John 9:40

9:40-41 Are you saying we’re blind? Jesus answered that those who claim to hold all religious truth will discover that they are blind, while those who recognize their spiritual poverty will find true sight. In the story, the blind man and his family frequently confessed that they did not know, while the Pharisees repeatedly stated their confidence and remained guilty because of their religious pride. If they had confessed their ignorance and admitted their spiritual blindness, they would be guiltless. Instead, their conscious and willful rejection of Jesus established their guilt.

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

Joh_9:40. Pharisees were no doubt in His company, whose object was to mark all the more carefully His further behaviour after the performance of the miracle, not apostate disciples of Jesus (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), or adherents of a Pharisaic spirit (Lange). See Joh_10:6; Joh_10:21. They imagine that, in conformity with the opinion which Jesus entertains regarding them, He must needs reckon them among the μὴ βλέποντες; and they fail altogether to perceive that, according to the sense in which He used the expression,which, however, they do not understand,

He must include them among the βλέποντες. That they, the wise men of the nation, should be μὴ βλέποντες or τυφλοί (comp. Mat_15:14), seems to them, in their conceit, so astonishing and singular, that they ask: But we also are surely not blind? The Pharisees did not understand Jesus to be speaking of physical blindness (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others), because otherwise they would certainly not have put such a question.

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 9:40 . Some of the Pharisees overheard His words, and unconsciously proved their truth by saying with indignant contempt: μὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυφλοί ἐσμεν ; To which Jesus, taking them on their own ground, replies: Εἰ τυφλοὶ ἦτε , οὐκ ἂν εἴχετε ἁμαρτίαν . If ye were ignorant, as this blind man was, aware of your darkness and anxious to be rid of it, your ignorance would excuse you: but now by all your words and actions you proclaim that you are satisfied with the light you have, therefore you cannot receive that fuller light which I bring and in which is deliverance from sin, and must therefore remain under its bondage. Cf. Joh 8:21 .

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

Are we blind also?--We, the constituted, recognized guides of the people in spiritual things? pride and rage prompting the question.

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 40. Are we blind also?] These Pharisees understood Christ as speaking of blindness in a spiritual sense, and wished to know if he considered them in that state.

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

40. Some of the Pharisees heard. They instantly perceived that they were smitten by this saying of Christ, and yet they appear not to have belonged to the worst class; for the open enemies had so strong an abhorrence of Christ that they did not at all associate with him. But those men submitted to listen to Christ, yet without any advantage, for no man is qualified to be a disciple of Christ, until he has been divested of self, and they were very far from being so.

Are we also blind? This question arose from indignation, because they thought that they were insulted by being classed with blind men; and, at the same time, it shows a haughty contempt of the grace of Christ accompanied by mockery, as if they had said, “Thou canst not rise to reputation without involving us in disgrace; and is it to be endured that thou shouldst obtain honor for thyself by upbraiding us? As to the promise thou makest of giving new light to the blind, go hence and leave us with thy benefit; for we do not choose to receive sight from thee on the condition of admitting that we have been hitherto blind.” Hence we perceive that hypocrisy has always been full of pride and of venom. The pride is manifested by their being satisfied with themselves, and refusing to have any thing taken from them; and the venom, by their being enraged at Christ and arguing with him, because he has pointed out their wound, as if he had inflicted on them a grievous wound. Hence arises contempt of Christ and of the grace which he offers to them.

The word also is emphatic; for it means that, though all the rest be blind, still it is improper that they should be reckoned as belonging to the ordinary rank. It is too common a fault among those who are distinguished above others, that they are intoxicated with pride, and almost forget that they are men.

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.

(40) And some of the Pharisees which were with him.—The words in the preceding verse are not addressed specially to any one. The Pharisees would be still watching our Lord, and some had probably followed the beggar, expecting that our Lord would seek him, and hoping that the interview might furnish some ground for a fresh charge against one or both of them. It is the presence of mental conditions such as theirs and such as his that has brought again to our Lord’s thoughts the judicial result of His manifestation, and this rises to His lips as an utterance of the solemn thought that fills His mind. The Pharisees hear this exclamation, and apply to themselves that which their own state suggested; but which was expressed as, and is, a wide law, holding true for all mankind.

Are we blind also?—They misunderstand His words, for He has asserted of the blind (“they which see not”) that the result of His coming is “that they might see.” But yet they do not understand the words in a physical sense, in which they could have had no application to themselves. Care is required to catch the force of the term in these three verses, and it may be well to distinguish again the meanings attached to the word blind. It is used (1) for physical blindness. This has been its meaning throughout the chapter. It suggests the imagery in these verses, but is not itself present in the thought which is of spiritual, blindness only. (2) For conscious spiritual blindness (“they which see not,” “they which think they see not”), which is really the first step to spiritual sight. (3) For unconscious spiritual blindness (“they which see,” “they which think they see”), which is really the first step to a total loss of spiritual perception.

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

40. And some of] Better, Those of.

Are we blind also?] Or, Surely we also are not blind? See on Joh_9:27. Of course they understand Him to be speaking figuratively. It is strange that any should have understood their question as referring to bodily sight. They mean that they, the most enlightened among the most enlightened nation, must be among ‘those who see.’

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.

Jesus said unto them, if ye were blind,.... And sensible of it, and knew yourselves to be blind, and were desirous of light and knowledge,

ye would have no sin: or your sin would not be so aggravated; it would not be imputed to you; it would be pardoned and taken away from you: for the sense cannot be, that their blindness would not have been criminal, or they should have no sin in them, or any done by them; only, that had this been barely their case, there would have been some hope of them, that their sin might be forgiven, and put away, and be no more; see Ti1 1:13;

but now ye say we see; they thought themselves to be wise and knowing, and stood in no need of any illumination from him, but were obstinate and hardened in their infidelity, and wilfully opposed and shut their eyes against all the light and evidence of truth:

therefore your sin remaineth; untaken away, yea, immoveable, or unpardonable; the guilt of it abode upon them; nor was there any hope of its being removed from them; owning that they saw, and yet believed not: sinning wilfully against light and knowledge in rejecting Jesus, as the Messiah, they sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is never forgiven. And so the Ethiopic version renders it, "your error shall not be forgiven you"; see Mat 12:32.

Next: John Chapter 10

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

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

Ver. 40. Are we blind also?] Yes, none more: for who so blind as he that will not see? "Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord’s servant?" Isa 42:19; "Thou blind Pharisee," saith our Saviour, Mat 23:26; and again, "Ye blind guides," Mat 23:24; and "Ye fools and blind," often in that chapter. And yet these passed in those days for the only wise men were (1Co 1:20; "Where is the wise? where is the scribe?"), and had as good a conceit of themselves (a sure argument of their spiritual blindness) as the Chinese have to this day, when they usually say that all other nations of the world see but with one eye, they only with two. St Paul (who knew them, intus et in cute, as well as one man could know another) speaks out their conceits. "Thou art confident," saith he, "that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light to them that are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish," &c., Rom 2:19. And hence their swelth, their ruth, and their ruin. For as swelling is an ill symptom to the body, so is pride in the soul: and as the body may die of an inward bleeding, so may the soul of spiritual pride. And as none more often miscarry in the waters than your most skilful swimmers, so neither do any sooner fall into the condemnation of hell, or lie deeper therein, than the most knowing men, and those of greatest parts, which they usually overween, and are too well conceited of. Raram facit scientia cum modestia mixturam. Learning with modesty, as it is rare, so it is καλον καλως (saith one), most amiable and attractive. It is like the coupling of a muse and a grace,

-"aut ubi flavo

Argentum, Pariusve lapis circundatur auro."

Virgil

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.

The Pharisees them replied: and are we also blind? Jesus said to them: if you were blind, by ignorance in not having heard of me, and my doctrine, you might be excused for not believing; but now saying, we see: and having been yourselves in the occasions and opportunities of seeing, your sin remaineth, and you in your sins. (Witham) --- If you were blind, &c. If you were invincibly ignorant, and had neither read the Scriptures, nor seen my miracles, you would not be guilty of the sin of infidelity: but now, as you boast of your knowledge of the Scriptures, you are inexcusable. (Challoner) --- If you had humility enough to acknowledge your blindness and ignorance, and seriously to seek for a remedy, you would soon be delivered from sin, and freed from the evil of blindness. But filled as you are with presumption, you remain still in blindness, which, as it is voluntary, is at the same time criminal and inexcusable. This is your evil; this you sin. (Calmet) --- We here see that it is judged by truth itself far better not to read the Scriptures at all, than to read them with bad dispositions; not to see the miracles of Jesus Christ, than to refuse our assent to their author. At the present day all read the Scriptures, but do we see any marked improvement in the moral world? The text, without any comment, is given to Churchmen and to Dissenters: the latter gladly accept the offering, because, as the Rev. Frederick Noland observes, (in his objections of a Churchman to uniting with the Bible society, p. 34) "the authorized version is in many places accommodated to their peculiar opinions, through the conciliatory spirit of the Church, which revised the text for the purpose of doing their objections away." And in his note on this part, he adds: "The last revisal of the translation of the Bible was undertaken, as is notorious, for the purpose of removing certain objections made to the old version by the non-conformists. That the execution has been answerable to the intent, is evident from the fact of the Dissenters having withdrawn their exceptions, and adopted the version. Comp. Nichols. Defens. Eccles. Anglic. p. 33. Pierre. Vindic. Fratr. Dissent. p. 60-67." Thus (Acts xiv. 23.) "Greek: cheirotonesantes de autois presbuterous kat ekklesian. When they had ordained them elders by election, in every church. (Bp’s Bible.) When they had ordained them elders in every church. (Authors. vers.) These words, as applied to St. Paul and St. Barnabas, who had merely received first orders, (Acts xiii. 2.) form in the former version an argument against presbyters’ right to ordain, and in the latter one in favour of that practice." As a further accommodation, he says the word elders was substituted for presbyters, &c. "Independency in the very nature of it is schism; for every congregation is a different church." (Sherl. Def. of Stillingfl.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The Pharisees attended our Saviour almost in all places where he went, to catch something from him whereof they might accuse him: they could not but understand, that the import of our Saviour’s last words was, that this poor blind man, now not only receiving bodily sight, (though born blind), but a spiritual illumination, by which he discerned that Christ was the Son of God, the true Messiah and Saviour of the world, was an instance of those mentioned, who, not seeing before, upon Christ’s coming saw; and that themselves and their masters were an instance of those whom he intended by such as saw, and by his coming were made blind; for our Saviour had often called them blind, and so represented them to the people to whom he preached, Mat 15:14; Luk 6:39. They therefore grew very angry, being very proud, and not patient to be thought or called blind, looking upon themselves as the greatest lights of the Jewish church.

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

40. Some of the Pharisees… with him heard—It would seem as if these Pharisees, expecting that Jesus might visit his poor adherent, were in a sort of ambush to watch and see and hear. Accordingly as Jesus utters this reflection upon his own work they are on hand to overhear and retort.

We blind also?—Are we included in that class who need to receive sight from thy hand?

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

Those of the Pharisees who were with him. This expression does not simply mean who were near him at that moment, but who were to a certain extent siding with him, (Joh_8:30, Joh_8:31) while criticizing and rejecting his message; who were incensed with him for promising to them "freedom" and sonship, and whose faith in his claims was of the most superficial and vacillating kind. These wavering, self-satisfied Pharisees heard these things, and they said to him, Are we blind also? Many commentators, who call attention to the contrast between the tufloi and mh blepontev of ver. 39, think that the speakers who made use of this word did not draw the distinction, and meant nothing more than their use mh blepontev by of tufloi . But this is unsatisfactory; whatever it "means in the one clause, it ought to mean in the other. There is a difference between becoming blind," and being "the blind." They ask whether they are blind also, i.e. as blind as those who have, according to Christ"s own dictum, become so. They seem to admit that some who have the power of sight have been blinded by the very light that shines upon them, but they are in doubt with reference to their own case.

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

Observe here, 1. How the Pharisees, who watched all opportunities to ensnare our Saviour, look upon these last words as reflecting upon them; as if Christ did insinuate that they were blind; Are we blind also? They that shut their eyes, and will not see the light which Christ offers to them, are the worst of blind ones.

Observe, 2. Our Saviour’s reply to the Pharisees’ question, If ye were blind; that is, simply ignorant of your duty, and without the means of knowledge and instruction, you should have no sin: that is, comparatively to what you have: you should not have had so much sin and guilt upon you as now you have, by shutting your eyes against the light. But now you say we see: that is, being puffed up with the knowledge which you have, as if ye were the only men that saw; this proud conceit of yours renders your condition incurable, and your sin remaineth unpardonable.

Learn hence, 1. That it is a far greater sin to contemn the known laws of God, than to be ignorant of them; pride is a greater hindrance of knowledge than ignorance, because the proud man thinks he wants no knowledge.

2. That the most exalted knowledge is insufficient to salvation, without a suitable and correspondent practice. The Pharisees had the key of knowledge at their girdle, yet our Saviour tells them of double damnation;

Lord! how sad is it so to know Christ in this world, as that he will be ashamed to know us in another world!

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

40, 41. Are we blind? The Pharisees ask this. They were not blind by necessity. They could see if they would. Hence they were responsible. Had they been without opportunity they would have no moral responsibility, but as they had opportunity to see and claimed to see, their sin remaineth.

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.

40. ἐκ τ. Φ … ὄντες. Those of the P. who were with Him, who still considered themselves in some degree His disciples.

μὴ καὶ ἡμ. Surely we also are not blind: comp. Joh 9:27, Joh 6:67. Of course they understand Him to be speaking figuratively. It is strange that any should have understood their question as referring to bodily sight. They mean that they, the most enlightened among the most enlightened nation, must be among ‘those who see.’ ‘Have we not recognised Thee as a teacher come from God (Joh 3:2) and listened to Thee until now? Are we also blind?’

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.

40.] They ask the question, not understanding the words of Jesus in a bodily sense, but well aware of their meaning, and scornfully rejoining, ‘Are then we meant by these blind, we, the leaders of the people?’

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

40. Some Pharisees who were near overheard what Jesus said, and interjected the scornful question, “Are we also blind?”

ἐκ τῶν φαρισαίων … οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ὄντες. The Sinai Syriac renders “who were near Him,” μετά indicating proximity in place, but not necessarily any attachment of discipleship. See τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν (12:8); and cf. Mat 9:15. The crushing reply of Jesus (v. 41) to their question forbids the hypothesis that these Pharisees are to be reckoned among the half-believing Jews mentioned at 8:31.

μὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυφλοί ἐσμεν; “Are we also spiritually blind,” we who are the recognised religious teachers of the nation? The form of the question, μὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς …, suggests that a negative answer is believed by the questioners to be the obviously true answer See on 6:67.

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

Are we blind also [μη και ημεις τυφλοι εσμεν] ? The also belongs with we. The interrogative particle has the force of we are surely not, and the we is emphatic. Are we also blind ? So Rev.

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