the fold. All here combines to tell his blessing, and where he now belongs.

The assurance of all blessing lies in this that he is in the care of the Good Shepherd. Wisdom and love are His; with power also that can lack no resources. The thief comes only to steal and to kill and to destroy. He on the contrary comes to give life, and that abundantly. Here a power beyond all creature power is seen; a need which is beyond all that the figure would imply. The theme of John’s Gospel discloses itself once more: life, which is eternal and His gift, without whose work none could have it. This, of course, looks backward as well as forward: life for any, at any time, could be but the result of His coming; which waited not for its effectuation to bring forth its fruit; or else, of necessity, every mercy shown to man must have waited likewise. But we know without any peradventure it was not so.

Manifested, however, the life was not, until the personal Life had come. It was possessed, as we have seen, new birth -without which none could see the Kingdom of God -involving its possession: but it was possessed in the midst of hindrances of the most effectual kind to manifestation. This is a question of the condition of the life, and not of the life itself. The babe does not yet manifest what the man is; and yet it has the life and nature of the man.

In the Son come into the world, the eternal life was first and fully manifested. It was seen in Him in that knowledge of and communion with the Father, which was in Him perfect, and never clouded for a moment. And by Him it was revealed as the portion of those who in faith received Him; for, now that He had come, there was no faith that did not receive Him. He that believed on the Son had eternal life; and he that was not subject to the Son did not see life, but the wrath of God abode upon him.

Nor did this wait for redemption to be accomplished. "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself." Thus already was He quickening dead souls with the life that was in Him; and in His prayer to the Father in which He declares that "this is life eternal, that they should know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent," He declares also that this knowledge they already had: "they have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me."

Thus the eternal life communicated to men was already exhibiting itself in its true character; already men knew the Father and the Son. But this was not yet the life in its full abundance; of which the Lord here speaks. Its character was manifested as a life of divine acquaintance and communion; but for this communion to be enjoyed aright, it needed to be freed from many great and terrible hindrances: the Cross had to be accomplished; the resurrection of Christ from the dead must give the answer on God’s part to the claim of righteousness there made good, that now as risen with Christ we might be possessors of a life triumphant over death, and justified from all that had brought in death, in a recognized place of nearness to God unknown before. There in the place of sons with God, and with the Spirit of sonship to give the enjoyment of the place, the life eternal would at last have its true abundance. This is what the Lord here looks forward to: the development of it awaits us in the portion of the Gospel soon to come before us, with the Epistle to the Romans for the results in known justification, and the believer’s place in Christ, and the Epistle of John for the practical results in the life down here.

He is come then to give life: as the Good Shepherd, by laying down His own: yet it is not so much doctrine that is here, as the insistence upon a love proved at whatever cost. The hireling cares but for his wages: the sheep are not his Own, and he is not personally concerned about them: when the wolf appears, he leaves the sheep and flees; alas, no suppositious case, but what has been abundantly seen in history. The wolf in consequence, the open adversary, catches them and scatters them. The hireling acts in character: nothing better could be expected of him. On the contrary, between the Good Shepherd and His own exists a bond of the most tender intimacy. "I know My own, and they know Me; even as My Father knoweth Me, and I know My Father: and I lay down My life for the sheep." "The world knew Him not:" there was the strangeness resulting from contrasted natures. His sheep know Him: for they have received His life and nature, and have thus been brought into communion; and this is the same kind of knowledge as exists (however much more perfectly) between the Father and the Son. The love implied in it is manifested in this, that He lays down His life for the sheep.

But His sheep as thus defined have no longer any relationship with the Jewish fold, still less can be limited to those who have such. Law could not give this gift of eternal life, nor have, therefore, any control over it. In the fold itself there had been those that were not His own; and there are sheep of His not of that fold at all, but Gentiles, far enough off, to be brought nigh and made to hear His voice. Then there shall be one flock, one Shepherd. There is no fold any more: the fold was Jewish and legal, and is gone. In Christ is neither Jew nor Gentile.

That wondrous act of self-devotion by which all blessing is effected and justified for men gives to the Father’s heart a new reason for the love wherewith He loves even His well-beloved Son. "Therefore doth the Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take it again." He does not lay it down, as giving up that humanity which He has taken to accomplish the work, -the earthen vessel in which alone the bird of heaven could die. Nay, He takes up again, though in changed condition, the life He has laid down, -takes it to lay it down no more. His death is neither the exhaustion of His love, nor the limit of His work for man. He has served in the lowest deep of suffering on earth; He serves on the Throne of glory still. And the Father’s love, which thus rests upon Him as Man continually, embraces as well the fruits of His work, -the men for whom He has toiled, and suffered, and won. This is all fully told out in the epistles of Paul specially; but John, though in some respects the very opposite of Paul, has many connecting links of doctrine with him; beyond the rest of the inspired writers; and this is true even as compared with Luke, whose Gospel has been even styled Paul’s Gospel. We shall soon be called to realize this, which here begins to dawn on us. Our acceptance in the Beloved, of which Paul speaks (Eph 1:6), roots itself in this peculiar love of the Father to the Son.

But the Lord goes further than this, and shows us the Father’s purpose in that which He is executing, the Father’s commandment entrusted to Him to execute. Not by constraint but freely He lays down His life: "No one taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself: I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again." For as Man, He will not dispose of His own life without the Father’s sanction; but that is not all: "this commandment have I received of My Father." Thus throughout He is the obedient servant of the divine counsels: one with the Father in what He has in hand to do; the Word, in all things the expression of the Divine Mind; and still "we behold His glory, -glory as of an Only-begotten with the Father, full of grace and truth."

So "there was a division again among the Jews on account of these words." On the one hand they repeat the old blasphemy, that He had a demon, and was raving. Others object to such a sentence, and yet seem to go no further than perplexity. In sorrowful indecision only, the matter for the present ends.

(3) The feast of the dedication of the temple occurred two months later than the previous narrative; the connection of it with it is, however, manifest. The dedication commemorated was not that of Solomon’s, but the re-dedication by Judas Maccabaeus, after its profanation by Antiochus. Yet the Lord walking in Solomon’s porch (or colonnade) is surely significant in this way, as carrying us back to that first dedication, if only by way of contrast. The massive foundations of Solomon’s structure remained, but only in ruin, which, however sought to be repaired, witnessed to what had come in the way of failure and ruin. How much this second temple, again renewed with great magnificence by the bloody hands of the Edomite Herod, lacked of what the old possessed! As it stood, it was the very witness of their pretentious legalism, covering up the decay and desolation underneath. The Glory was departed, the Living Voice that had once spoken to them was silent now. The Ark and Mercy-seat, where the covering blood should have been sprinkled, the Throne of the divine Inhabitant, was gone. All went on now, not upon the old basis, but only as permitted by long-suffering patience, still pleading, still abused.

Yet the Maccabaean outburst of loyalty to God had for awhile seemed to argue better things in the near future for the returned remnant of a people already scattered. Alas, it was but the convulsive leap of a flame that for a moment sought the heavens, and then died down to its now cold ashes. On man’s part, what hope more? In a few souls God’s mercy kept hope still; but the fulfilment of it lingered long.

And now there was a new Voice in Solomon’s porch: a Voice that did not ignore the ruin, did not accord with the Pharisaism which the people followed, did not ring with the trumpet-tones of the warlike zealotry which would seize its triumph out of the reluctant hand of time; and yet thrilled heart and conscience, as if all the being of man were in His hand and answered to His summons. The Light shone; and the depths within were penetrated by it.

For in fact the Glory had returned, and the Voice long silent had again awakened. It had proclaimed itself in the temple and synagogue, as well as in the places of daily concourse, and in the quiet homes of men. Here was He for whom they had dedicated and re-dedicated the temple, the fitting completion to their celebration of it now. But the fervor of enthusiasm around Him was not for Him: already He had been rejected, vilified and blasphemed; and the few who really listened had to take as outcasts their place with Him. But He was leading them out; and the hand that led them sheltered them; the glory of His presence shone around them: they are hidden in the Sanctuary of it from all that would injure them; for none shall pluck them out of His hand.

The Jews come round about Him in Solomon’s porch, and urge Him not to leave them longer in suspense, but tell them plainly if He is the Christ. He answers that He has already told them without effect; and that the works He was doing in His Father’s Name bore witness of Him. They believed not because they were not of His sheep, who heard His voice. These sheep of His He knew, and they followed Him. He had said this before; but He now adds: "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall in no wise ever perish," (it is the strongest possible affirmation,) "nor shall any one pluck them out of My hand."

The absolute security of the sheep of Christ could hardly be more fully affirmed. For, first of all; they have a nature which, as divine, is truly everlasting; it has become truly their own nature, although it is true that they have yet also in them a fleshly nature which is not in conformity, but in contradiction to it. This, which seems to many a strange doctrine, is nevertheless the true experience of every child of God. Yet in face of it the apostle can say, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit," or "practise," "sin: for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The character of the divine life in him is such that it masters the evil; not, in final result, is mastered by it. It abides; it is eternal life.

But the Lord does not leave us to any inference, even the surest: He goes on to say: "And they shall in no wise ever perish." The consequence is developed, and the negation faces every way: think of what danger you may, that "in no wise ever perish" meets it all. The weakness of the creature, its mutability, with the sad history of change that lies against it, all is met by such an assurance. But the Lord goes even further: He looks at the question of the world against these poor sheep of His, -the world, and Satan the prince of it, -and He seals His assurance with a double seal: They are Mine, He says: "No one shall seize them out of My hand. My Father who gave them to Me is greater than all; and no one is able to seize them out of the Father’s hand." The Cloud is opening now to let out the enfolded Glory; now it shines fully out: "I and the Father are one."

The meaning of this last assertion has nevertheless been disputed. It is plain how those who heard Him took it, and how, instead of expressing alarm and grief at so great a mistake, He confirms finally their interpretation. Schaff well shows the argument, which I can do no better than insert in this place. He says (Lange’s Commentary on John): —

"The neuter hen, (one) denotes, according to the connection and for the purpose of the argument, unity of will and power; which rests on the unity of essence or nature: for power is one of the divine attributes, which are not outside of the divine essence, but constitute it. Even if we confine hen to dynamic unity, we have here one of the strongest arguments for the strict divinity of Christ. It is implied even more in esmen (we are) than in hen. No creature could possibly thus associate himself in one common plural with God Almighty without shocking blasphemy or downright madness. In this brief sentence we have, as Augustine and Bengel observe, a refutation both of Arianism and Sabellianism: hen refutes the former by asserting the dynamic (and, by implication, the essential) unity of the Father and the Son. ’I and the Father’ and ’we are’ refute the latter by asserting the personal distinction. Sabellianism would require the masculine eis, instead of the neuter; and this would be inconsistent with ’We are,’ and the self-conscious ’I.’"

The Jews understand well enough, and take up stones to stone Him: but the might of His presence stills them. He calmly appeals to them: "Many good works have I shown you from the Father: for which of these good works do ye stone Me?" They could not deny the power or the goodness, but the grace which had brought the Son of God among them in such lowly guise, they could not believe: "For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy; and because Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God." Thus His words seemed against His works, and for His words they condemned Him; in His reply, therefore, He appeals to their own Scriptures, their "Law," as they themselves called the whole of them, but the spirit of which their unsubject hearts had so little entered into. Was it not written in their law, "I said, Ye are gods"? Thus the title of "gods" had been given to mere men; but who by the word of God that came to them, the commission by which they, the judges in Israel, acted, became His representatives. "If those who in so acting had received an indirect commission, were gods, the very representatives of God, could it be blasphemy when He claimed to be the Son of God, who had received, not authority through a word transmitted through long centuries, but direct personal command to do the Father’s work; had been directly and personally consecrated to it by the Father, and directly and personally sent by Him not to say, but to do the work of the Father? Was it not rather the true and necessary inference from these premises?" (Edersheim.)

The Lord here doubtless refers, not to that of which He Himself alone could have the consciousness, but to His open anointing by the Spirit in bodily form, and the Father’s attesting words, when after His baptism by John He went forth to His ministry. John had borne witness to Him in connection with this, as the "Son of God." Was it not suitable that, if men by God’s commission could represent Him so, He, sent openly among men in such a manner, should be in fact such a Representative as only the true Son could ever be?

The works of His Father done by Him confirmed all this in the fullest way. They implied this abiding of the Father in Him, in the power displayed, His abiding in the Father in intimacy of communion. Thus there was sufficient witness to the truth of His claims; and if they believed not His words, they might at least believe His works.

The seal which the Lord puts upon the perfection of Scripture is as plain as possible. "Scripture cannot be broken." The fact of its being Scripture guarantees the absolute inspiration of the very words used. The term He builds upon might seem to be at least somewhat extreme as applied to men; yet He takes it as an example of a rule of the most universal character, to which no exception at all can be made. Not only this or that statement which it makes can be demonstrated as true, but the mere fact of its being in Scripture sufficiently vouches for it. The highest Critic that can be never criticizes Scripture, but affirms the truth of all of it; and the futility of all men’s efforts to break it in pieces. They are doomed of necessity to defeat and dishonor, as is all the rebellion of the creature against God.

But Israel rejected the testimony of His words and works together. Again they sought to take Him, -a thing impossible until His own time came. He went forth out of their midst unharmed, and went to where formerly John had baptized, where, the soil having been broken up, the seed of His word took root. "John," they said, "did himself no miracle; but all that John spake of this Man was true. And many believed on Him there."

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 20

SIGHT GIVEN TO THE BLIND.

And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from his birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. We must work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work. When I am in the world, I am the Light of the world. When He had thus spoken, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay, and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went away, therefore, and washed, and came seeing. The neighbours therefore, and they which saw him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he. They said therefore unto him, How then were thine eyes opened? He answered, The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam, and wash: so I went away and washed, and I received sight. And they said unto him, Where is He? He saith, I know not. They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. Now it was the sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because He keepeth not the sabbath. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them. They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him, in that He opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a prophet. The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight, and asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: but how he now seeth, we know not; or who opened his eyes, we know not: ask him; he is of age; he shall speak for himself. These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess Him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. He therefore answered, Whether He be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. They said therefore unto him, What did He to thee? how opened He thine eyes? He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become His disciples? And they reviled him, and said, Thou art His disciple; but we are disciples of Moses, We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence He is. The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence He is, and yet He opened mine eyes. We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do His will, him He heareth. Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, He said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, And who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and He it is that speaketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him. And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they which see not may see; and that they which see may become blind. Those of the Pharisees which were with Him heard these things, and said unto Him, Are we also blind? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.- Joh_9:1-41

We have already considered the striking use our Lord made of the Temple illumination to proclaim Himself the Light of the world. A still more striking physical symbol of this aspect of our Lords person and work is found in His healing of the blind man. It is, as we have already had occasion to see, the manner of this evangelist to select for narration those miracles of Christs which are especially signs, outward embodiments of spiritual truth. Accordingly he now proceeds to exhibit Christ as the Light of the world in His bestowal of sight on the blind.

The disciples of Jesus had apparently been exercised by one of the outstanding problems of human life which perplex all thoughtful men: What regulates the distribution of suffering; why is it that while many of the most criminal and noxious men are prosperous and exempt from pain, many of the gentlest and best are broken and tortured by constant suffering? Why is it that inexplicable suffering seems so often to fall on the wrong people, on the innocent not on the guilty, on those who already are of refined and chastened disposition, not on those who seem urgently to need correction and the rod? Is suffering sent that character may be improved? But in Jobs case it was sent because he was already irreproachable, not to make him so. Is it sent because of a mans early transgressions? But this man was born blind; his punishment preceded any possible transgression of his own. Was he then the victim of his parents wrong-doing? But suffering is often the result of accident or of malice, or of mistake, which cannot be referred to hereditary sin. Are we then to accept the belief that this world is far from perfect as yet; that God begins at the beginning in all His works, and only slowly works towards perfection, and that in the progress, and while we are only moving towards an eternal state, there must be pains manifold and bitter? They are the shavings and sawdust and general disorder of the carpenters workshop, which are necessarily thrown off in the making of the needful article.[34] It is to it, to the finished work, we must look, and not to the shavings, if we would understand and be reconciled to the actual state of things around us.

When Jesus said, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him, He of course did not mean to suggest that there is no such thing as suffering for individual or hereditary sin. By breaking the great moral laws of human life men constantly involve both themselves and their children in lifelong suffering. There is often so direct a connection between sin and suffering that the most hardened and insensible do not dream of denying that their pain and misery are self-inflicted. Sometimes the connection is obscure, and though every one else sees the source of a mans misfortunes in his own careless habits, or indolence, or bad temper, he himself may constantly blame his circumstances, his ill-luck, his partners, or his friends. It was our Lords intention to warn the disciples against a curious and uncharitable scrutiny of any mans life to find the cause of his misfortunes. We have to do rather with the future than with the past, rather with the question how we can help the man out of his difficulties, than with the question how he got himself into them. The one question may indeed be involved in the other, but all suffering is, in the first place, a field in which the works of God may be exhibited. Wherever suffering has come from, there can be no manner of doubt that it calls out all that is best in human nature-sympathy, self-denial, gentleness, compassion, forgiveness of spirit, patient forbearance, all that is most Divine in man. To seek for the cause of suffering in order to blame and exonerate ourselves from all responsibility and claim on our pity and charity is one thing, quite another to inquire into the cause for the sake of more effectually dealing with the effect. No matter what has caused the suffering, here certainly it is always with us, and what we have to do with it is to find in it material and opportunity for a work of God. To rid the world of evil, of wretchedness, lonely sorrow, destitution, and disease is, if anything, the work of God; if God is doing anything He is carrying the world on towards perfection, and if the world is ever to be perfect it must be purged from agony and wretchedness, irrespective of where these come from. Our duty then, if we would be fellow-workers with God in what is real and abiding, is plain.

To the work of healing the blind man Jesus at once applies Himself. While the lifted stones were yet in His pursuers hands He paused to express His Fathers love. He must, He says, work the works of Him who sent Him. He represented the Father not mechanically, not by getting well off by rote the task His Father had set Him, not by a studied imitation, but by being Himself of one mind with the Father, by loving that blind man just as the Father loved him, and by doing for him just what the Father would have done for him. We do the works of God when in our measure we do the same, becoming eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, help any way to the helpless. We cannot lay our hand on the diseased and heal them; we cannot give sight to the blind and make a man thus feel, this is Gods power reaching to me; this is God stooping to me and caring for my infirmity; but we can cause men to feel that God is thinking of them, and has sent help through us to them. If we will only be humble enough to run the risk of failure, and of being held cheap, if we will only in sincerity take by the hand those who are ill-off and strive to better them, then these persons will think of God gratefully; or if they do not, there is no better way of making them think of God, for this was Christs way, who had rarely need to add much explanation of His kind deeds, but letting them speak for themselves, heard the people giving God the glory. If men can be induced to believe in the love of their fellow-men, they are well on the road to belief in the love of God. And even though it should not be so, though all our endeavours to help men should fail to make them think of God as their helper, who has sent us and all help to them, yet we have helped them, and some at least of Gods love for these suffering people has got itself expressed through us. God has got at least a little of His work done, has in one direction stopped the spread of evil.

Neither are we to wait until we can do things on a great scale, and attack the evils of human life with elaborate machinery. Our Lord was not a great organiser. He did not busy Himself with forming societies for this, that, and the other charitable work. He did not harangue assemblies convened to consider the relief of the poor; He did not press the abolition of slavery; He did not found orphanages or hospitals; but as He passed by, He saw one blind man, and judged this a call sufficiently urgent. Sometimes we feel that, confronted as we are with a whole world full of deep-rooted and inveterate evils, it is useless giving assistance to an individual here and there. It is like trying to dry up the ocean with a sponge. We feel impatient with individual acts, and crave national action and radical measures. And that is very well, so long as we do not omit to use the opportunities we actually have of doing even little kindnesses, of undergirding the shattered life of individuals, and so enabling them to do what otherwise they could not do. But we shall never do our part, either to individuals or on a large scale, until we apprehend that it is only through us and others that God works, and that when we pass by a needy person we prevent Gods love from reaching him, and disappoint the purpose of God. It was this feeling that imparted to Christ so intense and wakeful an energy. He felt it was Gods work He was on earth to do. I must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day. He recognised that God was in the world looking with compassion on all human sorrow, but that this compassion could find expression only through His own instrumentality and that of all other men. We are the channels or pipes through which the inexhaustible source of Gods goodness flows to the world; but it is in our power to turn off that flow, and prevent it from reaching those for whom it is intended. We do less than we ought for our fellow-men until we believe that we are the bearers of Gods gifts to men; that to however few a number and in however small a way we are the media through which God finds way for His love to men, and that if we refuse to do what we can we disappoint and thwart His love and His purpose of good.

The blind man, with the quickened hearing of the blind, heard with interest the talk about himself; and a new awe fell upon his spirit as he heard that his blindness was to be the object of a work of God. He had learned to judge of men by the tones of their voice; and the firm, clear, penetrating voice which had just uttered these all-important words, I am the Light of the world, could not, he knew, belong to a deceiver. In other ways also Jesus compensated for his lack of sight, and encouraged his faith by touching him and by laying on the closed eyes an extemporised ointment. But the miracle was not completed on the spot. The patient was required to go to the pool of Siloam and wash. John tells us that the name Siloam means Sent, and evidently connects this name with the claim Jesus constantly made to be the Sent of God.

But as the peculiarity of the miracle consisted in this, that the man was sent to the pool to be healed, we may be sure this arrangement was made to meet some element in the case. The man, with his bespattered eyes, had to grope his way to the pool, or get some kindly soul to lead him through the scoffing, doubtful crowd. And whatever this taught the man himself, it is to us a symbol of the truth that light does not come by the instantaneous touch of Christs hand so much as by our faithfully doing His bidding. It is He who gives and is the light; but it does not stream in suddenly upon the soul, but comes upon the man who, though blindly, yet faithfully, gropes his way to the place Christ has bid him to, and uses the means prescribed by Him. He that doeth the will of God, shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. All the commands of Christ are justified in their performance; and clear light upon the meaning of much that we are commanded to do is only found in the doing of it.

But no doubt the special significance of the mans being sent to the pool of Siloam lay in the circumstance that it was in Johns eyes a symbol of Christ Himself. He was sent by God. The people found it difficult to believe this, because He had slowly and unostentatiously grown up like any other man. We know this Man, whence He is. Is not this the carpenters Son? How sayest Thou, I came down from heaven? They could trace Him to His source. He did not appear fullgrown in their midst, without home, without any who had watched over His boyhood and growth. He was like the river whose sources were known, not like the stream bursting in full volume from the rock. The people felt ashamed to laud and celebrate as sent by God One who had grown up so quietly among themselves, and whose whole demeanour was so unostentatious. So had their fathers despised the waters of Siloam, because they went softly; because there was no mighty stream and roar, but a quiet pool and a little murmuring stream.

So might this blind man have reasoned when sent to Siloam: Why, herein is a marvellous thing that I am to be healed by what has been within my reach since I was born, by the pool I used to dip my hand in when a boy, and wonder what like was the coolness to the sight. What hidden virtue can there be in that spring? Am I not exposing myself to the ridicule of all Jerusalem? But, as this blind mans conduct afterwards showed, he was heedless of scorn and independent of other peoples opinion, a fearless and trenchant reasoner who stands alone in the Gospel history for the firmness and sarcasm with which he resisted the bullying tone of the Pharisees, and compelled them to face, even though they would not acknowledge, the consequences of incontrovertible facts. This characteristic contempt of contempt, and scorn of scorn served him well now, for straight he went to the pool in the face of discouragements, and had his reward.

And the Pharisees might, with their gift of interpreting trifles, have deduced from this cure at the humble and noiseless Siloam some suggestion that though Jesus did seem a powerless and common Man, and though for thirty years His life had been flowing quietly on without violently changing the established order of things, yet He might, like this pool, be the Sent of God, to whom if a man came feeling his need of light and expecting in Him to find it, there was a likelihood of his blindness being taken away. This, however, as our Lord had afterwards occasion to tell them, was precisely what they could not submit to do. They could not, in the presence of a wondering and scorning crowd, admit that they needed light, nor could they condescend to seek for light from so commonplace a source. And no doubt it was a very severe trial-it was well-nigh impossible, that men in high esteem for religious knowledge, and who had been accustomed to reckon themselves the protectors of the faith, should own that they were in darkness, and should seek to be instructed by a youth from the benighted district of Galilee. Even now, when the dignity of Jesus is understood, many are prevented from giving themselves cordially to the life He insists upon by mere pride. There are men in such repute as leaders of opinion, and so accustomed to teach rather than to learn, and to receive homage rather than to give it, that scarcely any greater humiliation could be required of them, than to publicly profess themselves followers of Christ. For ourselves even, who might not seem to have much on which to pride ourselves, it is yet sometimes difficult to believe that a mere application to Christ, a mere sprinkling of this fountain, can change our inborn disposition, and make us so different from our former selves, that close observers might well doubt our identity, some saying, This is he, others more cautiously only venturing to assert, He is like him.

Though very pleasant to contemplate, it is impossible adequately to imagine the sensations of a man who for the first time sees the world in which he has for years been living blind. The sensation of light itself, the new sense of room and distance, the expansion of the nature, as if ushered into a new and ampler world, the glory of colour, of the skies; of the sun, of the moon walking in brightness, the first recognition of the human face Divine, and the joy of watching the unspoken speech of its ever-changing expression, the thrill of first meeting parent, child, or friend eye to eye; the sublimity of the towers of Jerusalem, the glittering Temple, the marble palaces, by the base of which he had before dimly crept, feeling with his hand or tapping with his stick. To a man who, by the opening of one sealed sense, was thus ushered into so new a world, nothing can have seemed too grand and good for him to expect. He was prepared to believe in the glory and perfectness of Gods world, and in Christs power to bring him into contact with that glory. If the opening of his bodily organs of vision had given him such exquisite pleasure, and given him entrance to so new a life, what might not the opening of his inward eye accomplish? He had no patience with the difficulties raised by those who had not his experience: How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner. To all these slow-brained, bewildered pedants, he had but the answer, Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. No arguments, happily, can rob me of the immense boon this Man has conferred upon me. If it gives you any satisfaction to apply your paltry tests to Him, and prove that He cannot have done this miracle, you are welcome to your conclusions; but you cannot alter the facts that I was blind, and that now I see. He who has given me so Divine a gift seems to me to carry with Him in some true form the Divine presence. I believe Him when He says, I am the Light of the world.

This miracle was so public as to challenge scrutiny. It was not performed in the privacy of a sick-room, with none present but one or two disciples, who might be supposed ready to believe anything. It was performed on a public character and in broad day. And we nowadays may congratulate ourselves that there was a strong party in the community, whose interest it was to minimise the miracles of our Lord, and who certainly did what they could to prove them fictitious. In the case of this blind man, the authorities took steps to sift the matter; the parents were summoned, and then the man himself. They did precisely what sceptical writers in recent years have desiderated; they instituted a jealous examination of the affair. And so straightforward was the mans testimony, and so well-known was he in Jerusalem, that instead of denying the miracle, they adopted the easier course of excommunicating him for acknowledging Jesus as the Christ.

Ready witted, bold, and independent as this man was, he cannot but have felt keenly this punishment. His hope of employment was gone, and even his new joy in seeing would scarcely compensate for his being shunned by all as a tainted person. Had he been of a fainthearted and moody disposition he might have thought it had been as well had he been left in his blindness, and not become an object of abhorrence to all. But Jesus heard of his punishment, and sought him out, and declared to him more fully who He Himself was. He thus gave to the man assurance of a friendship outweighing in value what he had lost. He made him feel that though cut off from the fellowship of the visible Church, he was made a member of the true commonwealth of men-numbered among those who are united in friendship, and in work, and in destiny to Him who heads the real work of God, and promotes the abiding interests of men. And such is ever the reward of those who make sacrifices for Christ, who lose employment or friends by too boldly confessing their indebtedness to Him. They will themselves tell you that Christ makes up to them for their losses by imparting clearer knowledge of Himself, by making them conscious that they are remembered by Him, and by giving them a conscience void of offence, and a spirit superior to worldly misfortunes.

As a final reflection on the miracle and its results our Lord says: For judgement am I come into the world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind. A kind of sad humour betrays itself in His language, as He sees how easily felt-blindness is removed, but how absolutely blind presumed knowledge is. Humility ever wins the day. The blind man now saw because he knew he was blind, and trusted that Christ could give him sight; the Pharisees were stone-blind to the world Christ opened to them and carried in His person, because they thought that already they had all the knowledge they required. And wherever Christ comes men thus form themselves around Him in two groups, blind and seeing. For judgment, for testing and dividing men, He is come. Nothing goes more searchingly into a mans character than Christs offer to be to him the Light of life, to be his leader to a perfect life. This offer discloses what the man is content with, and what he really sighs for. This offer, which confronts us with the possibility of living in close fellowship and love with God, discloses whether our real bent is towards what is pure, and high, and holy, or towards what is earthly. This man who eagerly asked, Who is the Son of God that I might believe on Him? acknowledged his blindness and his longing for light, and he got it. The Pharisees, who claimed to see, condemned themselves by their rejection of Christ. If, says our Lord, ye were blind, if you were ignorant like this poor man, your ignorance would excuse you. But now ye say, We see, you boast that you can discern the Christ, you have tests of all kinds that you plume yourselves on, therefore your darkness and your sin remain. That is to say, the one sufficient test of Christs claim is need. He presents Himself as the Light of the world, but if we are unconscious of darkness we cannot appreciate Him. But surely there are many of us who feel as if we were born blind, unable to see things spiritual as we ought; as if we had a sense too little, and could not find our way satisfactorily through this life. We hear of God with the hearing of the ear, but do not see Him; we have not the close and unmistakable discernment that comes by sight.

[34] See the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

9:1-41 At the Festival of Shelters (chs 7–8), Jesus claimed to be the light of the world (8:12). Now John tells about Jesus giving light, both physically and spiritually, to a blind man who lived in darkness (see 9:5). The story ends with a splendid reversal of roles: The blind man who was assumed to be in spiritual darkness could see God’s light, whereas the Pharisees, who could see physically and were thought to be enlightened, were shown to be spiritually blind.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 9:1. Καὶ παράγων, and passing by) Immediately after the attack of His enemies.—τυφλόν, blind) Who was begging at the temple. Comp. Act 3:2, “The lame man, laid at the Beautiful gate of the temple, to ask alms.”

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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). Tholucks 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 Luthardts 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).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 9:1-7 . The cure narrated .

Joh 9:1 . Καὶ παράγων . “And as He passed by,” possibly, as Meyer and Holtzmann suppose, on the occasion just mentioned (Joh 8:59 ), and as He passed the gate of the Temple where beggars congregated; but the definite mention that it was a Sabbath (Joh 9:14 ) rather indicates that it was not the same day. See on Joh 10:22 . εἶδεν … γενετῆς . “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 τίς … γεννηθῇ ; Their question implies a belief, repudiated by Jesus here and in Luk 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 Wis 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 Gen 25:26 , Luk 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 Exo 20:5 , etc. ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ ; ἵνα 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).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap. 9,

9:1-41.] Manifestation of Jesus as the Light by a miracle. Judgment of the Jews by the healed man, and by Jesus.

1.] This, if the concluding words of ch. 8. in the . are genuine, would appear to have happened on the same day [as the incidents there related], which is hardly likely, for we should thus have the whole incidents from ch. 7:37 (omitting ch. 7:53-8:12), belonging to one day, and that day a sabbath (ver. 14). And besides, the circumstances under which Jesus here appears are too usual and tranquil to have succeeded immediately to His escape in ch. 8:59. I would rather therefore suppose that there is a break before this verse: how long, we cannot of course say. Thus we have the commencement of a new narrative here, as in ch. 6:1, and 7:1. This is the view of Lücke, Tholuck, and De Wette; Olshausen, Meyer, and Stier believe it to have been the same day; and the former refers the ἦν σάβ. (ver. 14) to its being the last day of the feast (ch. 7:37, where see note).

The blind man was sitting begging (ver. 8), possibly proclaiming the fact of his having been so born; for otherwise the disciples could hardly have asked the following question. The incident may have been in the neighbourhood of the temple (Act 3:2): but doubtless there were other places where beggars sat, besides the temple entrances.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Cure of a Man Blind from His Birth (9:1-13)

1. καὶ παράγων εἶδεν κτλ. This is an abrupt beginning, but the introductory καί is thoroughly Johannine. παράγειν does not occur again in the Fourth Gospel; but cf. 1Jn 2:8, 1Jn 2:17.

τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς. 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. γενετή does not appear again in the N.T., but the phrase τυφλὸς ἐκ γενετῆς is 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: πηγὴ ὕδατος ζῶντος παρὰ θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ γνώσεως θεοῦ … ἀνέβλυσεν, sc. Christ, τοὺς ἐκ γενετῆς καὶ κατὰ τὴν σάρκα πηροὺς καὶ κωφοὺς καὶ χωλοὺς ἰάσατο (cf. Apol. i. 22). πηρός is used of blindness, as well as of other bodily disabilities; but, apart from that, the phrase ἐκ γενετῆς indicates 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.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 1-41.

1. The miracle recorded in this chapter occurred probably on the same day with the discourses of the closing part of ch. 8, and not improbably (if Joh 7:53 to Joh 8:11 be rejected) on the day mentioned in Joh 7:37.

2. The question of the disciples in Joh 9:2 is one of much difficulty. The exact correspondence in the form of the question respecting the man himself and of that which refers to the parents would seem to indicate the same possibility, to their view, of his sinning, which was manifest in the matter of their sinning. This fact bears somewhat strongly against the interpretation which makes this double question simply a means of indicating that they saw no possibility of explaining the blindness. On the other hand, there is not sufficient evidence to make it very probable that the disciples supposed that a man could sin before birth. There are some indications, however, of a belief, more or less extended, in the pre-existence or transmigration of souls, and in the existence of sin in the embryo condition of the child;—and in their desire to obtain from Jesus His explanation of this calamity the disciples might, in their perplexity as to its connection with sin, have asked not only whether it was due to the sins of the man’s parents (a thing which they themselves could allow) or to his own sins (a cause which, though not admitted by themselves, would be by some other persons).

3. The close sequence of Joh 9:3; Joh 9:5 may indicate that, to the thought of Jesus, the works of God in this case were to be in the line of light for this man. The physical illumination which is effected by restoring his sight is thus made emblematic of the illumination of the soul, and the miracle is, in this way, brought into immediate connection with the conversation and discourse which precede it in the eighth chapter. The miracle in this case follows the discourse as illustrating and confirming its truth, if this view is correct, instead of suggesting the thoughts of the discourse, as is generally the case in this Gospel. But, here as elsewhere, it takes its place in the development of the proof, in connection with the teaching:—the works and the words.

4. The relation of the external means, which are sometimes used by Jesus when performing miracles, and sometimes not, to the end in view, can only be conjectured. Their use may, not improbably, have been determined by something in the man himself on whom the miracle was wrought, or in the spectators, which made such an element in the work essential to the spiritual impression which Jesus desired to produce.

5. The life-like character of this story of the blind man is more striking than that of any other, perhaps, in the whole circle of the Gospel narrative—the question of the neighbors, etc., and the different answers which they received (Joh 9:8-9); the simplicity of the man’s answer when interrogated by them as to his cure (Joh 9:11-12); the attitude of the Pharisees with regard to the matter—first, trying to make the man believe that Jesus was not a Divinely-sent helper, because He healed on the Sabbath; then, refusing to believe that he had been blind and that Jesus had healed him; then, summoning his parents, in the hope that they would deny it; then, calling the man again and attempting to overbear him by the charge that Jesus was a sinner, and by referring to Moses; and, finally, when they found themselves unsuccessful, saying, “Thou wert altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us,” and thereupon driving him out; again, the progress in the man’s answers—first, The man called Jesus told me to go, and I went and gained the blessing, but I know not where He now is; then, I think He is a prophet; then, Whether He is a sinner or not, I do not know, but one thing I do know: whereas I was blind, I now see; then, I have told you the whole story once, why tell it again; then, It is surely a marvellous thing that you do not know whence such a man is, a man who has done such a wonderful miracle; if He were not from God He could not have done it; and lastly, when Jesus appears again and tells him that He is the Son of man, he says, Lord, I believe. Everything in the words and actions of all the participants in the scene has that inimitable naturalness which, in the case of a writer of the peculiar order of mind and character which belonged to the author of this Gospel, could not have been exhibited in his story had he not been personally acquainted with the scene. Whatever the author may have been, he had not the gifts which belong to the writer of fiction who pictures what is unknown with all the reality of life.

6. Two striking facts are noticeable in this chapter:

(a) The miracle has a peculiar character, and is the most remarkable one recorded in this Gospel, with the exception of the raising of Lazarus. It is the giving of sight to one who was born blind. The miracle at Bethesda, where the man who was healed had been thirty-eight years in his illness, leads to the opening of the discourse of ch. 5, which sets forth the equality of Jesus with God; this miracle of healing the man who had never seen closes the further development of that thought in ch. 8. Certainly there is no mere repetition, but progress in the miraculous works which are recorded. They are selected from the “many signs which Jesus did” as connected with the development of the author’s plan from its beginning to its end.

(b) As in the case of the story of the Samaritan woman, Jesus here declares Himself distinctly to this man as the Son of man. The effect of this declaration, as it came to the knowledge of the disciples at the end of this succession of discourses, chs. 5-8, and after the miracles, chs. 5, 9, as well as the one in ch. 6, must have been greatly to strengthen their belief that “Jesus was the Christ,” and that life would come through faith in Him.—Westcott says, with regard to Joh 9:35-41 : “The ejection of the blind man who had been healed from the council of the Pharisees furnished the occasion for the beginning of a new society distinct from the dominant Judaism.” And in connection with this fact he thinks it is, that Jesus offers Himself here as the Son of man. But it seems very doubtful whether this can be affirmed. There is certainly no indication of the formation of a new society at this time, or as following upon this event.

7. In Joh 9:35 Tregelles, Alford, Meyer, Keil, read υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; Westcott and Hort agree with Tischendorf, 8th ed., and Godet in readingυἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Weiss also seems to prefer this reading. R. V. reads Son of God in the text, Son of man in the margin. McClellan calls the latter reading “another glaring blunder of only א B D and Theb!”

8. The words of Joh 9:39 seem to have followed immediately after those which passed between the man and Jesus, but to have been addressed to the company of persons who surrounded Jesus, or, at least, to have been spoken in their presence. The κρῖμα, as Meyer remarks, “is an end, but not the ultimate end of the appearance of Jesus.” The expressionYou would not have sin may, perhaps, be explained as referring to an absolute want of all knowledge of right and duty, like this man’s blindness to the things of sight, or it may refer to the matter of unbelief. If the former is the true meaning, the negative part of the sentence will hold good in all cases in proportion as the want of knowledge is complete or partial.

Vv. 1-5. “And in passing, he saw a man blind from birth; 2 and his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind? 3. Jesus answered, Neither did he nor his parents sin; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4. I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; the night comes, in which no one can work. 5. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

These first five verses describe the situation in which the new miracle is wrought. If the last words of the preceding chapter in the T. R. are authentic, the first words of this would closely connect this scene with the preceding; comp. καὶ παράγων with παρῆγεν οὕτως. But there would be in this case, as de Wette has clearly seen, an improbability in the story; for the question which the disciples address to Jesus in Joh 9:2 implies a more calm condition of mind than that in which they could have been on leaving the temple after the violent scene of chap. 8. Nothing in the authentic text forces us to connect one of these facts with the other. The formula καὶ παράγων, and in passing, only requires that there should not be placed between them a too considerable interval. If the scene in Joh 8:30-59 occurred in the morning, that which follows may have taken place in the evening of the same day. This time of the day suits well the figure which the Lord employs (Joh 9:4-5).

The blind man was sitting at one of the gates either of the temple, or rather of the city, to beg. The disciples learned from him or from others that he was blind from birth. The question which they address to Jesus seems to have been called forth by the marked attention with which he regarded this man (εἶδεν). From the point of view of Jewish monotheism, suffering, it seemed, could only be the consequence of sin. But, how apply this law to the present case? The only two alternatives which presented themselves to the mind were those which are indicated by the question of the disciples: but they seemed equally inadmissible. The dogma of the pre-existence of souls or that of metempsychosis might have given some probability to the first supposition; but these systems, although the second especially was not foreign to the Rabbinical teaching, were never popular in Israel. It would therefore have been necessary to hold that the misfortune of this man was an anticipatory chastisement of his future sins, or the punishment of some fault committed by him in the embryonic state (Gen 25:22; Psa 51:7).

But these two explanations must have both appeared very improbable. The other supposition, that this man suffered for the sins of his parents, might be supported by Exo 20:5, but nevertheless it seemed contrary to the justice of God. The disciples, perceiving no reasonable solution, ask Jesus to decide the question. The ἵνα preserves always in some measure the idea of purpose: “that he should have been born thus, according to the divine plan.” In His reply, Jesus does not deny the existence of sin in this man or his parents; but no more does He acknowledge the necessity of a moral connection between this individual or family sin and the blindness with which the unhappy man is smitten. He teaches the disciples that they should direct their attention, not to the mysterious cause of the suffering, but to the end for which God permits it and the salutary effects which we can derive from it. Individual suffering is not often connected, except in a general way, with the collective sin of humanity (see on Joh 5:14), and does not give us the right to judge the one who suffers. But it always includes a call to fulfill a divine mission towards him by helping him temporally and spiritually. As evil has its work on earth, so God also has His, and it consists in making evil itself an occasion of good. All these acts by which we cooperate in the accomplishment of the divine intention, enter into what Jesus here calls the works of God.

The sequel will show that this word comprehends in the thought of Jesus, together with the outward act which bears the stamp of the divine omnipotence (the miracle of healing Joh 9:6-7), the spiritual effects which will result from it, the spiritual illumination and the salvation of the blind man (Joh 9:35-38). The summons to help and save this unhappy man made itself felt in the Lord’s heart at the very moment when He had fixed His eyes upon him; hence the εἶδεν of Joh 9:1. The term φανερώθῃ, be made manifest, is explained by the fact that these works are originally hidden in the divine plan, before being executed. This point of view from which Jesus regards suffering is that which He seeks to make His disciples share from the end of Joh 9:3, and that which He develops in Joh 9:4-5, by applying it to His own personal task during His sojourn here on earth.

When the master who has entrusted the task to the workman (ὁ πέμψας, he who has sent), gives the signal, the latter must act as long as the day of working continues. This signal Jesus has just discerned. Though it is a Sabbath, he cannot defer obeying until the morrow. Perhaps Jesus was at that moment beholding on the horizon the sun which was setting and was in a few moments going to disappear. This day which is about to end is for Him the emblem of His earthly life, which is near its termination (Joh 8:21). “When the night is come,” He says, “the workmen cease their work. My work is to enlighten the world, like this sun; and for me, as for it, the task will be ended in a little while. I must not lose a moment, therefore, of the time which remains for me to fulfill it.”

The reading (“we must work”) which belongs to the most ancient Mjj., is defended by Meyer, Lange, Luthardt, Weiss, Westcott, Tischendorf, etc. In that case, it must be supposed that a substitution for it was made in the numerous documents which read ἐμέ, I, under the influence of the με which follows, as well as that of Joh 9:5. This is possible; but is it natural that Jesus should apply to all the disciples the duty which He is to fulfill? And is not the contrary supposition also possible? Was there not a desire to make of this altogether individual expression a moral maxim, and still more probably was there not a desire to avoid the application to the Lord of the following words which seemed incompatible with His state of heavenly glory: The night comes, when no one can work. It is impossible for me to harmonize the ἡμᾶς, we, with the με, I, which follows. For there is a close correlation between the two notions: to be sent and do the work of. I think therefore that ἡμᾶς has been wrongly substituted for ἐμέ, and that only two MSS. (א L) have been consistent throughout in logically adding to the change of ἐμέ to ἡμᾶς that of με to ἡμᾶς . The two others (B D), by neglecting to make this second change, have confessed and condemned the first. It is of importance to remark that the ancient Versions, the Itala and Peschito, support the received reading.

The contrast of day andnight cannot denote, in this context, that of opportunity and inopportunity, or that of the moment of grace and the hour when it can no longer be obtained; it can be here only the contrast between the time of working during the day, and that of rest when once the night is come. There is therefore nothing sinister in this figure: the night. But in what sense can the idea of rest be applied to the heavenly life of Jesus Christ? Does He not continue in heaven, through His Spirit, the work begun here on earth? True, but, in His heavenly existence, He in reality only reaps that which He sowed during His sojourn on earth (Joh 4:38). Consequently, a single divine call to do good neglected by Him here below, a single moment lost on earth, would have left an irreparable void in the work of salvation accomplished by the Holy Spirit after His departure. The whole material of the regenerating and sanctifying activity of the Spirit, even to the end of the present dispensation, is derived from the earthly work of Jesus.

The expression: I am the light of the world, Joh 9:5, has no relation to the figure of day and night, Joh 9:4; it is chosen with reference to the special work which the Lord must now accomplish in giving physical and spiritual light to the one born blind. We see from the conjunction ὅταν, when, which can only be rendered by as long as, how His sojourn in this world is to the view of Jesus a transitory and in some sort accidental thing. How should He not hasten to employ well a season which must end so soon?

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Sin is the beginning even of all bodily diseases, and yet doth it not follow, that God always respecteth their sins, whom he most sharply punisheth.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER IX.

Account of the man who was born blind, 1-5.

Christ heals him, 6, 7.

The man is questioned by his neighbours, 8-12.

He is brought to the Pharisees, who question him, 13-17,

and then his parents, 18-23.

They again interrogate the man, who, vindicating the conduct

of Christ, is excommunicated by them, 24-34.

Jesus, hearing of the conduct of the Pharisees, afterwards

finds the man, and reveals himself to him, 35-38.

He passes sentence on the obduracy and blindness of the

Pharisees, 39-41.

NOTES ON CHAP. IX.

Verse 1. And as Jesus passed by] This chapter is a continuation of the preceding, and therefore the word Jesus is not in the Greek text: it begins simply thus - And passing along, και παραγων, &c. Having left the temple, where the Jews were going to stone him, (Joh 8:59,) it is probable our Lord went, according to his custom, to the mount of Olives. The next day, which was the Sabbath, Joh 9:14, he met a man who had been born blind, sitting in some public place, and asking alms from those who passed by, Joh 9:8.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. Jesus saw a man blind. In this chapter, the Evangelist describes the restoration of sight to the blind man, at the same time mingling doctrine, to point out the fruit of the miracle. From his birth. This circumstance gives an additional display of the power of Christ; for blindness, which he had brought from his mother’s womb, and which he had endured till he arrived at the age of a man, could not be cured by human remedies. This gave occasion to the disciples to propose a question, Of whose sin was this the punishment?

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(1) And as Jesus passed by.—Better, And. as He was passing by. The words are immediately connected with those of the preceding verse, “and went out of the Temple.” It was then, as He was leaving the Temple to escape the fury of His enemies who had taken up stones to cast at Him, and was passing by. the place where the blind man was, that His eye fell upon him. The day was the Sabbath of the preceding discourse, now drawing to its close. (Comp. Joh_9:4; Joh_9:14, and Joh_8:12.) The place was probably some spot near the Temple, perhaps one of its gates. We know that beggars were placed near these gates to ask alms (Act_3:2), and this man was well known as one who sat and begged (Joh_9:8).

A man which was blind from his birth.—The fact was well known, and was probably publicly proclaimed by the man himself or his parents (Joh_9:20) as an aggravation of his misery, and as a plea for the alms of passers by. Of the six miracles connected with blindness which are recorded in the Gospels, this is the only case described as blindness from birth. In this lies its special characteristic, for “since the world began, was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind” (Joh_9:32).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–5. The Prelude to the Sign

1. And as Jesus passed by] Or, And as He was passing by. This was possibly on His way from the Temple (Joh_8:59), or it may refer to a later occasion near the Feast of the Dedication (Joh_10:22). We know that this man begged for his living (Joh_9:8), and that beggars frequented the gates of the Temple (Act_3:2), as they frequent the entrances of foreign churches now.

blind from his birth] The man would be repeatedly stating this fact to passers by. The Greek for ‘from his birth’ occurs nowhere else in N.T. Justin Martyr uses the phrase twice of those whom Christ healed; Trypho lxix.; Apol. i. xxii. No source is so probable as this verse, for nowhere else is there an account of Christ’s healing a congenital disease. See on Joh_1:23 and Joh_3:3.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

Ver. 1. He saw a man which was blind] This was enough to move Christ to mercy, the sight of a fit object. When God sets us up an altar be we ready with our sacrifice.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As Jesus passed by - As he was leaving the temple, Joh 8:59. This man was in the way in which Jesus was going to escape from the Jews.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The evangelist doth not tell us where our Saviour was passing by, but the word seemeth to import a passing by the highway side, when he saw this poor man, who was born blind; which is particularly noted, because such blindness is judged incurable as to the art of man.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Man Born Blind

1-12. The healing of the man born blind. This miracle occurred on the same day as the events of the last c., i.e. probably on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. It is intended to illustrate the truth that Christ is 'the Light of the world' (Joh_8:12; Joh_9:5). Christ proves His power to open the eyes of the soul by opening the eyes of the body. The miracle, being wrought on the sabbath day, intensified the hostility of the rulers, which had already been violently inflamed by the discourses of John 8 : see Joh_8:59.

2. The disciples thought that possibly the man had sinned, either in a previous state of existence (in accordance with the doctrine of the transmigration of souls), or more probably as an infant before birth. To the Jews who attributed intelligence to unborn children (Gen_25:22-26; Luk_1:41) this last was a natural idea.

3. As in Luk_13:1-5, Jesus rebukes the hasty inference, common among the Jews (see e.g. Job_4:7), that misfortunes are always the direct result of sin. As a matter of fact diseases often come as part of the present order of nature, and not as special judgments: cp. Luk_13:4. A great moral difficulty is involved in such a state of things, but Jesus does not discuss it.

4. Jesus saw that His death was impending, and that His time for doing works of mercy was short.

6. In two other miracles (Mar_7:33 and Mar_8:23) Jesus heals by a gradual process, and uses visible means. In this case the application of saliva and clay to the man's eyes was an aid to faith (saliva being a recognised remedy for eye-diseases), and his being sent to bathe in the water was a test of faith as it was in the case of Naaman (2Ki_5:10).

7. Siloam] The evangelist regards this pool of. healing water as a type of Christ, who is 'sent' by the Father to heal the diseases of the soul. The OT. forms of the word are Shiloah, Isa_8:6, and Shelah, Neh_3:15. It is now called Birket Silwan. It is fed by an underground conduit from the Virgin's Fountain.

8. Blind] RV 'a beggar.'

13-34. This whole section illustrates the incredible blindness of the Pharisees (Joh_9:40-41), who can see nothing in this unique sign, except the technical breach of the sabbath, of which they suppose Jesus to have been guilty.

14. The conduct of Jesus was illegal in two ways: (1) It was forbidden to render medical aid on the sabbath, unless there was imminent danger of death; (2) there was a special provision against applying saliva to the eyes on the sabbath day.

17. He is a prophet] This view, if accepted, would remove the difficulty about the sabbath day, for it was generally supposed that prophets had authority over the sabbath law.

22. Put out of the synagogue] i.e. excommunicated.

24. Give God the praise] RV 'Give glory to God,' a Hebrew idiom for 'Confess your error,' Jos_7:19; 1Sa_6:5; 1 Samuel 1 Est_9:8.

34. Born in sins] This gives the clue to Joh_9:2. The Pharisees assume that the man had been born blind as a punishment for exceptional wickedness, which began even before birth.

Cast him out] i.e. excommunicated him.

35. When the door of the synagogue was shut, the door of the Kingdom of Heaven was opened. The Son of God] Christ so seldom uses this title of Himself, that it has been corrected in many copies into the more usual 'the Son of man.' Whichever title was used, the man rightly understood Jesus to claim superhuman dignity, and accordingly worshipped Him (Joh_9:38).

39. For judgment I am come] This does not contradict Joh_3:17, for the 'judgment' meant here is not the judicial act of rewarding and punishing, which Christ will exercise at the Last Day, but the present separation of mankind into two opposite camps, which is the inevitable result of His manifestation in the flesh. That they which see not (but are conscious of their ignorance) might see: and that they which see (or, rather, think they see) might be made blind: cp. Mat_13:11-17.

40. Are we blind also?] Christ's Pharisaic disciples rightly perceive that His words are directed against them.

41. If the Pharisees were simply ignorant, but confessed their ignorance and were willing to learn, they would not be guilty. What makes them so guilty is that, though ignorant, they esteem themselves wise, and refuse to learn the way of life. They are still seeking the righteousness of the Law, rather than the righteousness of God.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These chapters (9 and 10) bring the conflict with the Jews to a climax before the commencement of the Peraean ministry. They are doubtless closely connected with what has preceded; but the note of time (Joh_10:22) implies an interval of some months of intense activity elsewhere to have carried on the ministry of Christ from the Feast of Tabernacles to the winter. If Joh_10:22 points back, as Westcott argues by alteration of the Received Text and by special translation, to the preceding discourse, we are compelled to dissociate the cure of the blind man from the teaching of John 8, and to regard the opening verse of John 9. as entirely distinct from, and discontinuous with, the stormy scene in the temple. Dr. Eustace Conder, "Outlines of the Life of Christ," considers the connection so close between the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters, as to bring the entire series of instructions into one group, and to intercalate a considerable portion of the later Galilaean ministry and also that in Persea between the seventh and eighth chapters. On that hypothesis, after the break-up of the Sanhedrin on the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles, (Joh_7:52) an absence of some months intervened before Jesus (Joh_8:12) again spoke to them, and said, I am the Light of the world," deriving his illustration from "the Feast of Lights," which accompanied the en-kaiaia of Joh_10:22.

The removal of the closing words of Joh_8:59 from the text as a gloss, favors a pause between the attempt to stone Jesus and the miracle. Lange has the inconsistent remark that the paragwn is "the participle of the preceding though doubtful parhgen ." If it were a gloss, the parhgen had been introduced by some copyist from the paragwn , and therefore the latter can derive no meaning from the former. Admitting the spuriousness of the gloss, the connection between the chapters is not close enough to allow the supposition that, on the passing out of the temple with his disciples, the conversation and miracle took place. Godet thinks that the most probable time was the evening of the memorable day when our Lord and his disciples had returned to the temple. True, in Act_3:2 a congenital cripple sat at the gate of the temple, asking alms; but in this place there is no mention of the temple. Our Lord may have "seen" this beggar on any one of his peregrinations over the slopes of Olivet or on the road to Bethany, and now he seems to be in the company of the disciples, and with them alone. They are not apparently suffering from the recent excitement of the angry contest in the temple-court. They have had time to recover themselves, and to draw from Christ, not as the eternal I AM, but as their "Rabbi," a solution of a most pressing psychological and theological puzzle which has agitated all schools of thought. Yet the reply of Jesus, involving a fresh illustration of his being the "Light of the world," shows that the great utterances of the preceding discourse were still the theme uppermost in his own mind. We know that the discourse, etc., took place on a sabbath, and the result of the healing relates itself most closely to the discussion which followed the healing of the impotent man in John 5. and 7.

Vers. 1-7. (8) The Lord confirms by a sign the declaration that he is the Light of the world, by giving eyesight as well as light. That which had been proclaimed as a great truth of his Being and mission, viz. that he was the Light of the world, was now to be established and confirmed to the disciples by a signal miracle. The "higher criticism" finds explanation of this and other similar miracles at Bethsaida and Jericho, in the prophecy of Isa_42:19 Isa_43:8 Isa_35:5 Isa_29:18. Volkmar holds that the story of Zacchaeus is thus rewritten! Thoma thinks that we have a spiritualization of the "miracle" on Saul of Tarsus. It would be waste time to point out the differences which are patent to the simplest criticism.

And the kai suggests relation both in subject-matter, in time, place, occasion, and theme, with that which had precededas Jesus was passing by, going along his way, he saw a man blind from birth. (cf. ek koiliav mhtro , Act_3:2 Act_14:8) He was obviously a well-known beggar, who had often proclaimed the fact that he was blind from birth (see ver. 8). Such a condition and history rendered the cure more difficult and hopeless in the view of ordinary professors of the healing art, and the juxtaposition of such a symbolic fact with the near activity of those who were boasting of their Abrahamic privilege and their national and mere hereditary advantages, is one of the instances of the unconscious poesy of the gospel history. There he sits, the very type of the race which says, "We see," but which to Christ"s eye was proclaiming its utter helplessness and blindness, not asking even to be illumined, and revealing the fundamental injury done to the very race and nature of man, and calling for all the healing power that he had been sent into the world to dispense. The man who had been struck blind, or whose eyesight had been slowly dosed by disease, became the type of the effect of special sins upon the character and life; thus e.g. vanity conceals radical defects and weaknesses; pride hides from the sinner"s own view his own trans gressions; temporary blindness to great faults is one of the symptoms of gross sin like David"s, and prejudice is proverbially blind and deaf; but here is a man who is nothing less than the type of a congenital bias to evil, of hereditary damage done to human nature. Unless Christ can pour light upon those who are born blind, he is not the Savior the world needs.

Vers. 1-12. Cure of the man born blind.

This new miracle caused a fresh outburst of Jewish hatred against our Lord. Of the six miracles of blindness recorded in the Gospels, this only is a case of blindness from birth.

I THE CURIOUS QUESTION OF THE DISCIPLES. "Master, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?

1. Their conviction was that affliction was in all cases the consequence of sin.

(1) In the moral government of God there is a necessary connection between sin and suffering. (Rom_6:23)

(2) Yet the suffering may be sent to prevent sin as well as to punish Joh_2:2. Though they were disciples, they erred respecting the connection between sin and suffering. There was an alternative question.

(1) They seemed to think it possible that the man born blind should have sinned before he was born, in some pre-existing state. The disciples were the victims of many traditional errors and delusions.

(2) They had more ground for believing that the affliction of blindness was the effect of the sin of the beggar"s parents. Some fact of this kind was familiar to their minds in the wording of the second commandment, (Exo_20:5) and in the representative relationship of family life. (Heb_7:10)

(3) The disciples submitted the question to our Lord because of its extreme difficulty. The one supposition seemed ungrounded and impossible, the other seemed not in conflict with the justice of God.

II OUR LORD"S ANSWER TO THEIR QUESTION. "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

1. Our Lord does not assert the sinlessness of the beggar or his parents.

2. But he denies any moral connection in this case between the individual and family sin and the blindness from birth. It is a warning that we should not be too ready to regard every affliction as a Divine judgment.

3. He deals with the case from the practical rather than from the speculative side, representing it as an occasion for the exercise and display of the Divine power and goodness.

(1) Our Lord carries it back into the sphere of the Divine counsel.

(2) He represents God as brining good out of evil.

4. Our Lord emphasizes the Divine necessity that engages him in this blessed work. "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

(1) This miracle occurred on the sabbath, probably on the evening of the day which was marked by his long dialogue with the Jews in the temple. He not only went about every day doing good, but every hour was devoted to a holy activity.

(2) The moments were precious, because the work of his human activity was rapidly coming to an end. Our working season is at best a short season. "The night cometh" to end all.

(3) His function as being "the Light of the world" imposed this incessant activity upon him. "As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.

(a) Therefore the true Light cannot but shine upon the world"s darkness.

(b) And he is the only Agent to remove the physical and spiritual darkness that appealed to his compassion.

III THE METHOD OF THE MIRACLE. "When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam." Why did our Lord act in this manner?

1. Partly to test the faith of the blind beggar.

2. In all the cases of miracle involving the loss of connection with the world of sense, Jesus takes care to have personal communication established, so as to assure the sufferer of his presence and supply a foundation for faith.

(1) The deaf man cannot hear Christ"s voice, but the momentary touch of his ear established the necessary communication.

(2) The blind could not see the look of Divine compassion which others could see, but the clay or the spittle would be felt as indicating the presence of One whose words held out the hope of cure.

(3) The means are, after all, though under a physical aspect, designed to affect the mental condition of the sufferer.

IV THE SUCCESS OF THE MIRACLE. "He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

1. His ready obedience was a sign of his faith.

2. His faith in Divine power at once opened up to him a new world. The eye establishes between us and the world a nearer and wider communication than any other organ of sense.

3. Christ puts honor upon the exercise of true faith and obedience to his commands.

V THE CURIOSITY OF THE BEGGAR"S NEIGHBOURS RESPECTING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MIRACLE. "Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

1. Some acknowledged his identity, but others tried to evade the fact of the miracle by affecting to doubt his identity.

2. They all alike laid stress upon the manner, not upon the fact, of the miracle. "How were thine eyes opened?

3. The beggars frank acknowledgment of all the facts. The Man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

(1) He must have been previously familiar with Jesus, else he could not have known his name. His presence every day at the temple, as he begged of the passers-by, put him in the way of knowing much concerning the acts of Christ.

(2) It is a proof at once of his faith and of his gratitude that he publicly confessed his obligations to the Savior.

4. The effect of this declaration on his neighbors. "Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

(1) Jesus had evidently disappeared at once from the scene, perhaps exhausted by the anxieties of his long conflict with the Jews in the temple.

(2) The curiosity of the Jews to know where Jesus was, was prompted more by hatred than by the desire to do him honor.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Vers. 1-41. The passage of a soul from darkness into light.

This graphic and dramatic narrative begins with the healing of a bodily privation by the exercise el Christ"s miraculous power. But its chief interest lies in the spiritual process which it unfolds. It relates how a young man, poor and blind, but intelligent, candid, and brave, received spiritual as well as bodily illumination, and how he displayed insight in apprehending Christ"s character, courage in resisting Christ"s adversaries, and gratitude in acknowledging Christ"s claims. The several steps of this process deserve attentive study.

I THE COMMENCEMENT AND THE REAL EXPLANATION OF THE WHOLE PROCESS IS TO BE FOUND IN THE MERCY OF GOD. Our Lord gives what may be called the final cause of this man"s blindness when he instructs his disciples that the intention of the Creator was to be found in the opportunity afforded for the manifestation of the Divine energy and grace in the work of restoration. It is well to look for human explanations, but it is better to receive, when they are afforded, such as are Divine. In studying the transformations of human character the wise man will look for the deepest reasons in the purposes of the Eternal.

II THE ATTENTION AND INTEREST OF THIS MAN WERE EXCITED BY JESUS" COMPASSION AND BENEFICENCE. Himself receiving a signal proof of Christ"s pity in the exercise on his behalf of Christ"s healing power, the man could not fail to feel the charm of his Benefactor"s character. In this the experience of many has been parallel with his. There are ever those who, seeing what Christ has effected for the benefit of humanity, and reflecting upon the advantages which have accrued to themselves through the work of Christ upon earth, are led to inquire into the gospel, and to ask what there is in the Savior to account for the influence he has exerted over human society. What he has done naturally leads to the inquiry, "Who is he?

III THE REFLECTION OF THIS MAN UPON THE MISSION OF CHRIST WAS FURTHER PROMOTED BY THE INQUIRIES OF HIS NEIGHBORS. Those who had long been acquainted with him asked him of his own experience, asked him of his healer; and such inquiries naturally led him to form more definite convictions. "Truth, like a torch, the more "tis shook it shines.

Seasons of religious interest and inquiry often serve the purpose of compelling the unsettled and undecided to endeavor at least to understand and to justify their own position.

IV THIS MAN"S CONVICTIONS WERE CLEARED AND HIS FAITH STRENGTHENED BY OPPOSITION AND PERSECUTION. The fire that burns the dross purifies the gold. A weak nature may be harmed by adversity, terrified by threats, coerced by violence. But this man"s best nature was brought out by contact with opposition. He was not to be browbeaten. He turned round upon his persecutors, and put them in the wrong. Even their injustice in excommunicating him was unavailing; he was gaining a spiritual standing from which he could smile at the threats and actions which were intended to dismay him. Often has it happened in the history of Christianity that times of persecution have strengthened and steadied the faith of true believers. Some of the noblest characters that have adorned the Church have been cradled in the storm.

V CIRCUMSTANCES AND DIVINE TEACHING LED THIS MAN FROM STAGE TO STAGE OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF. This appears in a very marked manner from the view he gradually came to take of his Benefactor. First he spoke of him as "a Man called Jesus;" then he pronounced him to be "a Prophet;" later on he asserted him to be "from God." He was following the light he had, and this is ever the way to fuller and clearer light. Thus he was led to take the final step, the natural result of those preceding.

VI THIS MAN"S ARDENT FAITH AND PROFOUND WORSHIP WERE CALLED FORTH BY THE INTERVIEW HE HAD WITH JESUS HIMSELF. There was already a candid and teachable disposition; there was already an affectionate gratitude towards Jesus. It was only needed that Christ should fully declare himself. And when he did this, it is observable that the man restored to sight saw spiritually as well as physically. He beheld the Son of God standing before him; he believed and worshipped. All that had gone before led up to this, and without this would have been incomplete. Now at length this once blind soul passed into the clearness and the fullness of the light of heaven, Now he could say with reference to his spiritual state what he had before said of his earthly vision, "Whereas I was blind, now I see. T.

HOMILIES BY B. THOMAS Vers. 1-7. The blind man and the sight-giving Savior.

Notice this blind man

I IN RELATION TO THE DISCIPLES.

1. To them he was a notorious object of retributive justice. His blindness they regarded as a special punishment for some particular sin; they looked upon him, as Lot"s wife of old, as a standing monument of iniquity, only with this difference, he was alive, bearing his punishment on this side. Their notion is, upon the whole, correct. Sin is punished, and sometimes in this world.

2. An object of speculative curiosity. Suggesting a problem not easily solved, and a difficulty which they wish to be removed. In the light of popular Jewish teaching and also in that of heathen teaching the difficulty stared them. Of one thing they were certain, that his blindness was a retributive punishment for sin the sin of his parents or that of his own. But which? That it should be on account of the sins of his parents they could easily understand; but if on account of his own, how could this be when he was born blind?

3. An advantageous object to present the question for solution to Jesus. The blind man was probably well known to them, and they had often before discussed this aspect or" his blindness, with various results; but now here is an opportunity of a final solution of the difficulty. They have full confidence in Jesus" ability and readiness to clear the matter forever, and they lost no time, but asked, "Master, which did sin," etc.?

4. An object who did not excite in them any practical sympathy. They regarded him as the religious teachers of the nation generally would regard him as the child of sin, a monument of retributive justice, a subject for curious speculation; and, as far as they were concerned, they would leave him with feelings of proud contempt, and satisfaction with their own state as compared with his.

II IN RELATION TO JESUS.

1. To him he was an object who attracted his special attention. "As he passed by, he saw a man," etc. How many passed by without seeing him at all, and how many saw him with indifference! And probably the disciples did not notice him before they saw the Master"s attention fixed upon him. He saw him first, and saw him as no one saw him before. He had many eyes fixed upon him, but never such as these; he had many a gaze from passers-by, but not one containing such feelings, sentiments, and meaning as the one which was on him now.

2. To him he was not an object of retributive justice, but a specially befitting one or, whom to manifest Divine operations. While fully admitting the law of retribution, he excludes this case from the category, and at once removes the disciples" question

a. from the speculative to the practical,

b. from the human standpoint to the Divine.

And although the blindness of this man could not be viewed entirely apart from sin, yet to Christ it appeared as a special occasion to manifest Divine operations.

(1) The operation of Divine mercy. Where there is no misery, no mercy is needed; and the greater the misery, the greater and Diviner the mercy which relieves. This was a special case of human misery, advantageous to a special display of Divine mercy. The man was blind from his birth.

(2) The operation of Divine power. Where human skill is helpless, the power which helps must be Divine. To restore this man to sight no human doctor could, nor even would sincerely make the attempt. His restoration was evidently and gloriously the work of God.

(3) The operation of Divine grace. He had a mind requiring enlightenment, a soul in need of salvation, and this popular child of sin presented a glorious opportunity for the display of redeeming grace.

(4) In this man Divine operations were signally manifested. God works continually, in giving sight to men at first, and in an infinite variety of ways, but his operations are unseen and unobserved; but in this man they shine and blaze, so that all must see them but the totally blind. They were manifested to the man himself, and through him to others.

(5) This man restored by Christ was a most convincing and attractive specimen of Divine operations. He was so well known as being helplessly blind from his birth, and was now about to be even better known as perfectly restored by Jesus. Thus he who was popularly thought to be a monument of sin and its terrible con sequences, becomes the popular monument of Divine power, the convincing specimen of Divine mercy, and the notorious advertisement of redeeming grace in Christ. Still, he was only a specimen, extraordinary only in the manifestation, but quite ordinary in this course of Divine operations. It is only the work of God, what he ever performs in Christ.

3. To Christ this man was an object who vividly reminded him of his mission on earth.

(1) As a mission o f real and untiring activity. "I must work," etc.

(2) As a missio n involving a great variety of activities. "The works." Not one or a few, but many and various as various as the physical and spiritual wants of the human family.

(3) As a mission which i s Divine and representative in its character. "The works o f him," etc. He never forgot the Divine and representative character of his mission, involving special duties, obligations, and responsibilities in relation to him who sent him.

(4) As a mission which must b e performed in due season. "While it is day," etc. He had only a day, and with regard to his earthly life this was short. Even in this hour of his triumph and brilliancy, in giving sight to the blind man, he was reminded of its brevity. Thi s ver y act hastened the approaching night, Those who shine brightly on the night of the wicked world canno t expec t a long day.

(5) As a mission which his disciples had to share. "We" (the proper reading) "must work," etc. The Master and the disciples were one, and their mission one. He came not only to work himself, but also to teach them to work. They were as yet apprentices, but row it was time to begin to break them in under the yoke and remind them of their duty, and all the more as day was drawing to a close.

(6) As a mission the necessity of its fulfillment was felt by him with increasing force. "We must," etc. This came from his Divine commission, from human woe, from the greatness and importance of the work, and the brevity of the time. From above, around, and from within came the inspiration of his work, which found appropriate expression in "We must work," etc.

4. To Jesus this man was an object on whom he would give a practical illustration of his mission. "When he had spoken these things," etc. The speech ended in action, and the action was in perfect keeping with the speech a grand but most natural and touching peroration. Christ taught his disciples by practical illustrations. The miracle was a full answer to their question, and a practical specimen of his mission.

(1) Means were used in the performance of the miracle. Sometimes he would exercise his Divine power without the use of means at all, even without a word, only the fiat of his will; but here very few words are used it is all action. "I must work.

(2) The means used were in themselves utterly inadequate to produce the ultimate end. Clay and spittle and washing in the pool of Siloam. These means, however efficacious in popular esteem, were utterly futile to give the man his sight.

(3) These means, nevertheless, were suitable to answer the end Jesus had in view. He knew when and when not to use means, and knew as well what means to use. He never thought that these would bring the man to see outwardly, but they would help him to see inwardly. They served best to strengthen his faith and give due publicity to the miracle. He could not go to and return from Siloam without attracting attention. Jesus caused every movement to serve some useful purpose; thus the man began at once to manifest the works of God.

(4) The faithful use of the prescribed means answered the ultimate end of Divine mercy and human want. The man"s faith was strong and prompt. He was not promised his sight, only told what so do; the rest he inferred. He believed and obeyed, and the Divine energy came with the obedience, lie washed, and came seeing. He was born first blind, he was born now seeing, and some saw the Divine glory flashing from his eyes.

LESSONS.

1. There are full compensations for all evil in the Divine economy. If there is misery, there is Divine mercy. If some are born blind, their blindness will answer some benevolent purpose. There is One born to help and give sight. Evil must ultimately serve goodness, and misery must glorify mercy. Divine compensations are seen now, but to a greater extent hereafter.

2. The fact of human sin and misery is not for curious speculation but for practical sympathy. The life of Christ was one of benevolent activity rather than of idle speculation and theory. What right-minded man, when a house is on fire, will stop to know its cause before doing all in his power to put it out? Rather than idly inquiring into the origin and mystery of human evil and misery, by every possible effort let sin be destroyed, and misery and sorrow be alleviated, and with and after the effort will crone satisfaction, and ultimately full light.

3. God answers better than we ask. Our requests may be idle and wrong, but the answers are right and Divine. Still let us ask, and our mistakes will be rectified in the Divine answers. We are glad that the disciples asked respecting the man"s blindness. The full reply is found in Christ"s miracle of Divine mercy and might.

4. The humblest means are not to be despised if prescribed by Christ. From the human side Divine means are apparently very inadequate, and even contemptible. The spittle and clay and washing in the pool of Siloam for Jesus and the blind man were very humble beginnings, but led to a glorious result. Faithful use of divinely prescribed means were the channel through which Divine energy came to the man which resulted in his sight, and through the same channel of faith and obedience Divine illumination will ever come to the soul. B.T.

HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG Vers. 1-3. Manifesting the works of God.

Jesus had just been, as we should reckon, in danger. If a furious crowd had taken up stones to cast at us, we should have been too much concerned for our safety to notice people by the way. Of course Jesus was in no real danger. His time was not yet come. His whole demeanor was worthy of the sublime utterance, "Before Abraham was, I am." Notice

I WHAT SORT OF OBJECT ATTRACTED THE ATTENTION OF JESUS. A blind man, blind from birth, so known possibly from a label on his breast. Such a one might not attract attention from the disciples, at least not at first. As strangers comparatively in Jerusalem, their attention would be arrested by the splendors and novelties of the capital city. We remember how they were impressed by the huge stones with which the temple walls were built. Jesus did not go about the world as a sight-seer; he went about as a Doer of good. The blind man was to Jesus a far more interesting sight than any building. We may be sure Jesus looks down on the world in the same spirit today. And surely we also, if we claim to have any abundance of the Spirit of Jesus in us, will also note all such as are here represented by the man blind from his birth. We must note the blind rather than those that see, the crushed and sorrowing rather than those who are full of life"s natural enjoyments.

II THE QUESTION OF THE DISCIPLES. The question no doubt seems to us, upon first looking at it, to have neither wisdom nor consistency in it; yet there is this merit about the disciples, that they did ask a question. The blindness of this man was not to be taken as a matter of course, like the rising of the sun or the blossoming of the flowers. Note where the emphasis lies in the question. It lies on the word "born," not on the word" blind." The disciples did not profess to be in utter darkness on the point. Either the man himself must have sinned, they thought, or else his parents, that he should be born blind. Probably they had some belief in the transmigration of souls. They would think he had existed already in some other state, where perhaps he had been a dreadful sinner, and so now for his sins in that former state he would be born into this present life blind. The alternative supposition, and a very natural one, was that his parents had sinned. For the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children"s teeth are set on edge." So the question of the disciples was partly excusable. On the other hand, they narrowed the field of inquiry, nor was there anything practical in their question. They were dwelling on the irrevocable past. How different is the spirit in

III THE ANSWER OF JESUS.

1. Ere takes off all blame from the man and his parents. They had quite enough burden to bear already. Consider what a charge and grief a blind child must have been to its parents. They may have been to blame, but even where blame is, it is not the first thing to be thought of. Jesus came, not to condemn, but to save. A physician goes none the less readily to the bed of a sick man because his sickness has come through his own reckless and vicious ways.

2. Jesus points out one good result of this mans blindness. He looks not so much at the past as at the present and the future. The blind man is to have no more years of privation, idleness, and emptiness. Here a great compensation came to him, that a work of God should be manifested in him. Jesus wants us to face the misery of the world in all its magnitude, meaning that we should have the same comforting reflection with Paul, that where sin abounds grace much more abounds. We have a Physician who never shakes his head, saying he can do nothing, and then goes empty away. We should say boldly of every evil now afflicting men that it is here to give occasion for manifesting the works of God. Y.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Healing of the Man That was Born Blind.

The miracle:

v. 1. And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man which was blind from his birth.

v. 2. And His disciples asked Him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born a. blind?

v. 3. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

v. 4. I must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day; the night cometh when no man can work.

v. 5. As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.

v. 6. When He had thus spoken, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

v. 7. and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went his way therefore and washed, and came seeing.

This story is simply the continuation of the previous narrative, for the events here told occurred as Jesus passed along, probably out of the Temple, near whose gates many beggars were wont to assemble. It so happened that His eye rested upon a blind man. It is a peculiarity of God’s providence that He often manifests His power in little incidents which seem to us chance happenings. The man that drew the attention of Jesus had been blind from his birth. The disciples, who also noticed the poor unfortunate man, voiced the opinion of the general public when they asked Jesus whether his affliction was due to some sin which he himself had committed or to some fault of his parents. Their question gives Jesus an opportunity to repudiate the popular belief as though each particular sickness or sorrow is traceable to some particular sin. It is true in general, of course, that sin has been followed by all manner of physical ailments and weaknesses, which are in themselves only forerunners of death, the wages of sin. It is true, also, that certain s-ins, especially those of impurity, will bring direct punishment to the body. But to scent exceptional transgression whenever any severe misfortune or sickness strikes an individual or a family, is almost invariably an injustice and savors of the judging and condemning against which the Lord warns. See Luk 13:1-5. Jesus therefore taught His disciples the truth with regard to this man and all other unfortunate sick people. In this special case, for instance, the work of God, His power and might, should become manifest. And the Lord added that He, or, according to some manuscripts, we, His followers, together with Him, are under obligation to work, to carry out the works of Him that sent Christ into the world. There is no false understanding as to the nature and scope of the work and office which He must perform in the world, nor is there the slightest hesitation as to attacking the work with all the willingness of a heart bound up in God’s will. The present time is the day of Christ; now is the time of grace; now He must be about His own and His Father’s business. That same spirit must live in the followers of Christ, that must characterize all their efforts for the spread of the Kingdom and all their work in the interest of the kingdom of God. Every bit of time, every ounce of strength should be thrown into this most important work. For soon the night of death will come, and that will definitely put a stop to all work with and for the Lord. As for Himself, Jesus states that His choice and its obligation were clear to Him; as long as He is in the world, His office of being the Light of the world must not cease. That work He had explained at length to the Jews, and the trend of the conversation here recalled the explanation. The reference would tend to increase the emphasis of His willingness to work for the benefit and salvation of the world. And now Jesus proceeded deliberately to perform the miracle of healing the blind man, who had undoubtedly heard every word of the conversation, with the sweetness of its Gospel-message. He formed a paste by moistening a little clay with spittle from His mouth, placed it upon the eyes of the blind man, and then sent him down to the pool Siloam to wash. The pool Siloah, or Siloam, was the one from which the water was taken on the day of the great Hosanna, the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, whose pouring out symbolized the sending of the Spirit. Jesus in this case arranged the circumstantial details at such unusual length in order to emphasize that the healing was performed by Him. The blind man, whose faith in Jesus had meanwhile been firmly grounded, did not hesitate for a moment to carry out the orders of Christ. He went away and washed himself and returned seeing.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The foregoing chapter acquainted us with a famous encounter which the Pharisees had with our blessed Saviour in the temple at Jeruaslem; this being ended, as he passed from the temple, he saw a man lying, possibly by the highway, who was born blind; him Christ pitches upon as an object fit to exercise his divine power, in the cure and healing of. They that are blind by casuality, may perhaps be relieved by art and industry; but to cure one that is born blind, nothing less is required than almighty power.

Learn hence, That diseases and distempers, which are incurable by the ordinary course of nature, are not insuperable to Christ’s power, nor impossible for him to help, but a proper object for him to magnify his power upon. Therefore it is here recorded, that his poor man was blind from his birth: such blindness being accounted incurable by natural means.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [LXXXI. The Man Born Blind].

LXXXI. CONTENTION OVER THE MAN BORN BLIND. (Jerusalem.) dJOHN IX. 1-41.

[Some look upon the events in this and the next section as occurring at the Feast of Tabernacles in October, others think they occurred at the Feast of Dedication in December, deriving their point of time from Joh_10:22.] d1 And as [461] he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. [The man probably sought to waken compassion by repeatedly stating this fact to passers-by.] 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? [They assumed that all suffering was retributive, and asked for whose sins this man suffered, regarding it as a case of extreme hardship, for to be born blind is uncommon, even in the East. Their question had reference to the doctrine of transmigration of souls, the man being regarded as possibly having sinned in some pre-existing state.] 3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. [Jesus found a third alternative to their dilemma. The man's parents were sinners, but neither their sin nor the beggar's own sin had caused this calamity. It had come upon him as part of God's plan for his life; it was part of the providential arrangement by which God governs the world.] 4 We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. [As to the duration of his earthly works, Jesus classifies himself with his disciples, for his humanity, like ours, had its season of activity, or day, which was practically terminated by the night of death. After his resurrection, Jesus performed no miracles of healing.] 5 When I am in the world, I am the light of the world. [In the spiritual sense, Christ is ever the light of the world, but while he lived among men, even the privileges of physical light were imparted to him.] 6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay. 7 and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). [Jesus probably used the clay to aid the man's faith. His so doing gave the Pharisees a chance to cavil at Jesus for breaking the Sabbath. If later rabbis report correctly, the traditions of that day, clay might be put on the eyes for pleasure on the Sabbath, but not for medicine, nor might the eyes be anointed with spittle on that day. As [462] to the pool of Siloam, see Joh_9:11.] 18 The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. 19 and asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? [The man's advocacy of Jesus as prophet suggested to those cunning diplomats that there was collusion between Jesus and the man, and that the cure was fraudulent. They therefore denied the cure and sent for the parents, to whom they put the threefold question as to sonship, blindness and cure.] 20 His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind [thus they answer clearly as to the first two points]: 21 but how he now seeth, we know not; or who opened his eyes, we know not: ask him; he is of age; he shall speak for himself. [The emphasis in this verse lies in the pronouns. Thus the parents timidly declined to answer the third point, alleging that their son is old enough to answer for himself.] 22 These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed [informally] already, that if any man should confess that him i to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. [The parents, having heard the unrestrained, freely spoken account given by their son as to his healing, had [464] no doubt in their own minds as to who effected that healing. They therefore declined to speak because of fear, and not through lack of knowledge.] 23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. 24 So [following the suggestion of the parents, and because a miracle could not now be denied] they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. [Taken in their English sense, these words would mean, "praise God and not Jesus for what has been done," but the phrase "give God the praise" is, in Hebrew usage, an adjuration to a criminal to confess his guilt ( Jos_7:9, 1Sa_6:5). The idea may then be paraphrased thus: confess that you and Jesus have conspired to work a pretended miracle. It is your best course, since we know all about the frauds of Jesus and will soon unearth this one.] 25 He therefore answered, Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. [As to the doings of Jesus, whether fraudulent or not, he could not answer, but he could say that there was no sham or deception about his eyesight.] 26 They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27 He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples? [Perceiving that their boasted knowledge as to the frauds of Jesus was untrue, and that they were even then questioning him to obtain material to be used against Jesus, he declines to repeat his statement and shows them that he understands their sinister motive in questioning him by ironically asking them if they wished to become disciples of Jesus.] 28 And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is. [In Jewish estimation, Moses stood next to God. To forsake Moses for another prophet was to be an apostate. Such reviling was a severe test, but the man stood it.] 30 The man answered and [465] said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and i yet he opened mine eyes. [The man answers contempt with contempt; with biting irony he declares that the miracle of his healing is no wonder at all when compared with the fact that such wonderfully learned men should be totally ignorant of so great a miracle-worker as Jesus. Thus he scorned their superlative claim to infallible knowledge, expressed in Joh_9:24, Joh_9:29.] 31 We know [he takes up their style of speech] that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth. [Such was the teaching of the Old Testament-- Pro_15:29, Isa_1:15, Mic_3:4, Jam_5:16, Jam_5:17.] 32 Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. [The Old Testament contains no record of such a miracle; the case stood alone as a marvel of power.] 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. [He draws the same conclusion which the better element of the Pharisees had drawn. See Joh_9:16.] 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? [They give here the Jewish answer to the question asked in Joh_9:2. Do you, so stamped a sinner from birth, presume to teach us, the heads of Israel? They had been denying that he had been blind; they now inconsistently taunt him with blindness as an evidence of his sin.] And they cast him out. [The vast majority of commentators take this as an immediate act, and hence allege that the language refers to his being cast out of the hall or place where they were assembled, and not to his being excommunicated. Their reason for this is found in the fact that the man could not be excommunicated without a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. But there is nothing to show that the act was not a deliberate one, including a formal meeting, etc. We agree with DeWette that his expulsion from a hall "would not be important enough to occasion verse 35."] 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out [His was a sad plight, indeed. To be put out of the synagogue [466] was to be put on a level with the heathen, and to be left without a country or a religious fellowship]; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? [Being cut off from all that came through Moses, Jesus was leading him into all that came through the Son of God.] 36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? [The form of the man's question showed that he regarded a knowledge of the Son of God as a privilege beyond all hope or expectation, and the reply of Jesus is suited to this idea.] 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee. [Thus the unhoped for had been actually and sensually realized. To the outcast of the synagogue here and to the outcast of the nation at Jacob's well ( Joh_4:26), how fully Jesus revealed himself!] 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. 39 And Jesus said [not addressing anyone in particular, but rather as summing up the whole incident], For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind. [The life course of Jesus attracted the needy and repelled the self-satisfied, and was therefore a continuous judgment. Those conscious of their deficiencies and ready to ask for light received it ( Joh_9:36-38), while those satisfied with their own opinion became daily more blinded by their bigotry. See Joh_9:24, Joh_9:34, Mat_11:25.] 40 Those of the Pharisees who were with him [not as disciples, but for curiosity's sake] heard these things, and said unto him, Are we also blind? 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth. [If you were conscious of your spiritual darkness, and sought light, you either find it or not be blamed for your failure to do so. They could see if they would, and were responsible for their blindness.] [467]

[FFG 461-467]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

John Chapter 9

In chapter 9 we come to the testimony of His works, but as down here as a man in lowliness. It is not the Son of God quickening whom He will as the Father, but by the operation of His grace down here, the eye opened to see in the lowly man the Son of God. In chapter 8 it is that which He is towards men; in chapter 9 it is that which He does in man, that man may see Him. Thus we shall find Him presented in His human character, and (the word being received) acknowledged to be the Son of God; and in this way the remnant separated, the sheep restored to the good Shepherd. He is the light of the world while He is in it; but where, through grace received in His humiliation, He communicated the power to see the light, and to see all things by it.

Observe here, that when it is the word (the manifestation in testimony of what Christ is), man is manifested as he is in himself, a child-in his nature-of the devil, who is a murderer and a liar from the beginning, the inveterate enemy of Him who can say, “I am.” [36] But when the Lord works, He produces something in man that he had not previously. He bestows sight on him, attaching him thus to the One who had enabled him to see. The Lord is not here understood or manifested in apparently as exalted a manner, because He comes down to the wants and circumstances of man, in order that He may be more closely known; but, in result, He brings the soul to the knowledge of His glorious Person. Only, instead of being the word and the testimony-the Word of God-to shew as light what man is, He is the Son, one with the Father, [37] giving eternal life to His sheep, and preserving them in this grace for ever. For, as to the blessing that flows from thence, and the full doctrine of His true position with regard to the sheep in blessing, chapter 10 goes with chapter 9. Chapter 10 is the continuation of the discourse begun at the end of chapter 9.

Chapter 9 opens with the case of a man that gives rise to a question from the disciples, in relation to the government of God in Israel. Was it his parents’ sin that brought this visitation on their child, according to the principles God had given them in Exodus? Or was it his own sin, known to God though not manifested to men, that had procured him this judgment? The Lord replies, that the man’s condition did not depend on the government of God with respect to the sin either of himself or of his parents. His case was but the misery which gave room for the mighty operation of God in grace. It is the contrast that we have continually seen; but here it is in order to set forth the works of God.

God acts. It is not only that which He is, nor even simply an object of faith. The presence of Jesus on earth made it day. It was therefore the time of work to do the works of Him that sent Him. But He who works here, works by means that teach us the union which exists between an object of faith and the power of God who works. He makes clay with His spittle and the earth, and puts it on the eyes of the man who was born blind. As a figure, it pointed to the humanity of Christ in earthly humiliation and lowliness, presented to the eyes of men, but with divine efficacy of life in Him. Did they see any more? If possible, their eyes were the more completely closed. Still the object was there; it touched their eyes, and they could not see it. The blind man then washes in the pool that was called “Sent,” and is enabled to see clearly. The power of the Spirit and of the word, making Christ known as the One sent by the Father, gives him sight. It is the history of divine teaching in the heart of man. Christ, as man, touches us. We are absolutely blind, we see nothing. The Spirit of God acts, Christ being there before our eyes; and we see plainly.

The people are astonished and know not what to think. The Pharisees oppose. Again the Sabbath is in question. They find (it is always the story) good reasons for condemning Him who bestowed sight, in their pretended zeal for God’s glory. There was positive proof that the man was born blind, that he now saw, that Jesus had done it. The parents testify to the only thing that was important on their part. As to who it was that had given him sight, others knew more than they; but their fears bring out in evidence, that it was a settled thing to cast out, not only Jesus, but all who should confess Him. Thus the Jewish leaders brought the thing to a decisive point. They not only rejected Christ, but they cast out from the privileges of Israel, as to their ordinary worship, those who confessed Him. Their hostility distinguished the manifested remnant and put them apart; and that, by using confession of Christ as a touchstone. This was deciding their own fate, and judging their own condition.

Observe, that proofs here went for nothing; the Jews, the parents, the Pharisees, had them before their eyes. Faith came through being personally the subject of this mighty operation of God, who opened the eyes of men to the glory of the Lord Jesus. Not that the man understood it all. He perceives that he has to do with some one sent of God. To him Jesus is a prophet. But thus the power which He had manifested in giving sight to this man enables him to trust the Lord’s word as divine. Having gone so far, the rest is easy: the poor man is led much farther, and finds himself on ground that sets him free from all his former prejudices, and that gives a value to the Person of Jesus which overcomes all other considerations. The Lord develops this in the next chapter.

In truth, the Jews had made up their mind. They would have nothing to do with Jesus. They were all agreed to cast out those who believed in Him. Consequently, the poor man having begun to reason with them on the proof that existed in his own person of the Saviour’s mission, they cast him out. Thus cast out, the Lord-rejected before him-finds and reveals Himself to him by His personal name of glory. “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” The man refers it to the word of Jesus, which to him was divine truth, and He proclaims Himself to him as being Himself the Son of God, and the man worships Him.

Thus the effect of His power was to blind those who saw, who were full of their own wisdom, whose light was darkness; and to give sight to those who were born blind.

Footnotes for John Chapter 9

36: Chapter 8 is practically chapter 1: 5; only that there is, besides that, enmity, hostility against Him who was light.

37: This distinction of grace and responsibility (in connection with the names Father and Son, and God) has been already noticed. See page 316.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. He saw a man which was blind from his birth. Like most such unfortunates in the East, he was a beggar (verse 8).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

As Jesus and his disciples are walking along, they come across a blind man.

Now

This word shows that the author is about to describe a new event. (See: Introduction of a New Event)

as Jesus passed by

Here "Jesus" is a synecdoche for Jesus and the disciples. AT: "as Jesus and his disciples passed by" (See: Synecdoche)

who sinned, this man or his parents ... blind?

This question reflects the ancient Jewish belief that sin caused all illnesses and other deformities. The rabbis also taught that it was possible for a baby to sin while still in the womb. AT: "Teacher, we know that sin causes a person to be blind. Whose sin caused this man to be born blind? did this man himself sin, or was it his parents who sinned?" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

disciple

teacher

Rabbi

sin

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1–5. THE PRELUDE TO THE SIGN

1. καὶ παράγων. Possibly on His way from the Temple (Joh 8:59), or (if ἐγένετο τότε be the right reading in Joh 10:22) more probably on a later occasion near the F. of the Dedication. Comp. καὶ παράγων εἶδε Λευΐν (Mar 2:14). We know that this man was a beggar (Joh 9:8), and that beggars frequented the gates of the Temple (Act 3:2), as they frequent the doors of foreign churches now; but we are not told where this man was begging.

ἐκ γενετῆς. The phrase occurs nowhere else in N.T. Justin Martyr uses it twice of those healed by Christ; Trypho LXIX.; Apol. I. xxii. No source is so probable as this verse, for nowhere else is Christ said to have healed a congenital disease. see on Joh 1:23 and Joh 3:3. There is an indubitable reference to this passage in the Clementine Homilies (XIX. xxii.), the date of which is c. A.D. 150. see on Joh 10:9; Joh 10:27. For other instances of Christ giving sight to the blind see Mat 9:27; Mat 20:29; Mar 8:22.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

From his birth [εκ γενετης] . The word only here in the New Testament.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.