John 9:13

One would have expected that such a miracle as Christ wrought upon the blind man would have settled his reputation, and silenced and shamed all opposition, but it had the contrary effect; instead of being embraced as a prophet for it, he is prosecuted as a criminal.

I. Here is the information that was given in to the Pharisees concerning this matter: They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind, Joh 9:13. They brought him to the great sanhedrim, which consisted chiefly of Pharisees, at least the Pharisees in the sanhedrim were most active against Christ. 1. Some think that those who brought this man to the Pharisees did it with a good design, to show them that this Jesus, whom they persecuted, was not what they represented him, but really a great man, and one that gave considerable proofs of a divine mission. What hath convinced us of the truth and excellency of religion, and hath removed our prejudices against it, we should be forward, as we have opportunity, to offer to others for their conviction. 2. It should seem, rather, that they did it with an ill design, to exasperate the Pharisees the more against Christ, and there was no need of this, for they were bitter enough of themselves. They brought him with such a suggestion as that in Joh 11:47, Joh 11:48, If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him. Note, Those rulers that are of a persecuting spirit shall never want ill instruments about them, that will blow the coals, and make them worse.

II. The ground which was pretended for this information, and the colour given to it. That which is good was never maligned but under the imputation of something evil. And the crime objected here (Joh 9:14) was that it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. The profanation of the sabbath day is certainly wicked, and gives a man a very ill character; but the traditions of the Jews had made that to be a violation of the law of the sabbath which was far from being so. Many a time this matter was contested between Christ and the Jews, that it might be settled for the benefit of the church in all ages. But it may be asked, "Why would Christ not only work miracles on the sabbath day, but work them in such a manner as he knew would give offence to the Jews? When he had healed the impotent man, why should he bid him carry his bed? Could he not have cured this blind man without making clay?" I answer, 1. He would not seem to yield to the usurped power of the scribes and Pharisees. Their government was illegal, their impositions were arbitrary, and their zeal for the rituals consumed the substantials of religion; and therefore Christ would not give place to them, by subjection, no not for an hour. Christ was made under the law of God, but not under their law. 2. He did it that he might, both by word and action, expound the law of the fourth commandment, and vindicate it from their corrupt glosses, and so teach us that a weekly sabbath is to be perpetually observed in the church, one day in seven (for what need was there to explain that law, if it must be presently abrogated?) and that it is not to be so ceremonially observed by us as it was by the Jews? Works of necessity and mercy are allowed, and the sabbath-rest to be kept, not so much for its own sake as in order to the sabbath-work. 3. Christ chose to work his cures on the sabbath day to dignify and sanctify the day, and to intimate that spiritual cures should be wrought mostly on the Christian sabbath day. How many blind eyes have been opened by the preaching of the gospel, that blessed eye-salve, on the Lord's day! How many impotent souls cured on that day!

III. The trial and examination of this matter by the Pharisees, Joh 9:15. So much passion, prejudice, and ill-humour, and so little reason, appear here, that the discourse is nothing but crossing questions. One would think, when a man in these circumstances was brought before them, they would have been so taken up in admiring the miracle, and congratulating the happiness of the poor man, that they could not have been peevish with him. But their enmity to Christ had divested them of all manner of humanity, and divinity too. Let us see how they teased this man.

1. They interrogated him concerning the cure itself.

(1.) They doubted whether he had indeed been born blind, and demanded proof of that which even the prosecutors had acknowledged (Joh 9:18): They did not believe, that is, they would not, that he was born blind. Men that seek occasion to quarrel with the clearest truths may find it if they please; and they that resolve to hold fast deceit will never want a handle to hold it by. This was not a prudent caution, but a prejudiced infidelity. However, it was a good way that they took for the clearing of this: They called the parents of the man who had received his sight. This they did in hopes to disprove the miracle. These parents were poor and timorous, and if they had said that they could not be sure that this was their son, or that it was only some weakness or dimness in his sight that he had been born with, which if they had been able to get help for him might have been cured long since, or had otherwise prevaricated, for fear of the court, the Pharisees had gained their point, had robbed Christ of the honour of this miracle, which would have lessened the reputation of all the rest. But God so ordered and overruled this counsel of theirs that it turned to the more effectual proof of the miracle, and left them under a necessity of being either convinced or confounded. Now in this part of the examination we have,

[1.] The questions that were put to them (Joh 9:19): They asked them in an imperious threatening way, "Is this your son? Dare you swear to it? Do you say he was born blind? Are you sure of it? Or did he but pretend to be so, to have an excuse for his begging? How then doth he now see? That is impossible, and therefore you had better unsay it." Those who cannot bear the light of truth do all they can to eclipse it, and hinder the discovery of it. Thus the managers of evidence, or mismanagers rather, lead witnesses out of the way, and teach them how to conceal or disguise the truth, and so involve themselves in a double guilt, like that of Jeroboam, who sinned, and made Israel to sin.

[2.] Their answers to these interrogatories, in which,

First, They fully attest that which they could safely say in this matter; safely, that is, upon their own knowledge, and safely, that is, without running themselves into a premunire (Joh 9:20): We know that this is our son (for they were daily conversant with him, and had such a natural affection to him as the true mother had, Kg1 3:26, which made them know it was their own); and we know that he was born blind. They had reason to know it, inasmuch as it had cost them many a sad thought, and many a careful troublesome hour, about him. How often had they looked upon him with grief, and lamented their child's blindness more than all the burdens and inconveniences of their poverty, and wished he had never been born, rather than be born to such an uncomfortable life! Those who are ashamed of their children, or any of their relations, because of their bodily infirmities, may take a reproof from these parents, who freely owned, This is our son, though he was born blind, and lived upon alms.

Secondly, They cautiously decline giving any evidence concerning his cure; partly because they were not themselves eye-witnesses of it, and could say nothing to it of their own knowledge; and partly because they found it was a tender point, and would not bear to be meddled with. And therefore, having owned that he was their son and was born blind, further these deponents say not.

a. Observe how warily they express themselves (Joh 9:21): "By what means he now seeth we know not, or who has opened his eyes we know not, otherwise than by hearsay; we can give no account either by what means or by whose hand it was done." See how the wisdom of this world teaches men to trim the matter in critical junctures. Christ was accused as a sabbath-breaker, and as an imposter. Now these parents of the blind man, though they were not eye-witnesses of the cure, were yet fully assured of it, and were bound in gratitude to have borne their testimony to the honour of the Lord Jesus, who had done their son so great a kindness; but they had not courage to do it, and then thought it might serve to atone for their not appearing in favour of him that they said nothing to his prejudice; whereas, in the day of trial, he that is not apparently for Christ is justly looked upon as really against him, Luk 11:23; Mar 8:38. That they might not be further urged in this matter, they refer themselves and the court to him: He is of age, ask him, he shall speak for himself. This implies that while children are not of age (while they are infants, such as cannot speak) it is incumbent upon their parents to speak for them, speak to God for them in prayer, speak to the church for them in baptism; but, when they are of age, it is fit that they should be asked whether they be willing to stand to that which their parents did for them, and let them speak for themselves. This man, though he was born blind, seems to have been of quick understanding above many, which enabled him to speak for himself better than his friends could speak for him. Thus God often by a kind providence makes up in the mind what is wanting in the body, Co1 12:23, Co1 12:24. His parents turning them over to him was only to save themselves from trouble, and expose him; whereas they that had so great an interest in his mercies had reason to embark with him in his hazards for the honour of that Jesus who had done so much for them.

b. See the reason why they were so cautious (Joh 9:22, Joh 9:23): Because they feared the Jews. It was not because they would put an honour upon their son, by making him his own advocate, or because they would have the matter cleared by the best hand, but because they would shift trouble off from themselves, as most people are in care to do, no matter on whom they throw it. Near is my friend, and near is my child, and perhaps near is my religion, but nearer is myself - Proximus egomet mihi. But Christianity teaches another lesson, Co1 10:24; Est 8:6. Here is,

(a.) The late law which the sanhedrim had made. It was agreed and enacted by their authority that, if any man within their jurisdiction did confess that Jesus was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Observe,

[a.] The crime designed to be punished, and so prevented, by this statute, and that was embracing Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, and manifesting this by any overt-act, which amounted to a confessing of him. They themselves did expect a Messiah, but they could by no means bear to think that this Jesus should be he, nor admit the question whether he were or no, for two reasons: - First, Because his precepts were all so contrary to their traditional laws. The spiritual worship he prescribed overthrew their formalities; nor did any thing more effectually destroy their singularity and narrow-spiritedness than that universal charity which he taught; humility and mortification, repentance and self-denial, were lessons new to them, and sounded harsh and strange in their ears. Secondly, Because him promises and appearances were so contrary to their traditional hopes. They expected a Messiah in outward pomp and splendour, that should not only free the nation from the Roman yoke, but advance the grandeur of the sanhedrim, and make all the members of it princes and peers: and now to hear of a Messiah whose outward circumstances were all mean and poor, whose first appearance and principal residence were in Galilee, a despised province, who never made his court to them, nor sought their favour, whose followers were neither sword-men nor gown-men, nor any men of honour, but contemptible fishermen, who proposed and promised no redemption but from sin, no consolation of Israel but what is spiritual and divine, and at the same time bade his followers expect the cross, and count upon persecution; this was such a reproach to all the ideas they had formed and filled the minds of their people with, such a blow to their power and interest, and such a disappointment to all their hopes, that they could never be reconciled to it, nor so much as give it a fair or patient hearing, but, right or wrong, it must be crushed.

[b.] The penalty to be inflicted for this crime. If any should own himself a disciple of Jesus, he should be deemed and taken as an apostate from the faith of the Jewish church, and a rebel and traitor against the government of it, and should therefore be put out of the synagogue, as one that had rendered himself unworthy of the honours, and incapable of the privileges, of their church; he should be excommunicated, and expelled the commonwealth of Israel. Nor was this merely an ecclesiastical censure, which a man that made no conscience of their authority might slight, but it was, in effect, an outlawry, which excluded a man from civil commerce and deprived him of his liberty and property. Note, First, Christ's holy religion, from its first rise, has been opposed by penal laws made against the professors of it; as if men's consciences would otherwise naturally embrace it, this unnatural force has been put upon them. Secondly, The church's artillery, when the command of it has fallen into ill hands, has often been turned against itself, and ecclesiastical censures have been made to serve a carnal secular interest. It is no new thing to see those cast out of the synagogue that were the greatest ornaments and blessings of it, and to hear those that expelled them say, The Lord be glorified, Isa 66:5. Now of this edict it is said, 1. That the Jews had agreed it, or conspired it. Their consultation and communion herein were a perfect conspiracy against the crown and dignity of the Redeemer, against the Lord and his Anointed. 2. That they had already agreed it. Though he had been but a few months in any public character among them, and, one would think, in so short a time could not have made them jealous of him, yet thus early were they aware of his growing interest, and already agreed to do their utmost to suppress it. He had lately made his escape out of the temple, and, when they saw themselves baffled in their attempts to take him, they presently took this course, to make it penal for any body to own him. Thus unanimous and thus expeditious are the enemies of the church, and their counsels; but he that sits in heaven laughs at them, and has them in derision, and so may we.

(b.) The influence which this law had upon the parents of the blind man. They declined saying any thing of Christ, and shuffled it off to their son, because they feared the Jews. Christ had incurred the frowns of the government to do their son a kindness, but they would not incur them to do him any honour. Note, The fear of man brings a snare (Pro 29:25), and often makes people deny and disown Christ, and his truths and ways, and act against their consciences. Well, the parents have thus disentangled themselves, and are discharged from any further attendance; let us now go on with the examination of the man himself; the doubt of the Pharisees, whether he was born blind, was put out of doubt by them; and therefore,

(2.) They enquired of him concerning the manner of the cure, and made their remarks upon it, Joh 9:15, Joh 9:16.

[1.] The same question which his neighbours had put to him now again the Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. This they enquired not with any sincere desire to find out the truth, by tracing the report to the original, but with a desire to find an occasion against Christ; for, if the man should relate the matter fully, they would prove Christ a sabbath-breaker; if he should vary from his former story, they would have some colour to suspect the whole to be a collusion.

[2.] The same answer, in effect, which he had before given to his neighbours, he here repeats to the Pharisees: He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. He does not here speak of the making of the clay, for indeed he had not seen it made. That circumstance was not essential, and might give the Pharisees most occasion against him, and therefore he waives it. In the former account he said, I washed, and received sight; but lest they should think it was only a glimpse for the present, which a heated imagination might fancy itself to have, he now says, "I do see: it is a complete and lasting cure."

[3.] The remarks made upon this story were very different, and occasioned a debate in the court, Joh 9:16.

First, Some took this occasion to censure and condemn Christ for what he had done. Some of the Pharisees said, This man is not of God, as he pretends, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. 1. The doctrine upon which this censure is grounded is very true - that those are not of God - those pretenders to prophecy not sent of God, those pretenders to saintship not born of God - who do not keep the sabbath day. Those that are of God will keep the commandments of God; and this is his commandment, that we sanctify the sabbath. Those that are of God keep up communion with God, and delight to hear from him, and speak to him, and therefore will observe the sabbath, which is a day appointed for intercourse with heaven. The sabbath is called a sign, for the sanctifying of it is a sign of a sanctified heart, and the profaning of it a sign of a profane heart. But, 2. The application of it to our Saviour is very unjust, for he did religiously observe the sabbath day, and never in any instance violated it, never did otherwise than well on the sabbath day. He did not keep the sabbath according to the tradition of the elders and the superstitious observances of the Pharisees, but he kept it according to the command of God, and therefore, no doubt, he was of God, and his miracles proved him to be Lord also of the sabbath day. Note, much unrighteous and uncharitable judging is occasioned by men's making the rules of religion more strict than God has made them, and adding their own fancies to God's appointments, as the Jews here, in the case of sabbath-sanctification. We ourselves may forbear such and such things, on the sabbath day, as we find a distraction to us, and we do well, but we must not therefore tie up others to the same strictness. Every thing that we take for a rule of practice must not presently be made a rule of judgment.

Secondly, Others spoke in his favour, and very pertinently urged, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? It seems that even in this council of the ungodly there were some that were capable of a free thought, and were witnesses for Christ, even in the midst of his enemies. The matter of fact was plain, that this was a true miracle, the more it was searched into the more it was cleared; and this brought his former similar works to mind, and gave occasion to speak magnificently of them, toiauta sēmeia - such great signs, so many, so evident. And the inference from it is very natural: Such things as these could never be done by a man that is a sinner, that is, not by any mere man, in his own name, and by his own power; or, rather, not by one that is a cheat or an imposter, and in that sense a a sinner; such a one may indeed show some signs and lying wonders, but not such signs and true wonders as Christ wrought. How could a man produce such divine credentials, if he had not a divine commission? Thus there was a division among them, a schism, so the word is; they clashed in their opinion, a warm debate arose, and the house divided upon it. Thus God defeats the counsels of his enemies by dividing them; and by such testimonies as these given against the malice of persecutors, and the rubs they meet with, their designs against the church are sometimes rendered ineffectual and always inexcusable.

2. After their enquiry concerning the cure, we must observe their enquiry concerning the author of it. And here observe,

(1.) What the man said of him, in answer to their enquiry. They ask him (Joh 9:17), "What sayest thou of him, seeing that he has opened thine eyes? What dost thou think of his doing this? And what idea hast thou of him that did it?" If he should speak slightly of Christ, in answer to this, as he might be tempted to do, to please them, now that he was in their hands, as his parents had done - if he should say, "I know not what to make of him; he may be a conjuror for aught I know, or some mountebank" - they would have triumphed in it. Nothing confirms Christ's enemies in their enmity to him so much as the slights put upon him by those that have passed for his friends. But, if he should speak honourably of Christ, they would prosecute him upon their new law, which did not except, no, not his own patient; they would make him an example, and so deter others from applying to Christ for cures, for which, though they came cheap from Christ, yet they would make them pay dearly. Or perhaps Christ's friends proposed to have the man's own sentiments concerning his physician, and were willing to know, since he appeared to be a sensible man, what he thought of him. Note, Those whose eyes Christ has opened know best what to say of him, and have great reason, upon all occasions, to say well of him. What think we of Christ? To this question the poor man makes a short, plain, and direct answer: "He is a prophet, he is one inspired and sent of God to preach, and work miracles, and deliver to the world a divine message." There had been no prophets among the Jews for three hundred years; yet they did not conclude that they should have no more, for they knew that he was yet to come who should seal up vision and prophecy, Dan 9:24. It should seem, this man had not any thoughts that Christ was the Messiah, the great prophet, but one of the same rank with the other prophets. The woman of Samaria concluded he was a prophet before she had any thought of his being the Messiah (Joh 4:19); so this blind man thought well of Christ according to the light he had, though he did not think well enough of him; but, being faithful in what he had already attained to, God revealed even that unto him. This poor blind beggar had a clearer judgment of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and saw further into the proofs of a divine mission, than the masters in Israel, that assumed an authority to judge of prophets.

(2.) What they said of him, in reply to the man's testimony. Having in vain attempted to invalidate the evidence of the fact, and finding that indeed a notable miracle was wrought, and they could not deny it, they renew their attempt to banter it, and run it down, and do all they can to shake the good opinion the man had of him that opened his eyes, and to convince him that Christ was a bad man (Joh 9:24): Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner. Two ways this is understood: [1.] By way of advice, to take heed of ascribing the praise of his cure to a sinful man, but to give it all to God, to whom it was due. Thus, under colour of zeal for the honour of God, they rob Christ of his honour, as those do who will not worship Christ as God, under pretence of zeal for this great truth, that there is but one God to be worshipped; whereas this is his declared will, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father; and in confessing that Christ is Lord we give glory to God the Father. When God makes use of men that are sinners as instruments of good to us, we must give God the glory, for every creature is that to us which he makes it to be; and yet there is gratitude owing to the instruments. It was a good word, Give God the praise, but here it was ill used; and there seems to be this further in it, "This man is a sinner, a bad man, and therefore give the praise so much the more to God, who could work by such an instrument." [2.] By way of adjuration; so some take it. "We know (though thou dost not, who hast but lately come, as it were, into a new world) that this man is a sinner, a great impostor, and cheats the country; this we are sure of, therefore give God praise" (as Joshua said to Achan) "by making an ingenuous confession of the fraud and collusion which we are confident there is in this matter; in God's name, man, tell the truth." Thus is God's name abused in papal inquisitions, when by oaths, ex officio, they extort accusations of themselves from the innocent, and of others from the ignorant. See how basely they speak of the Lord Jesus: We know that this man is a sinner, is a man of sin. In which we may observe, First, Their insolence and pride. They would not have it thought, when they asked the man what he thought of him, that they needed information; nay, they know very well that he is a sinner, and nobody can convince them of the contrary. He had challenged them to their faces (Joh 8:46) to convince him of sin, and they had nothing to say; but now behind his back they speak of him as a malefactor, convicted upon the notorious evidence of the fact. Thus false accusers make up in confidence what is wanting in proof. Secondly, The injury and indignity hereby done to the Lord Jesus. When he became man, he took upon him the form not only of a servant, but of a sinner (Rom 8:3), and passed for a sinner in common with the rest of mankind. Nay, he was represented as a sinner of the first magnitude, a sinner above all men; and, being made sin for us, he despised even this shame.

3. The debate that arose between the Pharisees and this poor man concerning Christ. They say, He is a sinner; he says, He is a prophet. As it is an encouragement to those who are concerned for the cause of Christ to hope that it shall never be lost for want of witnesses, when they find a poor blind beggar picked up from the way-side, and made a witness for Christ, to the faces of his most impudent enemies; so it is an encouragement to those who are called out to witness for Christ to find with what prudence and courage this man managed his defence, according to the promise, It shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak. Though he had never seen Jesus, he had felt his grace. Now in the parley between the Pharisees and this poor man we may observe three steps: -

(1.) He sticks to the certain matter of fact the evidence of which they endeavour to shake. That which is doubtful is best resolved into that which is plain, and therefore, [1.] He adheres to that which to himself at least, and to his own satisfaction, was past dispute (Joh 9:25): "Whether he be a sinner or no I know not, I will not now stand to dispute, nor need I, the matter is plain, and though I should altogether hold my peace would speak for itself;" or, as it might better be rendered, "If he be a sinner, I know it not, I see no reason to say so, but the contrary; for this one thing I know, and can be more sure of than you can be of that of which you are so confident, that whereas I was blind, now I see, and therefore must not only say that he has been a good friend to me, but that he is a prophet; I am both able and bound to speak well of him." Now here, First, He tacitly reproves their great assurance of the ill character they gave of the blessed Jesus: "You say that you know him to be a sinner; I, who know him as well as you do, cannot give any such character." Secondly, He boldly relies upon his own experience of the power and goodness of the holy Jesus, and resolves to abide by it. There is no disputing against experience, nor arguing a man out of his senses; here is one that is properly an eyewitness of the power and grace of Christ, though he had never seen him. Note, As Christ's mercies are most valued by those that have felt the want of them, that have been blind and now see, so the most powerful and durable affections to Christ are those that arise from an experimental knowledge of him, Jo1 1:1; Act 4:20. The poor man does not here give a nice account of the method of the cure, nor pretend to describe it philosophically, but in short, Whereas I was blind, now I see. Thus in the work of grace in the soul, though we cannot tell when and how, by what instruments and by what steps and advances, the blessed change was wrought, yet we may take the comfort of it if we can say, through grace, "Whereas I was blind, now I see. I did live a carnal, worldly, sensual life, but, thanks be to God, it is now otherwise with me," Eph 5:8. [2.] They endeavour to baffle and stifle the evidence by a needless repetition of their enquiries into it (Joh 9:26): What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes? They asked these questions, First, Because they wanted something to say, and would rather speak impertinently than seem to be silenced or run a-ground. Thus eager disputants, that resolve they will have the last word, by such vain repetitions, to avoid the shame of being silenced, make themselves accountable for many idle words. Secondly, Because they hoped, by putting the man upon repeating his evidence, to catch him tripping in it, or wavering, and then they would think they had gained a good point.

(2.) He upbraids them with their obstinate infidelity and invincible prejudices, and they revile him as a disciple of Jesus, Joh 9:27-29, where the man is more bold with them and they are more sharp upon him than before.

[1.] The man boldly upbraids them with their wilful and unreasonable opposition to the evidence of this miracle, Joh 9:27. He would not gratify them with a repetition of the story, but bravely replied, I have told you already, and you did not hear, wherefore would you hear it again, will you also be his disciples? Some think that he spoke seriously, and really expecting that they would be convinced. "He had many disciples, I will be one, will you also come in among them?" Some zealous young Christians see so much reason for religion that they are ready to think every one will presently be on their mind. But it rather seems to be spoken ironically: "Will you be his disciples? No, I know you abhor the thoughts of it; why then should you desire to hear that which will either make you his disciples or leave you inexcusable if you be not?" Those that wilfully shut their eyes against the light, as these Pharisees here did, First, Make themselves contemptible and base, as these here did, who were justly exposed by this poor man for denying the conclusion, when they had nothing to object against either of the premises. Secondly, They forfeit all the benefit of further instructions and means of knowledge and conviction: they that have been told once, and would not hear, why should they be told it again? Jer 51:9. See Mat 10:14. Thirdly, They hereby receive the grace of God in vain. This implied in that, "Will you be his disciples? No, you resolve you will not; why then would you hear it again, only that you may be his accusers and persecutors?" Those who will not see cause to embrace Christ, and join with his followers, yet, one would think, should see cause enough not to hate and persecute him and them.

[2.] For this they scorn and revile him, Joh 9:28. When they could not resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke, they broke out into a passion, and scolded him, began to call names, and give him ill language. See what Christ's faithful witnesses must expect from the adversaries of his truth and cause; let them count upon all manner of evil to be said of them, Mat 5:11. The method commonly taken by unreasonable man is to make out with railing what is wanting in truth and reason.

First, They taunted this man for his affection to Christ; they said, Thou art his disciple, as if that were reproach enough, and they could not say worse of him. "We scorn to be his disciples, and will leave that preferment to thee, and such scoundrels as thou art." They do what they can to put Christ's religion in an ill name, and to represent the profession of it as a contemptible scandalous thing. They reviled him. The Vulgate reads it, maledixerunt eum - they cursed him; and what was their curse? It was this, Be thou his disciple. "May such a curse" (saith St. Augustine here) "ever be on us and on our children!" If we take our measures of credit and disgrace from the sentiment or rather clamours of a blind deluded world, we shall glory in our shame, and be ashamed of our glory. They had no reason to call this man a disciple of Christ, he had neither seen him nor heard him preach, only he had spoken favourably of a kindness Christ had done him, and this they could not bear.

Secondly, They gloried in their relation to Moses as their Mast

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

Joh_9:13-18

They brought to the Pharisees him

The first examination of the Man

I.

AN IMPORTANT ADMISSION. The Pharisees recognized that the man saw (Joh_9:13). If therefore he had been previously blind, there must have been a miracle.

II. AN IRRELEVANT QUESTION. They wished to know how the man had received his sight (Joh_9:15), when all that they had to determine was whether he had received his sight.

III. A STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER. The man having nothing to conceal, gave a simple recitation of what had taken place (Joh_9:15).

IV. A PALPABLE EVASION. Some of the Pharisees attempted to avoid giving judgment as to the miracle by pronouncing on a question that was not before them, viz., the character of Christ, whom they declared could not be from God, because He kept not the Sabbath (Joh_9:16).

V. A SOUND CONCLUSION. Others reasoned that the miracle had been proved, and decided that the worker of such a sign could not be a sinner, and therefore could not have really violated the Sabbath law (Joh_9:16).

VI. A SAFE DEDUCTION. The healed man inferred, as Nicodemus had done Joh_3:2), that the Physician who had cured him was a prophet (Joh_3:17).

VII. A DISINGENUOUS PROCEDURE. The matter seemed settled and the miracle made out; but the hostile party, unwilling to allow a verdict so favourable for Jesus to go forth, determined to hold the man an impostor, or at least to suspend their judgment until they had heard the mans parents. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

Types of character in relation to Christs work--Those who are bitterly prejudiced against it

Four things marked the character of these Pharisees.

I. THEY WERE TECHNICAL RATHER THAN MORAL IN THEIR STANDARD OF JUDGMENT (Joh_9:16). Christ, in performing the miracle on the Sabbath, struck a blow at their prejudices, and declared The Sabbath was made for man. Instead of thanking God that their poor brother had been healed, and seeking acquaintance with the Healer, they endeavour to make the whole thing a ceremonial crime. They had more respect for ceremonies than for souls. They exalted the letter above the spirit, the ritual above the moral.

II. THEY WERE BIASSED RATHER THAN CANDID IN THEIR EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE. They had made up their minds not to believe, and all their questionings and cross questionings were intended to throw discredit on the fact. They did not want evidence, and if it came up they would suppress or misinterpret it. This spirit is too common in every age, and shows the blindness of prejudice and the heartlessness of technical religion.

III. THEY WERE DIVIDED RATHER THAN UNITED IN THEIR CONCLUSIONS. There was a division, There were some, perhaps Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, touched with candour, who could not but see the Divinity of the act. Infidels ridicule Christians for their divisions, whilst they themselves are never agreed. Error is necessarily schismatic; evil has no power to unite.

IV. THEY WERE MALIGNANT RATHER THAN GENEROUS IN THEIR AIMS. Had they been generous they would have been disposed to believe in the mission of the Divine Restorer. Instead of that they repudiate the fact. Their browbeating of the young man, their accusation that Christ was a sinner, and their excommunication of those who behoved on Him show that the malign not the benign was their inspiration. Conclusion: This class is not extinct. There are those who are bitterly prejudiced against Christianity everywhere. They are proof against all evidence and argument. Prejudice turns a mans heart into stone. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Power of prejudice

Voltaire once said, If in the market of Paris, before the eyes of a thousand men, and before my own eyes a miracle should be performed, I would much rather disbelieve the two thousand eyes and my own too, than believe it. So here, these men, fleeing as they do from the light and choosing the darkness, take up the matter over again, in the hope of being able to detect some traces of fraud. (R. Besser, D. D.)

What will not prejudice do? It was that which made the Jews call Christ a Samaritan, a devil, a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. It was that which made them hale the apostles to their governors, and cry out, Away with them! it is not fit that they should live. It was this made Ahab hate the upright Micaiah, and the Athenian condemn the just Aristides, though he had never seen him. It was this made the poor man, who knew not what John Husss doctrine was, so busy and industrious to carry wood for his funeral pile, and as zealous to kindle it, inasmuch that the martyr could not but cry out, O holy simplicity! It is this sets men against consideration of their ways, and makes them give out that it will crack their brains and disorder their understanding. (Anthony Horneck.)

True conversion evident to all

None of the Pharisees said to him, Are you sure you can see? Those twinkling eyes of his, so full of fun and wit, and sarcasm, were proofs most plain that he could see. Ah! your friends at home will know that you are converted if it is really so; they will hardly want telling, they will find it out. The very way you eat your dinner will show it. It will! You eat it with gratitude, and seek a blessing on it. The way you will go to bed will show it. I remember a poor man who was converted, but he was dreadfully afraid of his wife--not the only man in the world that is in that rear--and therefore he was fearful that she would ridicule him if he knelt to pray. He crept upstairs in his stockings that he might not be heard, but might have a few minutes prayer before she knew he was there. His scheme broke down. His wife soon found him out. Genuine conversion is no more to be hidden than a candle in a dark room. You cannot hide a cough. If a man has a cough, he must cough; and if a man has grace in his heart, he will show grace in his life. Why should we wish to hide it? Oh, may the Lord give you such an eye opening this day that friends and relatives shall know that your eyes have been opened! (C. H.Spurgeon.)

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

Joh 9:13-14. They brought to the Pharisees him that was blind — They brought him to the sanhedrim, which consisted chiefly of Pharisees, at least the Pharisees in the sanhedrim were most active against Christ. Some think they who brought this man to the Pharisees did it with a good design, to show them that this Jesus, whom they persecuted, was not the person they represented him to be, but really a great and good man, and one that gave considerable proofs of a divine mission. But it rather seems they did it with an ill design, to exasperate the Pharisees more against Christ, which certainly was not necessary, for they were bitter enough already. One would have expected that such a miracle as Christ had just wrought upon the blind man, would have settled his reputation, and silenced and shamed all opposition; but it had the contrary effect: instead of being embraced as a prophet for it, he is prosecuted as a criminal. They brought him to the Pharisees that he might be examined by them, in order that if there was any fraud in the matter, they might discover and expose it. The ground which was pretended for giving this information was, that it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened the blind man’s eyes. That which was good was never maligned but under the imputation of something evil. The profanation of the sabbath day is certainly a bad thing, and reflects much evil on a man’s character; but the traditions of the Jews had made that to be a violation of the law of the sabbath which was far from being so. And frequently was this matter contested between Christ and the Jews, that it might be settled for the benefit of the church in all ages; and that the difference between superstition and religion in the observance of this, as well as of various others of the divine precepts, might be clearly ascertained, and it might be fully known that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day. The hypocritical rulers, however, of the Jews, pretended to take great offence at our Lord’s doing this act of mercy on that day. And Dr. Lightfoot has shown, that anointing the eyes on the sabbath day, with any kind of medicine, was forbidden to the Jews by the tradition of the elders.

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

The man’s first examination before the court, Joh_9:13-17.

That this was an authoritative body appears from their power to send for the different parties, (Joh_9:18; Joh_9:24,) and from their expelling from the synagogue, 34. It was probably the lesser Sanhedrim, called the Pharisees, as being mainly composed of that sect.

13. They brought to the Pharisees—We see no proof of hostility to Jesus (attributed by some commentators) in their thus referring to the proper examiners so extraordinary a fact. The humble neighbours were perfectly willing that its author should be pronounced a prophet.

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_9:13. They brought.—Better They bring.

Joh_9:14. Now it was a Sabbath on the day that Jesus made the clay, etc.—It was most likely a festival Sabbath.

Joh_9:15. The Pharisees.—In the lesser Sanhedrin, or Synagogue Councils.

Joh_9:16. This man is not of God … a division among them.—The prophecy that was uttered at His presentation in the temple was being fulfilled (Luk_2:34). The Light was separating the righteous from the unrighteous (Joh_7:43, Joh_10:19).

Joh_9:22. The Jews had agreed, etc.—The Sanhedrin had not likely come openly to this agreement. They would have found opposition in their own ranks. A party of the leading sect had done so, however (Act_23:20). Put out of the synagogue.—Publicly excommunicated from participation in all religious privileges for a time, or for life.

Joh_9:24. Give glory to God.—Many think that these words are simply a call to the man to abjure his supposed former error, in having called Christ a prophet, although He had broken the rabbinical Sabbath law (see Jos_7:19). But it surely means also (since they could not deny the fact of the miracle), Give glory to God for the cure of thy blindness.

Joh_9:27. And ye did not hearken … would ye also become His disciples?—Indignant irony at the crooked method of these Pharisees, who sought to turn truth to error, echoes in these words.

Joh_9:28. Thou art the disciple of that man, etc.—They implicitly accused him of disloyalty to the law.

Joh_9:31. Heareth not sinners, etc.—I.e. men who are hardened and impenitent—wicked men, such as you accuse this prophet of being. A worshipper.—I.e. a devout, pious man (θεοσεβής).

Joh_9:33. Of God.—“The mighty work done by Him proves He is not a wicked man; it proves more, viz. that He is of God.”

Joh_9:34. Cast him out.—There were three degrees of excommunication. The first excluded the person under the ban for a short period from religious privileges. The second extended for a longer period, and was much more severe in that it debarred the person banned even from social intercourse for the time. The third was almost a virtual cutting off from Israel of the person excommunicated. Perhaps the meaning here is simply that they thrust the man violently out of the place of assembly. Those who were trying him might not have full power to excommunicate. Born in sins.—These men held the idea repudiated by our Lord (Joh_9:3).

Joh_9:35. When He found him.—Jesus had a greater work to perform on him than even the cure of his blindness, and therefore He sought him. Son of God.—Some MSS. read Son of man (Tischendorf, Ed. 8, etc.); and this to a devout Jew would mean the Messiah, the King of the eternal kingdom (Dan_7:13).

Joh_9:38. Worshipped (προσεκύνησεν).—This word does not mean reverence merely, but worship due to God (Joh_12:20, etc.).

Joh_9:39. For judgment, etc.—Not to execute judgment (κρίσις), but judgment (κρίμα), a judicial decision, would follow from His very presence among men. The Light must reveal (Joh_3:17-20). This world.—In which there is much darkness, much evil and sin (Gal_1:4).

Joh_9:40. Some of the Pharisees, etc.—Probably some who still believed on Him (Joh_8:30); but no doubt also others who, it may be, kept a watch on Christ and His actions. They were not conscious of their spiritual blindness, and thus were not driven to rely on Him who is the light of men.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Joh_9:13-41

The progress of faith and the descent of unbelief.—A mighty miracle had been wrought. The blind man’s neighbours, and many who had before known him as blind, were astonished at the event. But the more minute their inquiries, the more fully was the greatness of the miracle established. The man gave a brief but complete account of what had occurred (notice the circumstantiality of the account; he had not seen how the clay was prepared—Joh_9:11). But here also the hatred of Christ’s enemies indirectly made itself felt, even in their absence. They had agreed on a line of action which would deter men from openly allying themselves with Christ (Joh_9:22). Fear of this, and perhaps a wish to ingratiate themselves with the powerful class of the Pharisees, made the man’s neighbours, etc., bring him before a sort of religious judicial court—a lesser Sanhedrin—composed apparently chiefly of Pharisees (Joh_9:18). In place of a judicial inquiry those unjust counsellors sought only by persuasion and threatening to set aside the truth. But their evil design proved abortive. They brought only confusion on themselves and greater glory to Christ. In this narrative we see—

I. The progress of faith.—

1. The blind man came seeing, after having washed in Siloam. What a wonderful evening that was for him, when first on that long-sealed vision the gentle light of the setting sun and gathering twilight revealed the world in its visible wonder and beauty, the human face divine, etc., and when as night descended the wonders of the celestial sphere, in all the brilliance of an Eastern night, first met his gaze, etc. So much was there indeed to attract his attention, that next day probably, when questioned as to the manner in which he had received his sight, he simply gave the facts, telling what the “man called Jesus” had done and said. Whilst full of gratitude for what had been done, he had not yet given thought as to the source of this man’s power.

2. But the question was soon to be pressed on him for an answer. Taken before the council of the Pharisees and questioned by them, he answered them apparently with some curtness, perhaps desiring to avoid a conflict with this powerful sect. He was no doubt aware of their threat (Joh_9:22), and also of the fact that the miracle, having been wrought on the Sabbath day, would further excite their enmity. This incontestable evidence had weight with the more honest and open-minded section of the council. The others, however, even though the voice of truth must have spoken to their consciences, clothed themselves in the triple brass of their tradition. But this division among them, and the further question asked, led the man another step upward on the stairway of faith. He is a prophet. Could He be less? for “were not wondrous works the mark of a prophet?” was that not, indeed, what Nicodemus, one of the Sanhedrin, had openly declared Christ to be (Joh_7:51-52)?

3. Thus the light which they imagined had been suppressed (Joh_8:59) burst out on them with even greater brilliancy. Baffled, yet unreconciled to the truth, they sought to prove the man an impostor or a liar, and proceeded to cross-question his parents concerning him. His parents in their answer left no doubt as to his identity, or the fact that their son had been born blind; but in regard to the manner in which their son was healed, they referred their questioners to the man himself, probably bearing in mind the threat of the rulers. With the man who had been born blind they tried another method (Joh_9:24). The fact of the miracle could not be denied: let the glory be given to God, and Christ denied any genuine participation in the wonder, on the supposition that He was a sinner. But their wicked attempt only led to the man ascending another step toward complete faith in Christ. His scornful utterance on their further cross-examination, “Will ye also be His disciples?” his trenchant repudiation of their attempt to make out Jesus to be a sinner, and his clear affirmation, “If this man were not of God,” etc. (Joh_9:33), show the man rising rapidly toward a true conception of Christ’s nature and office.

4. And now the rage of Christ’s enemies knew no bounds. We seem to hear the shriek of anger in their closing words as they carried out their threat in this case and excommunicated the man (Joh_9:34, but see p. 261). But as persecution never really hinders, but ever helps to forward truth, so the rage of our Lord’s enemies against him led this poor man nearer to that spiritual enlightenment toward which he had been progressing. When the Lord heard what had happened He sought out His persecuted disciple, who was now passing through an experience which all His followers would speedily pass through (Joh_16:2), and gladly aided him up the last step to faith and spiritual enlightenment. In reply to Jesus’ question, “Dost thou believe?” etc. (Joh_9:35), he had answered, “Who is He, Lord?” etc. (Joh_9:36). He had already implicit faith in Jesus’ word. And when Jesus in His reply first gently reminded him of the miracle that had been wrought on him, “Thou hast both seen Him,” i.e. with eyes enlightened by Him, etc., the spiritual darkness passed away from the man’s soul, and from the summit of faith he saw salvation (Joh_9:38). Earth with all its beauty was now lost sight of comparatively in the light of that new spiritual vision which the soul had attained to, and to which a new world of spiritual beauty and eternal glory had been opened. The blind had indeed been made to see (Joh_9:39). In this history there is further seen—

II. The downward progress of unbelief.—

1. The spirit of unbelief is essentially dogmatic and persecuting. The enemies of Jesus had made up their minds, and no amount of evidence of the truth would convince them. This is brought out in their determination to anathematise whoever should be openly favourable to the claims of Jesus. So now unbelief is dogmatic still. It will accept no proof, no evidence, for the truth of the faith. It has agreed to regard supernatural religion as an exploded idea.

2. The next step the Pharisees took was to attempt to weaken the credibility of the chief witness of the great miracle here recorded—to endeavour to show that the subject of the miracle was, in short, a liar. So unbelief still seeks to discredit the witnesses of the gospel, to resolve their writings into mythical histories, and to class their writers as romancers or forgers.

3. The next step of the Pharisees was virtually to admit the fact of the miracle, as all their attempts to throw discredit on it only made it more evident; but to call upon the man on whom it was wrought to deny to its immediate Author any real participation in it—indeed, by acknowledging Him as an especial sinner and transgressor (Joh_9:14; Joh_9:16; Joh_9:24), to declare that He could have had no part in it. So to-day there are many who cannot help acknowledging the beauty, the moral power, and the wonderfully elevating force in the gospel; but they would have men think that this is so not because the author of the gospel is the “power of God.” They would have them believe that it is all the result of a natural evolution of the human mind. The insincerity of the Pharisees is typical of a certain insincerity of modern unbelief.

4. These baffled Jews, unable to overturn the truth, used the weapon of excommunication. So the leaders of unbelief have their own engine of petty persecution. Refusing themselves to investigate candidly into the origin and progress of the faith, they shut themselves within their charmed circle, excluding therefrom all pertaining to the Christian faith, and stigmatising those who still adhere to it as unscientific. But their anathemas will no more prevail finally against the truth than those of the Jews of Jerusalem.

Joh_9:25. “One thing I know.”—Scepticism affected to disbelieve in the reality of this miracle, jealousy sought to argue that it was due to other agencies, persecution set itself to awe the man into contradictions. But through all he persisted in his artless and eloquent tale, with its unanswerable conclusion, “If this man were not of God, He could do nothing.” Mark—

I. The change.—

1. It was a radical change. It is impossible to conceive of two more opposite or different states than that of the blind and the seeing. And there is an analogy between this and spiritual blindness. There is the same glorious change from darkness unto light. Do we know it?

2. It was a divinely effected change. No power but a divine power could have wrought this miracle in the man born blind. So, too, with our spiritual blindness. Reason, education, civilisation may all seek to alleviate man’s condition; they cannot effect this change. “Not by might, not by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.”

3. The change was wrought by means. Christ on this occasion chose to employ them. Thus too, in giving sight to those spiritually blind, God does not supersede the use of means, but He vitalises those means, which must be used, just as the blind man had to go and wash in Siloam. With the divine word the human effort must be conjoined.

II. In this miracle there was a testimony given.—

1. The miracle was so noised abroad that the Pharisees felt constrained to inquire into the circumstances of it. Every effort was made to bring the man who was healed to contradict himself, but in vain. He fell back on the evidence of his own senses. “One thing I know,” was his testimony. So is it in the spiritual life. Religion is a real change. And when God has changed a man’s spiritual life, that man should be able to say, “One thing I know,” etc. Does the Spirit of God testify with our spirit?

2. This testimony is consistent and clear. The man who had been born blind was bold and fearless, telling his tale with outspoken frankness. And so, too, are the witnesses of God’s grace equally sincere. There are differences of temperament. Some are reserved and silent. But all on whom this change has passed will in some way testify to its reality.

3. This testimony is consistent under all circumstances, under every pressure. “When, indeed, have these faithful witnesses not spoken? Not only in the fellowship of the saints, but amid the darkest scenes of life. Reproach may bow down the spirit, but it does not silence the testimony. Affliction may shrivel up the strength, but the Spirit-life waxes into comelier and more heavenly beauty.” Even death pauses till the dying can shout, “O death, where is thy sting?” Yes, the testimony is consistent—all circumstances have witnessed it. In every scene alike, whether of human gladness or of human woe, the cry of the faithful has gone upward to the skies: “One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.” How is it with us, brethren?—Abridged from Rev. Robert Russell.

Joh_9:29 ff. “God spake unto Moses.”—

I. In affirming, as they did, “We know that God spake to Moses,” etc., the Pharisees virtually condemned themselves, for—

1. In acknowledging the authority of Moses, his authority as a lawgiver commissioned by God, the Pharisees showed themselves capable of being acted on by that sort of proof which a messenger from heaven might be expected to adduce. Therefore—

2. They were bound, on every principle of justice, to admit the authority of any alleged teacher from heaven who should give as strong proof and of the same kind as Moses. On what ground was Moses acknowledged to have spoken in the name of Jehovah? The supernatural powers he displayed, etc.—the plagues, etc.

3. But if all this was received as an undoubted proof of Moses’ claim as a prophet heaven-sent, much more the beneficent miracles of Jesus should have been held to prove His divine mission. So we can offer the Jew precisely the same reasons for believing in Christ from the New Testament as those on which he founds the authority of Moses in the Old Testament.

II. And if the Pharisees were self-condemned, it becomes us to ask ourselves whether we stand in the same case—whether there may not be in our actions and creeds sufficient to convict us, at the judgment, were we to die without interest in the mercies of the Gospel.

1. There may be many who are furnishing against themselves such a testimony as that which was furnished by the Pharisees—a testimony as to a power of attending to what they neglect, believing what they disbelieve, or doing what they omit, which will supersede all necessity for any other evidence when they shall stand to receive sentence from the Judge of quick and dead.

2. An illustration of this is the forethought men apply to earthly things. But that which urges us to provide against to-morrow ought to urge us to provide against eternity. Religion requires nothing but that we be, in respect of another world, what we continually show ourselves to be in respect of the present world.

3. Again, the first and great commandment is, “Thou shalt love,” etc.; and there is no commandment commonly thought more impracticable. It will be urged by some that God is too highly exalted and removed by the majesty and spirituality of His nature to be the object of love on the part of men. “We will love our earthly benefactors and friends, but, as for God, He is too great and too glorious for such an affection.” Well, if men are so constituted that goodness is with them an object of love, then, as God is emphatically good, He ought surely to excite this love. Men are attached to others by kindness, love, etc. Surely, then, they ought to be attracted to God, whose lovingkindness, etc., is over all His works. It will not do to say: The creature is seen, the Creator unseen. It is not needful that our benefactor should be visible to awaken our gratitude and love. “Let a man, in affliction and poverty, be told of some exalted and admirable person who seems to have gathered every virtue into his character; let him know this person only by the description of his qualities, and let him receive from him continued proofs of his benevolence, the supply of every want, the solace of every care, the shield from every danger: will it be impossible for him to love this unknown and invisible benefactor? You know better.” No; “the domestic charities, feelings of children toward parents, etc., all testify that we are capable of loving God.”—Abridged from Henry Melvill.

Joh_9:39-41. The coming of the Light of the world results in a discrimination or judgment.—In these words our Lord made a general observation on the whole course of the events that had just occurred. Jesus came not to judge but to save the world, and His words here are no contradiction of that truth; they are simply a statement of what did actually occur on Christ’s advent. It is not an act of judgment which He performs, but a declaration of the consequences of His coming to various classes of men. But even when considered in this light the passage is a very terrible one. It means that He who came to bring salvation and blessing to men must, through the individual sin and folly of many, become to them a stone of stumbling, etc. (1Pe_2:8). Nor could the result be unexpected. How many make God’s gifts, through prodigal and sinful misuse or neglect of them, to become a curse to them in place of a blessing? And it was foreseen that such would be the result to many, of the sending of God’s best gift (Luk_2:34-35). The result of Christ’s coming as the light of the world is—

I. That they which see not might see.—

1. These are those who are longing for the light, but on whom it has not yet risen. Those whose knowledge of divine things is limited and meagre, who, in the words of the Jews, know not the law (Joh_7:49), but who are conscious of this ignorance and desire enlightenment—these are the “babes” in Christ to whom the Saviour once and again so lovingly refers (Mat_11:25; Luk_10:21). Their hearts and minds are open to the truth, and when it comes they eagerly embrace it.

2. No doubt, also, our Lord refers to those who were in the profoundest spiritual darkness, the other sheep not of that fold which He was to bring in (Joh_10:16). On those who sat in this great darkness the light was to shine, and to be seen by them with joy (Isa_9:2; Isa_60:2, etc.).

3. Such were those who were blind, and who rejoiced when Jesus came with healing, illuminating power—men like the subject of the great miracle which had been wrought, like the Samaritans who gladly believed His word Joh_4:41), etc.

II. That they which see might be made blind.—

1. Those who see are those who prided themselves on their knowledge of the law (Joh_9:29), and who thought themselves infallible interpreters of and guides to truth.

2. But their knowledge was no true knowledge. It was founded on misconceptions of the revelation committed to them. They did not seek to understand its divine, spiritual meaning, but rather sought to make it bear testimony to their own conceptions, and to minister to their own vanity and national pride.

3. From having been long immured in those darkened caverns of tradition, their sight had become defective and rudimentary (like that of the fishes in the waters in great caverns), unable to bear the light, or quite insensible to it. So were those men “blind leaders of the blind” (Rom_2:17-20). In their proud self-sufficiency they lacked all desire for knowledge of the truth. They accounted themselves so wise and prudent, so infallible, that when the Truth appeared, because He did not conform to their preconceptions of what He should be, they rejected Him blindly and stubbornly.

4. They should have known. A true spiritual life and a spiritual desire to know the divine oracles committed to them would have led them, like a Simeon, an Anna (Luk_2:25-38), a Nathanael (Joh_1:49), at once to rejoice in the light when it appeared. But they did not, would not. It was knowingly, in face of the divine revelation committed to them, that they rejected Jesus. They hardened their hearts, and thus committed that sin against the Holy Ghost which abideth. The former class were blind because the eye of knowledge yet waited for the revealing light, and the eye of faith was thus dim. Their sin was thus not the result of wilful rejection, and hope remained for them. Thus the coming of Christ was a revelation of men—“the thoughts of many hearts were revealed.”

III. The proclamation of the gospel leads to the same result now.—

1. Now, as of old, Christ’s truth is “hid from the wise and prudent,” those who presumptuously imagine that their knowledge and wisdom are the measure of the universe. Are they not around us—the men of scientific and philosophical learning, who (like the Sadducees of the council) rely on their own reason and the results of human investigation alone, and who will accept no revelation immediately given by the Eternal, who deny that such a revelation is possible? Founding on their own fancied infallibility, they reject the truth of Christ, forgetting that they, and all men, can see but a little way into the secrets of universal nature even, not to say the Infinite. Even their own boasted knowledge, wonderful as it really is, should lead them to pause in humility, and to examine reverently and earnestly what professes to be a divine revelation. Surely even more truly rational is the position of those who, like the pious Isaac Newton, acknowledge the limits of their knowledge, and confess themselves to be like children sporting on the shore of the infinite ocean of truth,—that “the universe is the centre of a circle whose circumference is infinity” (Pascal). These are the men whose hearts are open to truth, the “babes” to whom the Father will reveal eternal realities (Mat_11:25).

2. There are those also who, like the Pharisees, shut themselves up in the cells of traditional systems, claiming infallibility; so that when the truth comes to them it must judge; they must choose between it and their traditions. And how many resolutely shut their eyes to the light, whilst at the same time refusing to permit others access to the word of truth, by which they might be led to the light! They take away the key of knowledge, etc., and thus choose the darkness, become wilfully blind. But those whose hearts are open to the word, like Luther and the leaders of the Reformation, burst through the walls of the traditional system. They go, following the divine command, untrammelled by supposed infallible systems, and search in the divine word itself, earnestly desiring the truth, and they come seeing.

3. Again, there is a large class who, like many of the Jewish rulers, are actuated by actual enmity to and hatred of the gospel. Had the people accepted and followed Christ, the personal pride and ambition of those rulers would have been thwarted—indeed, were being thwarted. So with many now. Christ and His gospel stand athwart the path of their pleasure, gain, ambitions, etc. “Thou art an hard man,” etc. (Mat_25:24); and they refuse to serve, and the end is darkness (Mat_25:30). “This is the Heir; come, let us kill Him,” etc., and the end is destruction (Luk_20:14-16). It is to those who realise that earth and the things of earth are not all, who wisely resolve to subordinate and make subservient the things of time to those of eternity, that light shall rise in obscurity, and their darkness be as the noonday (Isa_58:8-10).

Joh_9:39-41. Spiritual blindness.—In this miracle this judgment here spoken of was effected, when Christ said: “For judgment am I come,” etc. For just as Moses of old divided Egypt in such a fashion that in all the parts of it inhabited by the Egyptians there was darkness, whilst the Israelites rejoiced in day; thus at the same time when Jesus Christ enlightened the man born blind He blinded the Pharisees, who were the wise and the prudent of the Jewish people. This is a judgment which is daily renewed among us. In this discourse the terrible aspect will be dwelt upon, that some are stricken with an inner blindness, which keeps the soul in the most gross and fatal errors. There is nothing on which Scripture pronounces with such variety of terms as on spiritual blindness. Three kinds of it are here distinguished—a blindness which is itself sin, a blindness which is the cause of sin, and a blindness caused by sin.

I. A blindness which is sin, i.e. which is itself criminal. Why? Because it is voluntary. Such is the blindness of libertines and so-called atheists, who in themselves, and by the way of nature, have light more than sufficient for some knowledge of God, and who in consequence only cease to believe in Him because they will not subject themselves to Him. By continually sinning against Him they come to forget Him and then to deny Him. Such is the blindness of the unfaithful, of sensual and voluptuous men, who in order to be able to enjoy their infamous pleasures, without having their minds disturbed, do not desire to hear eternal truth spoken of. Such is the blindness of certain minds full of vanity, who by the reason of their pride cannot endure the truth, as it humiliates them. Not only will they not see their faults, however gross, but desire others to applaud even their weaknesses. Such is the blindness of many called Christians, who do not desire to be enlightened in certain directions, regarding certain doubts, certain troubles of conscience, because they well know that they are not disposed to accomplish the duties which this enlightenment would press upon them. “Noluit intelligere ut bene ageret.” There is no more pernicious sin than this, nor one more inimical to salvation.

1. Because this voluntary blindness excludes the beginning of all grace—the light divine—and thus arrests the progress of every grace.

2. Because it not only excludes the light, but takes away all desire for the light.

3. Because it makes our will opposed to the divine will, and leads us to flee from the light. God, it is true, can enlighten us; but when we flee from the light, when we hate it, we put serious obstacles in the way of salvation. Let us pray like David, “Open mine eyes.” Lord, enlighten me.

II. Blindness as a cause of sin.—Thus the Jews crucified Christ, because they knew Him not. This species of blindness is still common. How often do men offend against justice, charity, etc., without knowing it, and because they did not know that these acts are sinful! But does this excuse men before God? If it were so, why did David pray, “Cleanse Thou me from secret faults”? I assert that this ignorance is not always a legitimate excuse—that it never is in the case of the majority of Christians; for in the age in which we live there is more than sufficient light to render this excuse invalid. “If I had not come and spoken unto them,” etc. (Joh_15:22), said Jesus to the Jews. Apply this personally. How many have preached to you and instructed you? “They have Moses and the prophets,” said Abraham to Dives. So God says to men now. When, therefore, men who are Christians sin through ignorance their sin is inexcusable. Then you have servants, children. Their ignorance will not form an excuse for them; but still less will you be excused. It is your duty to endeavour that they should be able to instruct themselves, etc.

III. Blindness as the effect of sin.—When the making of men blind enters into the order of the divine decrees, it must be believed that it is an effect of sin, because it is one of the penalties God attaches to sin: in the words of Isaiah He said, “Shut their eyes” (Isa_6:10). If we take the Scripture terms in all their strictness and literality, one would conclude that God effected this blindness by a positive action. But according to their real meaning their signification is, as St. Augustine says, that if God makes us blind it is by way of privation, by withdrawing the light. But, as Augustine adds, God never absolutely deprives men of the light of His grace and the power of choice. He leaves men grace sufficient at least to lead them to seek the way of salvation—to pray, if not to act. This species of blindness is the most terrible punishment God can inflict. It is purely evil, without any leaven of good. After such considerations St. Augustine concludes, “Do you say that God does not even in this life punish sinful men and libertines? If God has not brought this severe judgment on some of you, it is because He has extended His mercy toward you. But who knoweth whether He will longer delay? Who would not tremble at the thought that there is a sin, perhaps, which God has marked as the limit of His forbearance, of His efficacious and victorious grace? What is this sin? I know not. But let me for neglect get nothing, O God, to avert this great evil.”—Abridged from Bourdaloue.

Joh_9:13-41. The gospel of the man born blind.—Jesus Christ healed this blind man; but the Pharisees, who sought to depreciate the works of the Son of God, disputed the reality of the miracle. The man who was born blind nevertheless maintained the fact of the miracle, and boldly bore witness to it. From the history we understand:—

I. Into what blindness our self-interest is capable of leading us, and does lead us daily, as it led the Pharisees. This passion of self-interest blinded the Pharisees—

1. As to the person of Jesus Christ.—As He was opposed to the Pharisees, and His influence gave them umbrage, that was sufficient to lower Him in their estimation. They declared He was a sinner, and in spite of all that could be said they believed it or would believe it. Such is the malignity of the spirit of this world. What is it that ordinarily blinds men in their opinions of others and makes them prejudiced? Their selfish interests. If a man is on our side, his devotion to our interests renders him so far as we are concerned a man of worth. But let him be opposed to us; he is then, according to us, one of the most unworthy of men. Justice withdraws when once self-interest prevails. It is because of this that we have a right to challenge a judge or witness in law, if he is proved to be swayed by some special interest in the case to be adjudicated on.

2. As to the miracles of Christ.—However glorious was the miracle wrought on the man born blind the Pharisees would not acknowledge it; and when finally obliged to admit the fact, they denied the working of it to Christ. They denied it without reason, I say, and in opposition to reason, because they thought it was their interest to deny it. This spirit produces the same effects to-day, or the same errors, not only in regard to the miracles of the Son of God, but generally

(1) in regard to the most incontestable facts of religion. A libertine will not believe so that his disordered and corrupt life may not be self-condemned.

(2) In regard to the most natural and best-established duties. A man may reason very justly concerning some matter proposed to him, and give a stringent decision, so long as his own interests are not concerned. But let these be touched, and he will soon modify the stringency of his judgment, and find reasons for doubting what seemed before incontestable.

(3) In regard to the most evident facts relating to justice and charity toward our neighbour. Why do we prepossess ourselves with a thousand false suppositions, which we seek to prove true, supported by judgments that are rash and futile often, but because our self-interests occupy our whole heart, and leave to the mind no room for the exercise of reflection and reason? Consider—

II. How the testimony of the man healed of his blindness teaches us to dissipate the darkness of error by the light of faith, and to confound falsehood by a holy confession of the truth.—The testimony of this man has four qualities:—

1. It was a sincere testimony.—His sincerity touched on naïveté, and it was this that disconcerted the Pharisees. They questioned Him narrowly. But because the truth never contradicts itself, and is ever the same, they could not embarrass the man or cause him to contradict himself. What could they do or say to elude the force of a testimony so simple and faithful?

2. It was a noble testimony.—In vain did the Pharisees threaten this poor man. They managed to intimidate his parents. But he feared nothing, and maintained his position. This showed a generosity and nobleness which was humiliating to those proud men. But it also condemns much more the weakness of many Christians who are persuaded of the truth, and are slack and timid in their defence of it.

3. It was a convincing testimony.—It is worthy of admiration, this stand of a poor man, who, without study or preparation, so reasoned as to shut the mouths of those doctors of the law. The wisest theologians could not have given better answers than those he gave to all they brought up against him. Such is the victory of faith, and so has she triumphed, and will triumph, over the wisdom of the world.

4. It was a steadfast testimony.—He constantly persisted in glorifying his Benefactor, and in publishing abroad the blessing that had been bestowed on him. The Pharisees cast him out of the synagogue with every mark of ignominy; but he became only the more attached to the Saviour. He worshipped Him as God, and embraced His law. If he had been perhaps less firm, as many are, he might have belied by a shameful inconstancy what he had just affirmed in his noble confession. Many of us yield in face of the least difficulty, and permit our faith to become disturbed. Novelty draws us away, and seduces us by the vain glory with which she decks herself. Let us hold fast the faith of Christ Jesus.—Abridged from Bourdaloue.

HOMILETIC NOTES

The healing of the man born blind; or, Jesus, the light of the world.—I. Jesus is the light of the world.—

1. This truth is perceived in the disclosure He makes regarding the designs of God in the enigmatical and inexplicable concerns of this life (Joh_9:1-3).

2. As the light of the world He has (like the sun) a set time for His earthly activity (Joh_9:4).

3. He declares Himself to be the light of the world (Joh_9:5).

4. And shows Himself to be so through the healing of the man born blind (Joh_9:6-7).

II. The evidence adduced in proof of this truth (Joh_9:8-23).—

1. Such evidence is necessary, for many are doubtful as to the power of Christ (Joh_9:8-9).

2. This testimony should be given by those who have experienced the power and grace of Jesus in themselves (Joh_9:9): “I am” (Joh_9:33).

3. Such must be prepared to give such testimony before everyone (Joh_9:13-15).

4. And should courageously witness to the truth, not caring how their testimony is received (Joh_9:16-17).

5. Many allow themselves to be deterred through the fear of man from giving an open testimony (Joh_9:18-23).

III. This testimony must be borne in face of persecution (Joh_9:24-34).—

1. The world, which is inimical to Jesus, seeks false witnesses against Him (Joh_9:24).

2. This sinful world hates and reviles the steadfast and constant friends of the truth (Joh_9:25-28).

3. They wantonly refuse to recognise the divine mission of Jesus (Joh_9:29).

4. They scorn the most powerful and irrefutable witnesses to the honour of Jesus and the holiness of His person (Joh_9:30-33).

5. They persecute with passionate anger the witnesses of the truth (Joh_9:34).

IV. The merciful Saviour receives to Himself those who suffer for His sake (Joh_9:35-38).—

1. He seeks those cast out by the world (Joh_9:35).

2. He inquires into their convictions (Joh_9:36).

3. He reveals Himself in His dignity to them as the Son of God (Joh_9:37).

4. He thus works in them joyful faith in His divine mission (Joh_9:38).

V. The manner in which fellowship with Jesus, the light of the world, is attained (Joh_9:39-41).—

1. Not all attain to this fellowship (Joh_9:39).

2. Humble confession of their own blindness in regard to divine things prepares men for this fellowship (Joh_9:40-41).

3. Vain-glorious conceit in their own wisdom shuts men out from this fellowship. (Joh_9:41). “But now ye say,” etc.—F. G. Lisco.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Joh_9:30. The careless are inexcusable.—This indication of forethought shall suffice to condemn the ungodly. Why did you live in carelessness as to religion? Why did death come upon you, and find you unprepared? Is it that you could not look forward? Is it that you were shut up, through the nature of your constitution, within things that were, and could not so extricate yourselves as to give heed to things to come? Nay, let the counting-house, the shop, the academy, the study, all witness upon this. These are beings who were always on the wing. They sprang toward coming days, and sought to make them their own. To-day was, with them, but a seed-time for tomorrow. The one toiled for fame, and made his appeal to posterity; another aimed at high station, though there stood many between himself and advancement. This man rose early, and late took rest, that he might add to wealth which he could not exhaust; and that, in order to ennoble his children. In one way or another, they all lived for the future; and, therefore, might they all have lived for eternity. Ay, there is not one of us whom his care for the things of this life will not suffice to condemn for his carelessness as to the things of the next life. There is not one who ever enters into a speculation, who attempts to lay up anything in store, who takes the least pains to secure himself against a possible evil or procure for himself a possible good, who does not thereby show that he might, if he would, give attention to the concerns of the soul, and that, therefore, can he have none but himself to blame if he enter another world with no provision made for the trial to be undergone. The parallel is most accurate, as we would again and again show, between any such case and that of the Pharisees.… The careless man—careless, we mean, as to his soul—will be condemned by his own carefulness; the improvident man, by his own providence; the man who laid up no treasures in heaven, by the treasures which he laid up on earth; the man who sought not the honour which cometh from God, by his having sought the honour which cometh from the world.… The great demand of Christianity is, that we “live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world,” mortifying evil affections, denying ourselves in things which a corrupt nature solicits, but reconciled to present sacrifices and endurances by the prospect of future and everlasting happiness. Does this seem hard? is it too much to ask of us to crucify the flesh, in hope of recompense in some yet distant state? Nay, do not men continually submit to inconvenience, to toil, to pain, for the sake of some advantage which they hope hereafter to reap? Will not a man abandon his home and his family, and go forth to face all varieties of peril and effort, sustained by the hope of accumulating wealth which will enable him to return and spend in quiet ease the close of his days?—Henry Melvill.

Joh_9:31. A clear proof of our divine sonship.—Let us take heed, then, how we continue to treasure up witness against ourselves. Examine carefully what you are proved capable of doing as to God and eternity, by what you are in the habit of doing as to man and time. This is the gist of our discourse: that in things commonly believed and performed there is conclusive testimony that men might, if they would, have believed the Bible and performed God’s will. God may go, as it were, into our households; and there, not by the blemishes which He finds, but by the beauties; not by the stormy passions which often agitate the inmates, but by those lovely affections which give a sacredness to our firesides—by the respect which parents feel and expect as their due, by the meek submissiveness of children, by their devoted attention to those who gave them life, by their obedience to their wishes, by their regard to their feelings—may He proceed to make good His charges against us, if it shall be found, that having drawn from Him our being, been sustained by His bounty, and protected by His power, we have yielded Him no homage and given Him no love. All then who perish must perish self-condemned, their actions attesting that it was in their power to have obtained salvation, and that, therefore, it was their guilt to have missed it.—Idem.

Joh_9:39. Praise to Jesus for spiritual sight.—Praise be to Thee, Lord Jesus, that Thou hast brought us to the knowledge of our spiritual blindness. We are born blind, and know not what we shall do for our salvation. But we would fain be saved, and so we plead with Thee this Thy precious word, that Thou hast come that those who see not might see. Oh, let Thy face be turned toward us also.… But what do we ask? Hast Thou not opened the eyes of us Thy Christian people in the washing of regeneration? (Tit_3:5). Yes, Lord, but Thou knowest also that the devil, the world, the flesh, have again obscured our eyes, and that daily the sand of sin streams in on them. Therefore enable us through faith at all times to turn to the Siloam prepared for us, so that the imperishable power of this gracious spring of life may renew us, and that our whole course of life may be continued within the limits of this sacred experience: “I went and washed and came seeing.” … Let Thy grace indeed be known by us from experience, and may we hold it fast whatever worldly wisdom, pride of reason, and human authority may say against it. Let us not be weary in acknowledging what Thou hast done for us, and never deny Thee before a generation at enmity with Thee and Thine. If men cast us out, take Thou us up, O Lord. Make those seasons in which we suffer for Thy name’s sake seasons of quickening for our inner man, so that we may grow in Thy grace and knowledge. May the comfort of Thy seeking love be precious to us; and when we have been found through Thy shepherd faithfulness, let us ever hear and know Thy voice as the voice of the Son of God who speaks to us: “It is He that talketh with thee.” Yes, in Thy word would we see Thee; strengthen our faith in Thy word, so that we may keep it unto the end … and let us then see Thy face eternally.—Besser, “Bibelst.”

Joh_9:40. “We see” the boast of present-day scepticism.—Just as the Jews felt in their relation to the Gentiles, and as among the Jews the Pharisees felt and comported themselves toward those among their people who were ignorant—self-satisfied, self-sufficient, haughty—so are there not such in our own generation? We see, so speak many cultivated people nowadays; we see the ark of the Church pierced by our scepticism, riddled by our negations—the Church is no longer a proud ship, she is now only a sinking wreck. We see, they affirm further in their selfrighteousness; there is in reality no sin—weaknesses and imperfections, but no guilt which requires forgiveness, no corruption that needs redemption. We see, and we behold Christ deposed from His throne, brought down to the common level, divested of the miraculous, as a Jewish rabbi, an enthusiast, the founder of a religion, and at all events a brave martyr; the days are gone past, for ever gone, in which as the Redeemer He shall wash men clean from their guilty stains, as the Prince of life shall lead them through the dark valley of death, and shall plead for them as their surety at the last judgment. We, we see—we see the coherence of nature as a huge machine: the mechanism of this machine has stifled the breathing of prayer; the regular succession of events has set aside the miraculous; the telescope has dissolved the other world. Like a foundling exposed on the sandbank of the Present, man must just accommodate himself to his poverty as well as he can, must put a good face on a bad business. We are all the more proud to rest on our own resources—unaided to fight the battle of existence. How then? Would not the Lord be justified in replying thus to those people, culture-proud, cultivated, and arrogant: Now you say, We see, therefore your sin remaineth—it abideth unknown, unacknowledged, unconfessed, unforgiven?—Kögel, “Predigt.”

Joh_9:41. The doom of indecision.—The undecided come under the judgment of Him who said, “He who is not with Me is against Me.” He is called the Amen. Yes, and shall He love a theologian to whom yea and nay are alike? He is called the “Bread of Life,” who for our sakes came down into this wilderness; and shall He leave unpunished those who adopt the thankless tongue of the fault-finder, and say, “That is common food.” His kingdom opposes the kingdom of Satan as light opposes darkness, as holiness opposes impurity, as life opposes death. How then? Shall there be before His sight a position lying midway between right and wrong, sweet and sour? Freedom and the kingdom of heaven will have no half-loyalty. The undecided Pilate crucified Christ. King Agrippa remained with arms crossed, an idle spectator, over against Paul in bonds. The vacillator does not take part in the scourging, but he permits it; he does not mock, but permits the mockery. The receiver stands on the same level as the thief. Participator in the act is to be participator in the punishment. First strabitic, then blind.—Idem.

Joh_9:41. The folly of indecision.—How foolish, on every calculation, is indecisive behaviour! Would that they would take one side or the other, that they would either be servants of Christ in earnest, or renounce Him openly, and say that they have nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth and His salvation. Happy, indeed, would it be for the Church of Christ if all its false friends were to declare themselves its enemies: the gospel would then no more be reproached with the scandal of their evil lives, and the true believers would be drawn more closely to one another, and would feel the name of Christian to be a real tie of brotherhood. But how much more happy if any of those who know not the Son of God might be brought to learn who He is, and to believe and to worship Him in spirit and in truth? And, under God, there is no way so likely to draw them home as for those who do know Christ, and believe in Him and love Him, to increase their knowledge and love more and more, and to bring their lives to a more perfect conformity with His gospel. That in many things we offend all is a truth which the consciences of every one of us can abundantly confirm; but that our offences may daily become fewer and less flagrant should be at once our labour and our prayer. And for all who in sincerity of heart do thus strive to increase their faith and knowledge of their Saviour, His words to the blind man are a most comfortable prophecy of what He will one day say to them, “that they have seen Him, and He has talked with them,”—on earth, by His word and Spirit; in heaven, by His presence revealed to them, when they shall see Him as He is.—Dr. T. Arnold.

Joh_9:41. Men must choose light or darkness.—Through the whole of the New Testament runs an either—or. God’s word is a two-edged sword; Christ is a Rock, on which men either raise themselves, or on which they are broken. The cross is either the power of God unto salvation, or weakness and foolishness to men. The gospel is either a savour of death unto death or of life unto life.… The Alexandrian catechist of the fourth century, Didymus, who was blind from his fifth year, and who attained the age of ninety, once said to one who sought to console him, that he could not sorrow over the want of that eyesight which is common even to flies and mosquitoes—the Lord be praised he had been given such an eye as angels see with, with which God can be seen and His light received. How had that master of harmony Händel, blind in his later years, sought to raise his hands in prayer in the aria composed by him in the oratorio of Samson:—

“Darkness around—nor sun nor moon nor stars.”

With what fervency did a Milton, when singing his Paradise Lost, pray for inner light! “Send forth Thy light and Thy truth; let them lead me,” etc. (Psalms 43); “let Thy word be a light unto my feet; open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law.” Let the eyes of my understanding be opened for a double purpose—that I may realise my sinfulness, and recognise my Saviour, that Saviour who said, “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. I am come,” etc.… In the grey dawn, of morning, in the falling night, I lift up mine hands and pray: Make me to see, make me blest, O Jesus! Away over the roses and lilies which summer bring forth, over the stubble, across which blows the cold breath of autumn, I cry, “Make me to see,” etc. Over biers that go under, over kingdoms that crash in ruin, over a new generation growing up, high over all I pray Him who was and is and is to come, Ever make me to see, ever bless me, O Jesus!—Translated from Kögel, “Predigt.”

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.

SABBATICAL FANATICISM

Joh 9:13-16. “They lead him to the Pharisees, who was at one time blind. And it was the Sabbath, on which day Jesus made the mortar and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees asked him how he looked up. And he said to them, He placed the mortar on my eyes, and I washed, and see. Then certain ones of the Pharisees continued to say, This man is not with God, because He does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How is a man who is a sinner able to perform such miracles? And there was a division among them. Then they again speak to the blind man, What do you say concerning Him, because He opened thine eyes? And he said, That He is a prophet.” Here we see the silly and disgusting fanaticism of the fallen Jewish Church on the Sabbath question, actually running it in, to nonsense by their rigid adherence to the mere outward form. I meet a similar fanaticism in my travels, and much like these Jews, because they require you to keep the old Jewish Sabbath, and so magnify it out of all legitimate proportions that you may be a vile sinner, ignorant of God, and at the same time they are ready to hail you as a paragon saint if you agree with them on their Sabbath dogma. It is really the same old, silly, crazy fanaticism over which they persecuted Jesus all His life, and hounded Him to the cross. “Then the Jews did not believe concerning him that he was blind, and looked up until they called the parents of him looking up, and asked them, saying, Is this your son, whom you say that he was born blind? How then does he now see? Then his parents responded and said, We know that he is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees, we know not; and who has opened his eyes, we know not. Ask him, he is of age; he shall speak for himself.”

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

9:13 The Pharisees (see 1:24) were arbiters of legal interpretation, so the community looked to them to explain this miracle. Rather than celebrate the healing, these religious leaders interrogated the man because Jesus had performed the miracle on the Sabbath (see 5:16-18).

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

Joh 9:13. Πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισαίους, to the Pharisees) as if to inquisitors.

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

Joh_9:13 f. Ἄγουσιν] These belong still to the persons designated in Joh_9:8. They act thus because the healing had taken place on the Sabbath (Joh_9:14), the violation of which they, in their servile dependence, believed it to be their duty not to conceal from the guardians of the law who ruled over the people. It does not, however, follow, from the fact that there were no sittings of the courts on the Sabbath, that the man was not brought on the day of the healing (so Lücke and several others suppose), but that by πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισ. is meant neither the Sanhedrim (Tholuck, Baeumlein), nor a synagogal court (Lücke, Lange),[49] of which, moreover, the text contains no notice (comp. Joh_7:45, Joh_11:47). Especially must it be remembered that in John the Sanhedrim is never simply designated οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (not even Joh_7:47), but always οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κ. οἱ Φαρισ., or (Joh_7:32) in the reverse order. The Pharisees as a corporate body are meant, and a number of them might easily have come together at one of their houses to form a kind of sitting.

τὸν ποτὲ τυφλ.] A more precise definition of αὐτόν; see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 342 [E. T. p. 400].

Joh_9:14 assigns the reason why they bring him.

τὸν πηλόν] the clay in question.

[49] Of such subordinate courts with twenty-three members there were two in Jerusalem. See Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 601.

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 9:13-34 . The man is examined by the Pharisees, who eventually excommunicate him ,

Joh 9:13 . Ἄγουσιν … τυφλόν . “They,” some of the neighbours and others already mentioned, “bring him who had formerly been blind to the Pharisees,” not to the Sanhedrim, but to an informal but apparently authoritative (Joh 9:34 ) group of Pharisees, who were members of the court.

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

They brought to the Pharisees--sitting probably in council, and chiefly of that sect (Joh 7:47-48).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 13. They brought to the Pharisees] These had the chief rule, and determined all controversies among the people; in every case of religion, their judgment was final: the people, now fully convinced that the man had been cured, brought him to the Pharisees, that they might determine how this was done, and whether it had been done legally.

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

13. They bring to the Pharisees. The following narrative shows that wicked men are so far from profiting by the works of God, that, the more they are urged by their power, so much the more are they constrained to pour out the venom which dwells within their breasts. The restoration of sight to the blind man ought undoubtedly to have softened even hearts of stone; or, at least, the Pharisees ought to have been struck with the novelty and greatness of the miracle, so as to remain in doubt for a short time, until they inquired if it were a divine work; but their hatred of Christ drives them to such stupidity, that they instantly condemn what they are told that he has done.

The Evangelist mentions the Pharisees; not that other sects were favorable to Christ, but because this sect was more zealous than the rest in maintaining the present condition. Hypocrisy is always proud and cruel. Being swelled with a false opinion of their holiness, they were chiefly wounded by the doctrine of the Gospel, which condemned all their counterfeit righteousnesses; and above all, they fought for their power and kingdom, under the pretense of endeavoring to maintain the Law.

When the Evangelist says that the multitude brought the blind man to the Pharisees, it is difficult to determine with what disposition or with what intention they did so. Scarcely an individual among them could then be ignorant of the inveterate hostility of the Pharisees to Christ; and therefore it is possible that many flatterers, in order to obtain their favor, purposely attempted to conceal the glory of the miracle. Yet I think it is probable that the greater part of the people, suspending their judgment, as usually happens, determined to refer to the arbitration and decision of those who held the government. But wilfully shutting their eyes, while the sun is shining, they bring darkness on themselves to obscure its light. It is a foolish superstition of the common people that, under the pretense of honoring God, they adore the wicked tyrants of the Church, and despise God himself, both in his word and in his works, or, at least, do not deign to look at him.

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.

(13) They brought to the Pharisees.—More exactly, They bring . . . The present tense speaks of what they did, as the writer thinks of it in actual occurrence. Their question in the previous verse, and the fact stated in the following verse, seem to indicate that they did this in the spirit of opposition to our Lord. They may have been influenced also, as the parents were, by the agreement of the Jews to excommunicate any who should confess Christ (Joh_9:22). By the term, “to the Pharisees,” we are not to understand the Sanhedrin, which did not meet on the Sabbath, and which is not spoken of by St. John as simply “the Pharisees,” but a body of the leading Pharisees who were the most bitter foes of Christ, and who seem at this time to have formed practically a permanent committee of the Sanhedrin, always ready to take counsel or action against Him. (Comp. Notes on Joh_7:32; Joh_7:45; Joh_7:48.)

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

13–41. Opposite Results of the Sign

13. They brought, &c.] Better, they bring him to the Pharisees, him that once was blind. These friends and neighbours are perhaps well-meaning people, not intending to make mischief. But they are uncomfortable because work has been done on the Sabbath, and they think it best to refer the matter to the Pharisees, the great authorities in matters of legal observance and orthodoxy (comp. Joh_7:47-48). This is not a meeting of the Sanhedrin. S. John’s formula for the Sanhedrin is ‘the chief priests and (the) Pharisees’ (Joh_7:45, Joh_11:47; Joh_11:57, Joh_18:3), or ‘the Pharisees and the chief priests’ (Joh_7:32).

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.

They brought to the Pharisees,.... That is, to the sanhedrim, which chiefly consisted of Pharisees; and so Nonnus calls them the priests and chief priests:

him that was aforetime blind; to be examined by them. And something like this is the method used by carnal relations and friends, who when they have any belonging to them under a work of grace, have them to their learned doctors of a different religion, to talk to them, and dissuade them from the ways of truth and godliness.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

Ver. 13. They bring him to the Pharisees] Who should have been moved with the miracle to think the better of him that wrought it; and have better informed those that brought the man to them, with what mind soever. But they had conceived such an incurable prejudice, such a deadly hatred against Christ, that what he did they presently condemn, as George Duke of Saxony did Luther’s reformation, as the monks of Mentz did the reformation begun there by Hermanus their archbishop, professing that they would rather receive Mahometanism than submit to that new religion, as they called it; as Philip king of Spain would choose rather to have no subjects than Lutheran subjects; and out of a blind and bloody zeal, suffered his eldest son Charles to be murdered by the cruel Inquisition, because he seemed to favour the truth.

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.

To the Pharisees - To the members of the Sanhedrin. They did this, doubtless, to accuse Jesus of having violated the Sabbath, and not, as they ought to have done, to examine into the evidence that he was from God.

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

Whether the neighbours, or his near relations, is not said. Nor is the place mentioned where this convention of Pharisees was, whether in the temple, or in some synagogue, or in the great court which they called the sanhedrim; nor is it material for us to inquire into.

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

They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. The "Pharisees" is not a conclusive definition of the Sanhedrin itself, which is generally denoted by the addition of the phrase, "the chief priests". (Joh_7:32, Joh_7:45) The Pharisees were a highly organized society, and some well-known gathering of them may have been easily accessible. They were the generally accredited religious guides of the people. One thing militates against such a casual gathering. In ver. 18 the term, "the Jews," the synonym of the ruling ecclesiastical powers in the city, is once more introduced. Moreover, the authorities before whom the discussion and examination were taken appear to possess the power of excommunication from the synagogue. It appears that, in Jerusalem, there existed two minor councils or synagogue-courts, of twenty-three assessors each, corresponding with the similar courts in the Jewish cities, standing in relation to the Sanhedrim and possessing the faculty of delivering the minor degrees of excommunication from the congregation of Israel. It cannot be said that this presentation of the case to an ecclesiastical court of more or less authority necessarily took place on the day of the healing. It is an open question whether the courts sat on the sabbath. There is nothing to prove immediate trial of the matter.

Vers. 13-34. The investigation of the miracle.

This was prompted by the unfriendly questioners first referred to.

I THE INQUIRY OF THE PHARISEES.

1. They first examined the beggar as to the facts of his cure. These it was as impossible to ignore as it was difficult to explain.

2. The performance of the cure on the sabbath day was the pivot upon which the question turned. "Now it was the sabbath day that Jesus made the clay, and opened the eyes of this man." Of the three and thirty miracles of our Lord recorded in the Gospels, no less than seven were performed on the sabbath day, as if to show, in opposition to Pharisaic perversions, that works of mercy were essentially included in the sabbath law.

II THE DIVISION AMONG THE PHARISEES. "Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This Man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a bad man do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

1. The ill-conditioned party concede the truth of the miracle, but imply that it must have been done by the power of the evil one. They take their stand upon a false idea of the sabbath.

2. The friendly party, including men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, feel the difficulty of a bad man doing works of mercy and love through Divine power. The difficulty is ethical as well as theological.

III THE WITNESS OF THE BEGGAR HIMSELF. "They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a Prophet.

1. He does not hesitate to oppose the judgment of the Pharisees in words that bespeak the firmest conviction.

2. He recognizes in the miracle the energy of Divine Tower, and in Jesus the character of a Representative of God.

3. How often a simple, unlettered believer sees what learned rabbis, or doctors, or synods, cannot see!

IV THE APPEAL OF THE PHARISEES TO THE BEGGAR"S PARENTS.

1. It was the suggestion of their unbelief. But the Jews did not believe concerning him that he had been blind." Unbelief always seeks to justify itself in some way. None are so blind as those who will not see.

2. They expected that the parents, through fear of excommunication, would either deny the identity of their son, or the fact of his blindness from birth.

3. Mark the wariness, yet the cowardice, of the parents.

(1) They adhere strictly to matters of fact. They declare the identity of their son and his congenital blindness, but decline to commit themselves as to the method of cure, or as to the person who had effected it.

(2) They devolve the responsibility of an answer as to the most critical point upon their son. "He is of age; ask him.

(3) Their caution is due entirely to fear. "These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews." The excommunication was a serious thing in a thoroughly ecclesiastical community. It entailed social disadvantages and discomforts, as well as exclusion from the religious privileges of the Israelite.

V A FRESH APPEAL TO THE BLIND BEGGAR. "Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the glory: we know that this Man is a sinner.

1. They demand a denial of the miracle as in some sense essential to a right view of Gods glory.

(1) They desire to obliterate a fact by a false interpretation of the sabbatic law.

(2) They regard the assertion of the beggar that Jesus was a Prophet as blasphemy, because it impeached at once God"s truth and God"s holiness.

(3) The Pharisees represent themselves as the depositaries of theological knowledge, but assign no reason for a conclusion adverse to Christ"s claims. Their conduct is eminently unreasonable. They oppose fact to knowledge.

2. The answer to their appeal brings further discomfiture. "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

(1) The beggar declines to settle theological problems. His reticence is wiser than the bold but groundless assertions of the Pharisees.

(2) He takes his stand firmly upon fact. Once he was blind, now he sees. The difficulty is on their side; it is for them to explain it. The fact is without dispute.

3. The anger of the Pharisees. "Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses" disciples.

(1) They confront unanswerable logic with the language of insult.

(2) They oppose the authority of Moses no doubt on the sabbath law to that of Jesus. On the ground of their allegiance to Moses they reject the clearest evidences of Christ"s Divine mission. "But if ye receive not Moses" writings, how can ye believe my words?

(3) Mark the crushing rejoinder of the beggar. "Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

(a) The Pharisees claimed special knowledge to decide upon the authority of any one professing to be a prophet, yet they failed to give account of all the facts of the case.

(b) The man asserts a fact of great theological import to settle the claims of Jesus: "Now we know that God heareth not sinners.

(i) It is a fact based on Scripture teaching. (Isa_1:11-15 Psa_66:18 Psa_119:7) All men, no doubt, are sinners, but the Scripture statement applies specially to men living in habitual sin and without faith in God.

(ii) The privileges of believers are fully asserted. "But if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth." God hears the prayer of the man whose religion is both speculatively and practically true.

(iii) The miracle wrought in the present case was without parallel. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind." No science or skill had ever effected a cure of this sort. Therefore there must have been superhuman and Divine power exercised in the operation. "If this Man were not of God, he could do nothing." Thus his general argument from Scripture and his conclusion alike deny the assertion of the Pharisees that Jesus was a sinner.

(4) The passionate abuse lavished on their critic. Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they drove him out.

(a) The Pharisees cast in his teeth the calamity of his birth as a sign of special sin. They forget that they are only, by their act, acknowledging the reality of a miracle they had all along tried to evade or deny.

(b) They are aghast at the assumption of a person under God"s curse undertaking to teach theology to the recognized guides of Israel.

(c) They expel him with an impatient contempt from their presence.

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

The inquiry of the Pharisees:

v. 13. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

v. 14. And it was the Sabbath-day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.

v. 15. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

v. 16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This Man is not of God because He keepeth not the Sabbath-day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

v. 17. They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him that He hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

The matter was of such importance that the people deemed it their duty to bring the man to the rulers of the people, among whom the Pharisees were the most prominent. To these sticklers for external forms and observances the most important point was of course this, that the healing had been done on a Sabbath. The mixing of the clay, in their estimation, was the work of a mason, and the order to the man to go and wash himself an unnecessary piece of work. So the Pharisees promptly took the man and cross-questioned him as to how he had received his sight. The man’s testimony was not to be shaken. He gave them the same account which he had given the neighbors. And the hypocrites immediately pounced upon the fact that the healing had been done on the Sabbath; that was the charge against the Healer. Jesus had, as it seems, purposely performed the miracle on the Sabbath, in order to give offense to the Pharisees. He gave these malicious people, that refused to accept the truth, reasons to become ever more offended and thus to fulfill the measure of their transgressions. That is the terrible punishment of unbelief, the self-hardening of the heart. But some of the members of the Sanhedrin, whose spiritual insight had not been altogether lost, made the hesitating remark: How can a sinner do such signs? They felt that God would not permit an open transgressor of His holy Law to go unpunished, much less give to him such unusual powers to perform miracles. The result of the entire discussion was that there was a division in the council, they could not come to an agreement in their judgment of the case. For a digression, they asked the former blind man what he thought of his benefactor. He did not hesitate for a moment to confess Christ, whom he had never seen, as a great prophet sent by God, thus ascribing his healing to God. The enemies of Christ are always on the lookout for someway of discrediting the miracles of the Gospel, but they have no success; the Word of God stands too secure.

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

Observe here, 1. How the Jews, who should have been full of silent wonder, and inclined to believed in Jesus Christ, so omnipotent an agent, are prejudiced against him, and bring the late blind man before the Pharisees, our Saviour’s professed enemies,

Observe, 2. The time which our Saviour chose for working this cure, it was on the sabbath? Many, if not most of Christ’s famous miracles, were wrought upon the sabbath day. Upon that day he cured the withered hand, Mat 12:13 Upon that day he cured the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, Joh 5:9 Upon that day he cured the blind man here. This Christ did probably, for two reasons:

1. To confirm his doctrine which he preached on that day, by miracles: therefore his preaching and working miracles went together.

2. To instruct the Jews (had they been willing to receive instruction) in the true doctrine, and proper duties of their sabbath; and to let them know, that works of necessity and mercy are very consistent with the due sanctification of the sabbath. It is hard to find out any time wherein charity is unseasonable; for as it is the best of graces, so the works of it are fittest for the best of days.

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

13. They brought him to the Pharisees. It was a notable event that demanded investigation. Hence they brought him to religious men of great influence.

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:

Verse 14 tells background information about when Jesus healed the man. (See: Background Information)

They brought the man who used to be blind to the Pharisees

The people insisted that the man go with them to the Pharisees. They did not physically force him to go.

Sabbath day

"Jewish Day of Rest"

Then again the Pharisees asked him

"So the Pharisees also asked him"

translationWords

Pharisee

Sabbath

Jesus

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

13–41. OPPOSITE RESULTS OF THE SIGN

13. ἄγουσιν. These friends and neighbours are perhaps well-meaning people, not intending to make mischief. But they are uncomfortable because work has been done on the Sabbath, and they think it best to refer the matter to the Pharisees, the great authorities in matters of legal observance and orthodoxy (comp. Joh 7:47-48). This is not a meeting of the Sanhedrin. S. John’s formula for the Sanhedrin is οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κ. (οἱ) Φαρ. (Joh 7:32; Joh 7:45, Joh 11:47; Joh 11:57, Joh 18:3). Possibly one of the smaller Synagogue Councils is here meant. Apparently this is the day after the miracle.

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.

13.] The neighbours appear to have brought him to the Pharisees, out of hostility to Jesus (see ver. 12): and ver. 14 alleges the reason of this:—or perhaps from fear of the sentence alluded to in ver. 22. The ‘Pharisees’ here may have been the court presiding over the synagogue, or one of the lesser local courts of Sanhedrim. Lücke inclines to think they were an assembly of the great Sanhedrim, whom John sometimes names οἱ Φαρ.: see ch. 7:47; 11:46: Meyer regards them as some formal section of the Pharisees, as a body: but were there such?

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

13. The cure was so striking, and the technical breach of the Sabbath so obvious, that some of those who had been interesting themselves in the case brought the man that had been cured before the Pharisees, as the most orthodox and austere of the religious leaders (see on 7:32). This was not on the day of the cure, but on a later day. Note τόν ποτε τυφλόν.

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

Vv. 13-17. “They lead the man who was formerly blind to the Pharisees. 14. Now it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened the eyes of this Man 1:15. In their turn, the Pharisees also asked him how he had recovered his sight. He said to them, He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see. 16. Thereupon, some of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How can a wicked man do such miracles? And they were divided among themselves. 17. Addressing the blind man again, they say to him, What dost thou say of him, in that he opened thine eyes? He answered, He is a prophet.”

Those who push for an investigation are the ill-disposed questioners of Joh 9:10; Joh 9:12. The term the Pharisees cannot designate the entire Sanhedrim (comp. Joh 7:45). Had the Pharisaic party a certain organization perchance, and is the question here of its leaders? It is more natural to suppose that the question here is of the more violent ones. It was undoubtedly the day after the one on which the miracle had taken place.

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.