John 9:16

Joh_9:16

This Man is not of God because He keepeth not the Sabbath day.

It is interesting to note that one of the things which is specially forbidden in the Talmudic law of the Sabbath is the application of saliva to the eyes on that day. It was not permissible to anoint the eye itself with wine on the Sabbath; but one might, without guilt, wash his eyebrows in wine. In the case of saliva, however, it was not permissible to anoint even the outside of the eyes on the Sabbath. Jesus, in the mode of cure which He adopted, infringed one of the rules of the Talmud; probably with the very purpose of showing his contempt for the traditions of man by which the word of God was made void. (S. S. Times.)

Uncharitable judgments

There is no word or action but may be taken with two hands; either with the right hand of charitable construction, or the sinister interpretation of malice and suspicion; and all things do succeed as they are taken. To construe an evil action well is but a pleasing and profitable deceit to myself; but to misconstrue a good thing is a treble wrong to myself, the action, and the author (Rom_14:10). (Bp. Hall.)

There is an odious spirit in many men, who are better pleased to detect a fault than commend a virtue. (Lord Capel.)

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

Joh 9:16. Παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, from God) The words opposed are, to be from God, and to be a sinner, [An antithesis worthy of observation. Either the former, or else the latter, exactly applies as the description of every man.—V. g.—ὅτι, because) In Theology applied to estimating characters, nothing is to be done in a hurry.

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

Joh 9:16 . And then the Pharisees introduce their charge and its implication, Οὗτος … τηρεῖ . The miracle is not denied, rather affirmed, but it cannot be a work of God, for it has been done on Sabbath. Cf. Joh 3:2 and Joh 5:16 . Some of their party, however, inclined to a different conclusion, Πῶς … ποιεῖν ; How can such a work be done at all, whether on Sabbath or any other day, by a sinner? This breach of the Sabbath law must admit of explanation. It cannot arise from opposition to God. καὶ σχίσμα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς , as before among the people, Joh 7:43 , so now among the authorities a pronounced and permanent cleft was apparent.

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

Religion is not assaulted by any means more than by pretence of Religion: but the more it is pressed down, the more it riseth up.

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

This man is not of God, &c.--(See on Joh 5:9; Joh 5:16).

Others said, &c.--such as Nicodemus and Joseph.

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 16. This man is not of God] He can neither be the Messiah, nor a prophet, for he has broken the Sabbath. The Jews always argued falsely on this principle. The law relative to the observation of the Sabbath never forbade any work but what was of the servile and unnecessary kind. Works of necessity and mercy never could be forbidden on that day by him whose name is mercy, and whose nature is love; for the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; were it otherwise, the Sabbath would be rather a curse than a blessing.

How can a man that is a sinner, &c.] They knew very well that though magicians and impostors might do things apparently miraculous, yet nothing really good could be performed by them. We might have safely defied all the magicians in Egypt, who are said to have been so successful in imitating some of the miracles of Moses, to have opened the eyes of one blind man, or to have done any essential good either to the body or to the soul.

And there was a division among them.] σχισμα, a schism, a decided difference of opinion, which caused a separation of the assembly.

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

16. How can a man who is a sinner do these things? The word sinner is employed here, as in many other passages, to denote a person of immoral conduct and a despiser of God.

Why doth your Master eat with publicans and sinners? (Mark 2:16.)

That is, “Why doth your Master eat with men of ungodly and wicked lives, whose baseness is stamped with universal infamy?” For from the violation of the Sabbath the enemies of Christ inferred that he was a profane person, and destitute of all religion. Those who stand neutral and judge more candidly, on the other hand, conclude that he is a good and religious man, because God has endued him with remarkable power to work miracles. And yet the argument does not appear to be quite conclusive; for God sometimes permits false prophets to perform some miracles, and we know that Satan, like an ape, counterfeits the works of God so as to deceive the incautious.

Suetonius relates that, when Vespasian was in Alexandria, and was seated on his tribunal to dispense justice in the open court, a blind man requested him to anoint his eyes with spittle, and said that one Serapis had pointed out to him that cure in a dream; that Vespasian, being unwilling to expose himself to contempt without any good reason, was slow and reluctant to comply; but that, when his friends urged him on all sides, he granted to the blind man what he asked, and that in this way his eyes were instantly opened. Who would reckon Vespasian among the servants of God on that account, or adorn him with the applause of piety? I reply, among good men and those who fear God, miracles are undoubted pledges of the power of the Holy Spirit; but it happens by a just judgment of God, that Satan deceives unbelievers by false miracles, as by enchantments. What I have just now quoted from Suetonius I do not reckon to be fabulous; but I rather ascribe it to the righteous vengeance of God, that the Jews, having despised so many and so illustrious miracles of Christ, were at length — as they deserved to be — sent away to Satan. For they ought to have profited in the pure worship of God by the miracles of Christ; they ought to have been confirmed by them in the doctrine of the Law, and to have risen to the Messiah himself, who was the end of the Law. And undoubtedly Christ, by giving sight to the blind man, had clearly proved that he was the Messiah.

They who refuse to acknowledge God in his works make this refusal, not only through indifference, but through malicious contempt; and do they not deserve that God should give them up to the delusions of Satan? Let us then remember that we ought to seek God with a sincere disposition of heart, that he may reveal himself to us by the power of his Spirit; and that we ought to lend our ears submissively to his word, that he may clearly point out true prophets by miracles that are not delusive. Thus shall we profit, as we ought to do, by miracles, and not be exposed to the frauds of Satan.

As to the men themselves, though they act commendably in this respect, that they speak with reverence about the miracles in which the power of God is displayed, still they do not bring forward a sufficiently strong argument, to prove that Christ ought to be reckoned a Prophet of God. And even the Evangelist did not intend that their answer should be regarded as an oracle. He only exhibits the wicked obstinacy of the enemies of Christ, who maliciously pick a quarrel with what they cannot but acknowledge to be the works of God, and, when warned, do not even attend to them for a short time.

And there was a division among them. A schism is a highly pernicious and destructive evil in the Church of God; and how comes it then that Christ sows the occasion of discord among the very teachers of the Church? The answer is easy. Christ had no other object in view than to bring all men to God the Father, by stretching out his hand to them. The division arose from the obstinate malice of those who had no disposition to go to God. All who do not yield obedience to the truth of God, therefore, rend the Church by schism. Yet it is better that men should differ among themselves, than that they should all, with one consent, revolt from the true religion. Wherefore, whenever differences arise, we ought always to consider their source.

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.

(16) This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.—See Note on Joh_9:14, and reference there. Here the truth of the miracle is granted, but it is urged that the power by which it is wrought cannot be of God, because it was exercised on the Sabbath day. The inference is, that it was done by the influence of the power of evil.

Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?—This question is asked by the better party among the Pharisees, represented, as we know, by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa, and perhaps by Gamaliel. They see the inference implied in the earlier question, and appeal to the nature of the miracles wrought. Works of mercy, and love, and power, were not the product of a life of sin, or of communion with the powers of darkness. We find evidence of this better spirit among the Pharisees before, in the question of Nicodemus (Joh_7:51). It has now extended to others. The teaching on the earlier work on the Sabbath (John 5) has led some among them, at least, to look with allowance upon this.

And there was a division among them.—Comp. Note on Joh_7:43.

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

16. This man is not of God] Comp. ‘He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils’ (Mat_9:34); like this, an argument of the Pharisees. The fact of a miracle is not denied: but it cannot have been done with God’s help; therefore it was done with the devil’s help.

How can a man that is a sinner, &c.] The less bigoted, men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, shew that the argument cuts both ways. They also start from the ‘sign,’ but arrive at an opposite conclusion. Comp. Nicodemus’ question, Joh_7:51. Perhaps Christ’s teaching about the Sabbath (Joh_5:17-23) has had some effect.

there was a division] See on Joh_7:43.

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.

Wherefore said some of the Pharisees,.... Or sanhedrim, for they were not all of one mind, as appears by what follows:

this man is not of God; meaning not the blind man, but Jesus; and their sense is, he is not sent of God, he does not come from him to do his will and work, nor does he seek his glory, nor is he on his side, or for his interest;

because he keepeth not the sabbath day: this they concluded from his making clay of spittle, and spreading it on the blind man's eyes, which was contrary to the traditions of their elders: one of whose rules and canons is (n), that

"it is forbidden to put fasting spittle even on the eyelid on a sabbath day.''

An eye salve, or a plaster for the eye, if it was put on for pleasure, was lawful, but not for healing (o): but if it was put on, on the evening of the sabbath, it might continue on the sabbath day (p).

Others said, how can a man that is a sinner, or a sabbath breaker,

do such miracles? as curing a man born blind, the like of which was never heard: those that reasoned after this manner may be supposed to be Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

And there was a division among them; even in the sanhedrim, they could not agree about the character of the person that had done this miracle.

(n) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 14. 4. & Avoda Zara, fol. 40. 4. & T. Bab. Sabbat, fol 108. 2. & Maimon. Hilchot Sabbat, c. 21. sect. 25. (o) Piske Tosephot Sabbat, art. 67. (p) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 3, 4. Maimon. ib.

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

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.

Ver. 16. This man is not of God] True, if he had indeed made no conscience of keeping the sabbath. Sanctifying the Lord’s day in the primitive times was a badge of Christianity. When the question was propounded, Servasti Dominicum? Protect the Sabbath? Hast thou kept the sabbath? the answer was returned, I am a Christian, and may not do otherwise. Christianus sum, intermittere non possum. The enemies and hinderers of sanctifying the sabbath are called unbelievers, vagabonds, and wicked fellows, Act 17:2; Act 17:5. That late great Antisabbatarian prelate (Bp White), so much cast off by the rest after he had served their turns, might well have cried out with Cardinal Wolsey, Surely, if I had been as careful to serve God as I was to please men, I had not been at this pass. Semetipsum detestatus est, quod Regi potius quam Deo studuisset placere. (Scultet.)

How can a man that is a sinner] Yes, that he may, by divine permission, or at least he may do something like a miracle; as the false prophets and Antichrist. Suetonius tells us that Vespasian cured a blind man by spitting upon his eyes. And Dio testifieth that he healed another that had a weak and withered hand, by treading upon it. And yet Vespasian lived and died a pagan. This therefore was no convincing argument that the Jews here used.

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.

This man is not of God - Is not sent by God, or cannot be a friend of God.

Because he keepeth not the sabbath-day - They assumed that their views of the Sabbath were correct, and by those views they judged others. It did not occur to them to inquire whether the interpretation which they put on the law might not be erroneous. Men often assume their own interpretations of the Scriptures to be infallible, and then judge and condemn all others by those interpretations.

A sinner - A deceiver; an impostor. They reasoned conclusively that God would not give the power of working such miracles to an impostor. The miracles were such as could not be denied, nor did even the enemies of Jesus attempt to deny them or to explain them away. They were open, public, frequent. And this shows that they could not deny their reality. Had it been possible, they would have done it; but the reality and power of those miracles had already made a party in favor of Jesus, even in the Sanhedrin Joh 7:50; Joh 12:42, and those opposed to them could not deny their reality. It may be added that the early opponents of Christianity never denied the reality of the miracles performed by the Savior and his apostles. Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian - as acute foes of the gospel as perhaps have ever lived - never call this in question. They attempted to show that it was by some evil influence, or to account for the miracles in some other way than by admitting the divine origin of the Christian religion, but about the facts they had no question. Were they not as well qualified to judge about those facts as men are now? They lived near the time; had every opportunity to examine the evidence; were skilful and talented disputants; and if they could have denied the reality of the miracles they would have done it. It is scarcely possible to conceive of more conclusive proof that those miracles were really performed, and, if so, then the Lord Jesus was sent by God.

A division - Greek, “A schism.” A separation into two parties.

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

They are so far from owning Christ as God, the eternal Son of God, and equal with his Father, that they will not allow him to have any relation to God, as one sent of him. It is true, the sanctification of the sabbath is so great a piece of religion, (the whole of which is sometimes expressed by it, Isa 56:4,6), that whoso maketh no conscience of it, may reasonably be concluded to have little or nothing of God in him: but we must rightly understand what the will of God is as to that sanctification, and not think that it lieth in a performance of some ritual services, while in the mean time we neglect moral duties. Christ had kept the sabbath, though not in that superstitious sense they thought it was to be observed, keeping to all their traditions about it. Others of the Pharisees had a something better opinion of Christ by reason of the miracles he had wrought; concluding, that if he had been so bad a man, as some of their brethren would have him taken to be. God would not have assisted him to the doing of such miraculous works as he had done. Thus the wise God made a division amongst the counsels of Christ’s enemies, his work being not yet finished, nor the time come when he was to die for the redemption of man.

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

16. Therefore—That is, in consequence of the man’s unflinching statement. They had hoped that he would invalidate the miracle by his testimony; but, failing of this, they proceed to invalidate it against testimony, by reasonings of their own.

Others said—One party said, He is a sinner, and this cannot be a miracle. The other party said, This is a miracle; so he cannot be a sinner. Had the deed truly been a sin, the reasoning of the first party would have been correct. The premise of the second party proved not only that Jesus was no sinner, but that he was a messenger of God.

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

Ver. 16 indicates, as the evangelist so often does elsewhere, (Joh_7:43 Joh 10:19) that the words and works of Christ produce opposite effects on different classes. Certain individuals of the Pharisees therefore said among themselves, This Man referring to Christ, then uppermost in their minds and in their machinationsThis Man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. The form of the sentence is peculiarly contemptuous, the word "man" being thrown very emphatically to the end of the sentence. This, in their opinion, is another offence against the Law, after serious warning. The previous controversy (Joh 5) had produced no effect upon Jesus. He continued, in their opinion, to invalidate all his claims by violating the sabbath laws, which they had brought to the highest point of perfection. Renan and others insist on Christ"s repeated violation of the sabbath; but the fact is that the Lord sustained the highest meaning of the sabbath, though he resolutely repudiated the inhuman glosses and.manifest absurdities of the traditionary customs and rabbinical rules. Jesus could not be, they thought (or argued), "from God," invested with his authority, or doing his works, so tong as he would not take their view of the sabbath. This Jesus is making obstinate assault upon their prejudices. On seven distinct occasions the Lord chose to heal on the sabbath, and thus to set the restrictions of august rabbis at defiance. But even in the great Sanhedrin, in the highest council of the nation, sat men of the character of Joseph, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel, who would get some idea of the Divine commission of Jesus from the simple fact of the miracles. In this smaller court the opponents of Christ ignore and doubt the miracle itself, on account of the unsabbatic heresy, while a few are convinced that signs of this kind (and probably they had many in their minds) were in themselves proof of Divine co-operation and approval. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner (on your hypothesis) do such signs? "As far as they go, these miracles are demonstrative proof that at least God must be with him, as he has said, and they make it extremely doubtful whether he can be a bad man after all can have verily broken the Divine Law." Such a speech as this from Pharisees is an emphatic proof of the profound effect produced by Jesus upon the life of the nation. It stands in close association with the remarkable statement of Nicodemus, (Joh_3:2) "We know that no man can do these miracles (signs) which thou art doing, except God be with him." Jesus and rabbinism are here face to face. Either he is from God and they are actually making the Law of God void and vapid by their traditions, or they and their code are from God and he, having broken with them, has broken with God, and the miracle will turn out to he magic or falsehood, collusion or worse. Thus a solemn crisis of profound importance occurs. And there was a division (scisma , cutting into two parties) amongst them. These opposite effects and conclusions are the confirmation of the words of the prologue, (Joh_1:4, Joh_1:5, Joh_1:11, Joh_1:12) and they further triumphantly refute the charge that the author of the Gospel was actuated by an untiring hostility to the kingdom and polity of the ancient Israel.

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

This man is not of God - Not sent of God. How can a man that is a sinner - That is, one living in wilful sin, do such miracles?

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

sinner

Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

General Information:

In verse 18 there is a break from the main story line as John provides background information about the Jews' disbelief. (See: Background Information)

he does not keep the Sabbath

This means Jesus does not obey the law about doing no work on the Jewish Day of Rest.

How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?

This remark appears in the form of a question to emphasize that Jesus' signs prove he is not a sinner. AT: "A sinner can not do such signs!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

signs

This is another word for miracles. "Signs" give evidence that God is the all-powerful one who has complete authority over the universe.

He is a prophet

"I think he is a prophet"

Now the Jews still did not believe

Here "Jews" is a synecdoche for the "Jewish leaders" who opposed Jesus. AT: Now the Jewish leaders still did not believe. (See: Synecdoche)

translationWords

God

Sabbath

sin

miracle

prophet

Jew

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

16. οὖτος. Contemptuous: comp. Joh 3:26, Joh 6:42; Joh 6:52, Joh 7:15; Joh 7:35; Joh 7:49, Joh 12:34. The fact of the miracle is as yet not denied; but it cannot have been done with God’s help. Comp. ‘He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils’ (Mat 9:34); like this, an argument of the Pharisees.

πῶς δύναται. The less bigoted, men like Nicodemus (Joh 3:2) and Joseph of Arimathea, shew that the argument cuts both ways. They also start from the ‘sign,’ but arrive at an opposite conclusion. Their timidity in contrast with the man’s positiveness is very characteristic. Comp. Nicodemus’ question, v. 51. Perhaps Christ’s teaching about the Sabbath (Joh 5:17-23) has had some effect.

σχίσμα ἦν. see on Joh 7:43 and comp. Joh 10:19.

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.

16. τινὲς … ἄλλοι] Among the latter party would be such as Nicodemus, Joseph, (Gamaliel?); who probably (Joseph certainly, Luk 23:51) at last withdrew, and left the majority to carry out their hate against Jesus.

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

16. There was a division of opinion among the Pharisees who heard the story of the man whose sight had been restored. The strict legalists among them fastened on one point only, viz. that the Sabbath had been broken. οὐκ ἔστιν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “this person is not from God,” i.e. has not been sent by God, has no Divine mission. For παρά cf. 1:6, also 1 Macc. 2:15, 17; and see on 6:46 for the deeper meaning which παρὰ θεοῦ has elsewhere.

ὅτι τὸ σάββατον οὐ τηρεῖ. This was the charge that had been made against Jesus on a former occasion, when He healed the impotent man at Bethesda and told him to carry his mat away (5:10). There was a twofold violation of the Sabbath laws apparent in this case, for not only had the clay been kneaded (v. 14), but it was specially forbidden to use spittle to cure bad eyes on the Sabbath: “As to fasting spittle; it is not lawful to put it so much as upon the eyelids.”1

It is curious that the phrase τὸ σάββατον τηρεῖν does not occur again in the Greek Bible; but τηρεῖν is a favourite verb with Jn. (see on 8:51).

Others among the Pharisees took a larger view of the situation, probably such men as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathæa. They called attention to the σημεῖα of Jesus as wonderful, no matter what the day was on which they were wrought. πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλὸς (this word “sinner” is only found in Jn. in this chapter) τοιαῦτα σημεῖα (see on 2:11) ποιεῖν; How could a sinner do such things?

καὶ σχίσμα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς. Cf. for similar divisions of opinion, 7:43, 10:19; and see also 6:52, 7:12.

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

Keepeth not the Sabbath. A Rabbinical precept declares, "It is forbidden to apply even fasting - spittle to the eyes on the Sabbath." The words in ver. 14, made the clay, also mark a specific point of offense.

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