Ch. 9:1-41. THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND.--A MIRACLE OF CHRIST
ATTESTED BY A JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION.--A PARABLE OF REDEMPTION.--A
LESSON IN FAITH. See note at ver. 38.
PRELIMINARY NOTE.--This miracle is reported only by John. There is
nothing peculiar in this, since John alone reports Christ’s Judean
ministry, in which it occurred. The place was Jerusalem; the time is
uncertain; it was on a Sabbath (ver. 14), in the fall of A. D. 29
(Vol. I, p. 45), between the feast of Tabernacles in October (ch. 7:2)
and the feast of Dedication in December (ch. 10:22). Some identify it
with the last day of the former feast (ch. 7:37), which was a Sabbath,
supposing ch. 7:53 to 8:11 to be an interpolation. It is not probable
that it occurred at the time which seems to be indicated by its place
in the report furnished by the Evangelists. That Christ stopped on
escaping from a mob who threatened to stone him, in order to work this
miracle, is not probable; that under such circumstances his disciples
should have asked him the abstruse question of ver. 2 is still more
improbable. I put it therefore at some other time in his Judean
ministry, which lasted a little over two months. See ch. 7, Prel.
Note. In studying this chapter the student will do well to observe its
natural division into three parts: (1) the miracle (verses 1-7); (2)
the investigation (verses 8-33); (3) the result (verses 34-38).
1 And as _Jesus_ passed by, he saw a man which was blind
from _his_ birth.
=1. And passing by, he saw a man blind from birth.= To the ordinary
reader the connection of this verse with the last verse of the
preceding chapter indicates that this miracle was wrought as Jesus
passed from the temple driven by the mob. But the latter clause of
that verse is of doubtful authenticity. The phrase “passing by”
appears to be used here simply to indicate that the miracle of mercy
was called forth by the occasion, not by the blind man’s petition nor
by any previously formed purpose. “It was he who saw the blind man,
not the blind man who came to him; and so earnestly did he look upon
him that even his disciples perceived it.”--(_Chrysostom._) Compare
this case with that in Luke 18:35-43. There the blind man appeals to
Christ, here Christ heals without being appealed to. There, in the
stillness of the country, the noise of the multitude awakens the
attention of the blind man. Here, in the crowded city, there is
nothing to announce to the blind man a healer until Christ speaks to
him. There, therefore, he awaits the petition; here he does not.
Congenital blindness is incurable by modern science. How it was known
to the Evangelist that this man was blind from his birth has been
questioned. The man appears, from the following narrative, to have
been a well-known mendicant. Perhaps he proclaimed the nature and
extent of his misfortune as a means of awakening charity.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin,
this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
=2. Who did sin?= It was not only a Jewish opinion that such
afflictions were a divine punishment for sin, it is the teaching of
experience that special diseases are frequently the natural
consequence of sin either in the sufferer or in his ancestry, and the
teaching of Scripture that all disease, and even death itself, is the
fruit of sin. This truth Christ had already recognized in at least two
instances (Mark 2:5; John 5:14), and it is enforced both by warnings
and by historical illustrations in the O. T. (Lev. 26:16; Deut. 28:22;
Numb. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27). The Jewish error consisted in believing
that all special afflictions were divine visitations for special sins
(Job 4:7; 8:6), an opinion which was not confined to the Jews (Acts
28:4). This error Christ here corrects. The form of the disciples’
question has given rise to some needless perplexity. How could they,
even in imagination, attribute a blindness from birth to the blind
man’s own sin? All such explanations as that some among the Jews
believed in the transmigration of souls and others in a pre-existent
state, and therefore in sins committed in a previous life, and still
others in the possibility of sin committed by the unborn babe in the
womb, a doctrine deduced by the rabbis from such passages as Gen.
25:22 and Psalm 51:5, are inadmissible, because these refinements in
theology, even if actually entertained among the Jewish rabbis,
certainly were not accepted among the common people, from whom Christ
drew his disciples. The question appears to be in spirit this: What is
the explanation of this man’s blindness? his own sin? That cannot be,
for he was born blind. Is he then punished for his parents’ sin?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his
parents: but that[357] the works of God should be made
manifest in him.
[357] ch. 11:4.
=3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.= That is, his
blindness is not a punishment for his or their sin.--=But that the
works of God should be made manifest in him.= Manifest to us by his
miraculous cure; but this is not all. The work of God is to believe on
him whom he hath sent (ch. 6:29), and to this belief the blind man was
brought by his cure (ver. 38). Thus the work of God was made manifest,
not only through him to us, but _in_ him. Thus Christ gives the key to
the Christian doctrine of suffering. It is inflicted sometimes as a
special punishment for special sins (see references above), but more
frequently it is a means of grace, inflicted either that by our
endurance we may manifest the grace of God to others (2 Cor. 12:9), or
may be taught of God ourselves (Heb. 12:6, 11). Compare with Christ’s
language here his declaration concerning the sickness and death of
Lazarus (ch. 11:4).
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is
day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5 As long as I am in the world, I[358] am the light of the
world.
[358] chaps. 1:5,9; 8:12; 12:35, 46.
=4, 5. While it is day; the night cometh.= The day is life; the night
is death. Christ in his human estate was subject to the law under
which all his disciples are placed. Death cut short his human work.
The day for work is short, the night is at hand; therefore the greater
need of earnest and urgent labor. Sleep is a parable of death (Ps.
104:23) that should perpetually remind us that our day is short.=--The
light of the world.= It was prophesied that the Messiah should open
the eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). The direct reference
is to Christ’s fulfilment of these prophecies (Luke 4:18, 21). But it
is true, in a larger sense, that just so far as Christ is in the
world, and accepted by the world, he becomes its light, intellectual,
moral, and spiritual (ch. 1:9, note).
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat[359] on the ground, and
made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the
blind man with the clay,
[359] Mark 8:23.
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,[360]
(which is by interpretation, Sent.) He[361] went his way
therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
[360] Neh. 3:15.
[361] 2 Kings 5:14.
=6, 7. Spat on the ground * * * * and he anointed the eyes with the
clay.= Clay and spittle were both believed in ancient times to possess
curative properties. Why Christ used them here is a matter only of
conjecture. Certainly not as remedies, for one blind from birth could
not be cured by a remedy so simple, and he who healed the blind men at
Jericho by a touch (Matt. 20:34) had no need here to resort to other
means. Not to conceal the miracle, as may have been the case in
analogous instances (see Mark 7:33; 8:23, notes), for here his object
was to manifest the works of God, and the result was a public and
protracted investigation of his own character. It is noticeable,
however, that Christ never cured without giving the healed something
to do, as a test of his faith and obedience. Even in the three cases
of raising from the dead he called on the mourners, to indicate by
their obedience to his direction their faith in him (Matt. 9:24, 25;
Luke 7:14; John 11:39, 40). When he was asked to heal, the simple
request served as an indication of faith; when, as here, he
volunteered the cure, he seems always to have required some act as an
evidence of faith. Comp. ch. 5:6-8.--=Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.=
One of the pools in the vicinity of Jerusalem, entitled also Siloah or
Shiloah (Neh. 3:15; Isa. 8:6). It is identified with a pool or tank
still found in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which stands to the south of
the Temple mount, and consists of an oblong tank, partly hewn out of
the rock and partly built of masonry, measuring about fifty-three feet
in length, eighteen feet in width, and nineteen feet in depth, with a
flight of steps leading down to the bottom. Several columns stand out
of the side walls, extending from the top downward into the reservoir,
the design of which it is now difficult to conjecture. The water
passes out of this reservoir through an open channel cut in the rock,
which is covered for a short distance, and a few yards off is partly
dammed up by the people of the adjoining village of Siloam, for the
purpose of washing their clothes, and then divided into small streams
to irrigate the gardens below. The water flows into this reservoir
from an artificial cave or basin under the cliff. This cave is entered
by a small archway hewn in the rock. It is irregular in form, and
decreases in size as it proceeds from about fifteen to three feet in
height. It is connected with what is known as the Fountain of the
Virgin by a remarkable conduit cut through the very heart of the rock
in a zigzag form, measuring some seventeen hundred and fifty feet,
while the distance in a straight line is only eleven hundred feet.
This remarkable fact was discovered by Dr. Edward Robinson, who
had the hardihood to crawl through the passage.--=Which is by
interpretation Sent.= The meaning of this addition has been doubted,
but does not seem to me to be doubtful. The pool, by its very name,
was a symbol of Him who was sent into the world to work the works of
God (ver. 4), and who gives light to the world by providing a fountain
in which not only all uncleanness is washed away, but all ignorance
and blindness of heart.--=He went therefore=, etc. Compare with the
cure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:11, 13), who was in like manner bid to wash
in Jordan, and only reluctantly and after angry resistance consented.
Observe how great the trial to this blind man’s faith, directed to
take so considerable a walk, in his blindness, as a condition of cure.
Observe, too, in the miracle a parable of redemption. The whole world
lieth in darkness from the beginning (Ps. 107:10; Matt. 4:16; 1 John
5:19); Christ, the light of the world, comes to call us out of
darkness into marvellous light (Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:13; 1
Pet. 2:9); the condition of receiving that light is faith, exemplified
by obedience, without which the soul remains in darkness (chaps. 1:5;
3:19); and he often calls us to prove our faith by walking, in
obedience to his direction, in the darkness for a while, in order that
we may come into the light (Mark 8:22-26, notes).
8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen
him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and
begged?
9 Some said, This is he: others _said_, He is like him:
_but_ he said, I am _he_.
=8, 9. The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him
that he was a beggar.= The best manuscripts have _beggar_, not, as in
our English version, _blind_. So Alford and Tischendorf.--=Is not this
he that sat and begged?= Apparently he was a well-known beggar, like
the one described in Acts 3:2, 10. Comp. Luke 18:35. He is described
as one that _sat and begged_, in contrast with such as beg from door
to door. Beggars of this description having a regular place, where
they may always be found soliciting alms, are a not uncommon sight in
the East.--=Some said, This is he. Others, No! but he is like him. He
himself said, I am he.= This is the correct rendering of the best
reading; it varies slightly from our English version. His own response
seems to have settled the question of his identity among the common
people. That some should have at first doubted is not strange,
considering the alterations in appearance made by the clear eye in
place of the sightless eyeballs, and the fact that he was no longer to
be found in his accustomed place, begging.
10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made
clay,[362] and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to
the pool of Siloam, and wash; and I went and washed, and I
received sight.
[362] verses 6, 7.
12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know
not.
=10-12.= The first investigation is made informally, and without
prejudice, by the common people. It is curiosity alone which inquires,
and it is easily convinced of the facts in the case.--The man’s reply
to his questioners is more laconic in the original than in our English
version. It is literally, “_And going and washing, I saw._” It reminds
one of Cæsar’s famous report, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” The verb
rendered I saw or I received sight (ἀναβλέπω) is literally, _I saw
again_. Sight being the prerogative of humanity, he speaks as though
it were really once his prerogative (though in fact he never possessed
it), had been lost, and was now recovered to him again.--The question,
_Where is he?_ appears to be asked, not in a spirit of enmity, but
simply from a natural curiosity and interest to see him who had
wrought the cure. Christ’s escape from the blind man and the multitude
is analogous to his course on other occasions (comp. ch. 5:13), and is
characteristic of one who ordinarily avoided all occasions of public
triumph and enthusiasm (ch. 6:15; Matt. 8:4; 9:30; Mark 5:43).
13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was
blind.
=13.= Verses 13-34 report a semi-official investigation by the
Pharisees, instigated not by a sincere desire to ascertain the truth,
nor by mere curiosity, but by a determination to break the force of
the miracle that had been wrought. For this purpose they first examine
the man (verses 15-17) and his parents (18-21), in hope to prove an
imposture; next they subject the man to a further cross-examination in
an unsuccessful endeavor to break down his testimony (verses 24-33);
failing in that, they do what they can to discredit his testimony by
excommunicating him (ver. 34).--=The Pharisees.= It is generally
supposed that this phrase indicates the Jewish court formally
assembled, either the Sanhedrim, _i. e._, the supreme court of the
nation, or the lesser Sanhedrim, _i. e._, one of the local courts in
Jerusalem. But the passages cited to show that John uses the term
“Pharisees” to designate a court rather indicate the opposite. In both
John 7:32, 45-47 and John 11:46, 47, he distinguishes between the
“chief-priests and Pharisees” who constituted the council, and the
Pharisees who constituted not a body, but a party. I judge then that
the investigation which follows is an informal one. It must be
remembered that in that age, and even to the present time in that
country, no such clear line was drawn as with us between an official
and an unofficial trial.
14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and
opened his eyes.
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.
16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not
of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others
said, How[363] can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?
And[364] there was a division among them.
[363] verse 31; ch. 3:2.
[364] ch. 7:12, 43.
=14-16. The Sabbath day.= For analogous case of Sabbath healing, see
ch. 5, notes.--=Then again the Pharisees also asked him.= Not that
they had asked him before; the “again” refers to the question by the
people in ver. 10.--=Some said * * * * Others said.= It is a mistake
to suppose that all the Pharisees were hypocrites. Among them were
such men as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus.
See Matt. 3:7, note. But the honest Pharisees were timid, and were
easily overborne by their opponents. For account of a similar
conflict, see ch. 7:47-52. Observe the inherent vice of Pharisaism,
ancient and modern; it puts the ceremonial above humanity; it is of
the essence of Christianity that it regards all ceremonials and
observances as for humanity (Mark 2:27; note on Matt. 12:8).
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.[365]
[365] ch. 4:19.
18 But the Jews did not believe[366] concerning him, that
he had been blind, and received his sight, until they
called the parents of him that had received his sight.
[366] Isa. 26:11.
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye
say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is
our son, and that he was born blind:
21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath
opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he
shall speak for himself.
=17-21. What sayest thou of him because he hath opened thine eyes?=
They ask for the man’s opinion, each party perhaps hoping to get
support for its own views.--=He is a prophet.= At first to the blind
man Christ was only “a man that is called Jesus” (ver. 11).
The discussion has not only deepened, it has clarified his
convictions.--=But the Jews did not believe * * * * until they had
called the parents.= The Pharisees make a twofold endeavor to break
the force of the miracle, first by questioning the identity of the
man, second by questioning the method of his cure.--So they ask the
parents if this is their son, and how he was cured.--=His parents
answered them=, etc. The answer of the parents was probably literally
true, but it was evasive.--Their knowledge of the cure was probably
derived from their son; hence they justify themselves in referring the
inquirers to him. But duty, both to truth and to their son, required
that they should have sustained his testimony by their own expressed
belief in the miraculous cure.
22 These _words_ spake his parents, because they[367]
feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if
any man did confess that he was Christ, he[368] should be
put out of the synagogue.
[367] chaps. 7:13; 12:42; Prov. 29:25.
[368] verse 34; ch. 16:2.
23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
=22, 23. Because they feared the Jews.= The term “Jews,” as John uses
it, generally means the Judeans, _i. e._, the inhabitants of Judea, as
distinguished from the Galileans or other dispersed Israelites. Living
in the vicinity of Jerusalem, they were most attached to its ritual,
and most intolerant of any departure from Jewish ceremonials or any
fellowship with the Gentiles. Through their influence the Sanhedrim
had resolved that any one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah should
be excommunicated. When this resolution was arrived at does not
appear. It clearly indicates that even in Judea there was growing a
feeling, if not a faith, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Promised
One.--=He should be put out of the synagogue.= That is, excommunicated.
According to the Jewish scholars, there were three kinds of discipline
known in the ancient synagogues, all of which are entitled
_excommunication_ or _cutting off_. Excommunication in the slightest
degree involved separation from the synagogue, and the suspension of
intercourse with all Jews whatever, even with one’s wife and
domestics. A person who had exposed himself to excommunication was not
allowed to approach another nearer than a distance of four cubits.
This separation was continued for thirty days; and in case the
excommunicated person did not repent, the time might be doubled
or tripled, even when the transgression, by means of which it
was incurred, was of small consequence. The second degree of
excommunication is denominated _the curse_, and was more severe in its
effects. It was pronounced with imprecations, in the presence of ten
men, and so thoroughly excluded the guilty person from all communion
whatever with his countrymen, that they were not allowed to sell him
anything, even the necessaries of life. The _third degree of
excommunication_ was more severe in its consequences than either of
the preceding. It was a solemn and absolute exclusion from all
intercourse and communion with any other individuals of the nation;
and the criminal was left in the hands, and to the justice of God. It
is probable that in the time of Christ the second degree of
excommunication was not distinguished from the third. It is uncertain
what degree of excommunication was here threatened; but it is quite
unimportant, since the first was sure to be succeeded by the others,
unless the condemned repented, and made confession of his wrong-doing;
in this case retracted his confession of Jesus as the Messiah.
24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said
unto him, Give God[369] the praise: we know that this man
is a sinner.
[369] Josh. 7:19; Ps. 50:14, 15.
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner _or no_, I
know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now
I see.
=24, 25.= The Pharisees attempt to overawe the blind man. The
conference with his parents has been held in his absence. They then
summon him into their presence with the declaration that they have
discovered the imposture, and call on him to confess it.--=Give God
the praise= is not equivalent to _Give to God the glory of your cure_;
they do not admit that any cure has been wrought. It is a solemn form
of adjuration to confess the fraud which they pretend to have
discovered (Josh. 7:19).--=We know that this man is a sinner=,
indicates that their investigation has discovered the imposture. The
man’s reply is shrewd and wise. He will not undertake to dispute the
conclusion which these doctors of the law pretend to have reached; but
neither will he abate in the slightest his testimony to the miraculous
cure.--=One thing I know, that being blind, now I see.= No testimony
to Christ is more pertinent or potent than this personal experience of
his grace. Comp. Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:12-18.
26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how
opened he thine eyes?
27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did
not hear: wherefore would ye hear _it_ again? will ye also
be his disciples?
=26, 27.= Defeated in an attempt to overawe the blind man, the
Pharisees resort to the common artifice of cross-examination; they
call on him to repeat his story, in the hope of detecting some real or
imaginary discrepancy in his two accounts, by which they may discredit
him. He refuses to be cross-examined; grows impatient at their manifest
injustice; answers defiantly.--=Ye will not hear.= Equivalent to, Ye
will not heed, will not accept. It is useless to repeat testimony
which they have resolved to reject. He thus illustrates Christ’s
precept, Neither cast ye your pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6).--=Will
ye also be his disciples?= Ironical. The man affects to misunderstand
their object, and to think that they are inquiring for the purpose of
becoming Christ’s disciples. The mere suggestion elicits an indignant
disclaimer, and so brings out clearly that they are not honestly
seeking to get at the truth respecting Jesus, but are attempting to
discredit him. The word _also_ scarcely indicates, as some suppose,
that the man is resolved to become Christ’s disciple. We know too
little concerning him, as yet, to come to that conclusion (ver. 36).
28 Then they reviled[370] him, and said. Thou art his
disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
[370] 1 Pet. 2:23.
29 We know[371] that God spake unto Moses: _as for_
this _fellow_, we[372] know not from whence he is.
[371] Ps. 103:7; Heb. 3:5.
[372] ch. 8:14.
=28, 29.= A curious illustration of the inconsistency of bigotry is
afforded by a comparison of the language of the Pharisees here and in
ch. 7:27. There, because they suppose they know the parentage of
Jesus, they say he cannot be the Messiah; here, the pretence that he
is an unknown, affords an equally satisfactory reason for rejecting
him.
30 The man answered and said unto them, Why[373] herein is
a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and
_yet_ he hath opened[374] mine eyes.
[373] ch. 3:10.
[374] Ps. 119:18; Isa. 29:18, 19; 35:5; 2 Cor. 4:6.
31 Now we know that God[375] heareth not sinners: but
if[376] any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his
will, him he heareth.
[375] Job 27:9; Ps. 66:18; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 1:15; Jer.
11:11; Ezek. 8:18; Micah 3:4; Zech. 7:13.
[376] Ps. 34:15; Prov. 15:29.
=30, 31.= The argument of these verses is, (1) founded on the
Pharisees’ doctrine that man is made acceptable to God by his good
works. The Pharisees could furnish no reply to it, because they
believed that God only heard the prayers of the pious (see Neh. 13:14,
22, 31; 2 Sam. 22:21). The doctrine that he hears and answers the
prayers of the penitent, though abundantly taught in the O. T. (Ps.
25:11; 32:5; Isaiah 55:6, 7), they wholly ignored; (2) It is founded
on the Scriptural doctrine that God does not hear the prayer of
deliberate, willful and persistent sinners, while continuing in their
sins. If this “man that is called Jesus” was the impostor that the
Pharisees declared him to be, God would not accompany his ministry
with such manifestations of divine blessing (Isaiah 1:11-15; 59:1, 2;
Prov. 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9; Jer. 14:11, 12; Amos 5:21-23; Micah 3:4);
(3) It accords in fact with the N. T. doctrine of prayer, which
teaches us to pray in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, in
and through whom we are heard, though sinners (chaps. 14:13, 14;
15:16; 16:23, 24). Observe the double condition of prayer, as
indicated by this man: (1) a true reverence of God, (2) a sincere
practical obedience to his will. Comp. ch. 15:17; Heb. 11:6; James
5:16. In the failing of one or the other of these conditions we may
find one principal reason why so many prayers are not answered.
32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man
opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
=32, 33.= It was prophesied of the Messiah that he should restore sight
to the blind (ver. 5, note). This peculiar form of miraculous
cure is not narrated to have been performed by any one except Christ,
unless 2 Kings 6:18, 20 be regarded as an instance; it was performed by
Christ on several occasions (Matt. 9:27-30; 11:5; 12:22; 20:30-34;
Mark 8:22-25); but this is the only case of the cure of one blind
from birth.--=If this man was not from God he could do nothing.= The
man now openly confesses his conviction, which in his previous answer
he has concealed. Observe that he enunciated the same principle as
Nicodemus, and in almost the same words. The declaration is
spiritually true of Christ (ch. 5:19-30) and of every one of Christ’s
disciples (ch. 15:5; comp. Phil. 4:13).
34 They answered and said unto him, Thou[377] wast
altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they
cast him[378] out.
[377] verse 2.
[378] Isa. 66:5.
=34.= Failing in their attempt to break the force of the man’s
testimony, the Pharisees endeavored to discredit it by excommunicating
him. Religious persecution is generally the last resort of intellectual
weakness and defeat. Their declaration _Thou wast altogether born in
sins_ is a reference to the fact that he was born blind. Thus they
become themselves unconscious witnesses to the miracle; for their
language here shows their belief that he was born blind, and the man
himself affords ocular demonstration of the cure. The declaration _They
cast him out_ means, not they drove him out of the court-room, as
interpreted by Chrysostom, Tholuck and others, but they excommunicated
him, in conformity to the resolution previously taken (ver. 22).
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had
found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe[379] on the
Son of God?
[379] 1 John 5:13.
36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might
believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him,
and[380] it is he that talketh with thee.
[380] ch. 4:26.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.[381]
[381] Matt. 14:33.
=35-38. When Jesus heard that they had cast him out.= Perhaps he
purposely waited, that the man’s fidelity to the truth might be fully
tested. This trial of the blind man symbolizes the trial to which
Christ subjects his church (1 Pet. 1:7). When men cast the faithful
witness out, Christ comes to him (Ps. 27:10). Thus the man realizes
the promise of Luke 6:22.--=Dost thou believe on the Son of God.=
There is an emphasis on _Thou_ in the original, which cannot well be
repeated in the English. Christ contrasts his belief with the
disbelief of the Pharisees. “Believest thou, whilst so many others are
disbelievers” (_Trench_).--=Who is he, Sire, that I might believe on
him.= The word translated lord (κύριος) is only a general term of
respect. It is sometimes translated _Sir_ (Matt. 21:30; chaps. 4:11,
15, 19, 49; 5:7; 12:20; 20:15). It does not imply here that the man
recognized in Jesus the Son of God. But his language, _That I might
believe on him_, indicates that he was ready to believe when the
Messiah should be made known to him. This spirit of desire always
brings the answer of disclosure (Matt. 5:6; Acts, ch. 10).--=Thou hast
both seen him.= A reminder of the benefit which has been conferred
upon the man.--=And it is he that talketh to thee.= To no one did
Christ disclose his divine nature more clearly than to this blind man,
whose fidelity to truth showed him worthy to receive the disclosure of
further truth, and one which even the disciples but imperfectly
apprehended.--=Sire, I believe. And he reverenced him.= Not
necessarily _worshipped_. The original does not necessarily signify
anything more than a form of salutation paid by an inferior to a
superior, by falling upon the knees and touching the forehead to the
ground. For meaning of both words, “lord” and “worshipped,” see Matt.
8:2, note. It is clear, however, that the man accepted fully Christ’s
declaration respecting himself, though not so clear that he fully
comprehended his meaning.
* * * * *
THE CURE OF THE MAN BORN BLIND. It is safe to assume that John has
narrated no event at such length as this miracle and its subsequent
investigation without a definite purpose. The general lessons taught
by this account, apart from those incidentally conveyed in single
utterances, appear to me to be three. (1) This is the only one of
Christ’s miracles which was subjected to a judicial or _quasi_
judicial investigation. That investigation originated not with the
disciples, but with the people, and was carried on before a hostile
tribunal. The identity of the blind man was established by his own
testimony and corroborated by that of his parents. That he was born
blind was established by the same indisputable evidence. That he was
cured was ocularly demonstrated. The cure necessarily involved a
miracle, since congenital blindness is not curable by natural means.
The value of the evidence is increased by the facts that the parents
were reluctant witnesses; that the man himself had no interest to
further the cause of Christ, since he did not even know who he was;
that the Pharisees themselves were forced to the unconscious admission
that a miracle had been wrought (ver. 34, note); and that,
defeated in their attempt to browbeat the witness, they endeavored
to discredit his testimony by excommunicating him. (2) There is an
instructive contrast in the characters so briefly but graphically
portrayed. (_a_) The people, moved by mere wonder, investigate
curiously but not earnestly, reach no conclusion, and so learn nothing
of Christ; (_b_) The Pharisees, instigated by malice and religious
bigotry, investigate thoroughly, and are compelled to adopt the
conclusion that a miracle has been wrought, but refuse to
accept the Worker as even a man sent from God, and so learn nothing of
Christ. (_c_) The parents, honest but timid, accept the facts, but are
unwilling to risk persecution for truth’s sake, and so learn nothing
of Christ. (_d_) The man himself, who is faithful to his convictions,
and whose convictions grow by reason of his fidelity, is brought to a
knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus is illustrated
the principle that to find the truth as it is in Christ Jesus it is not
enough to investigate curiously, earnestly, honestly; it is necessary
also to confess fearlessly the truth so far as it is apprehended. (3)
The history of the blind man illustrates the growth of faith, as well
as its conditions. At first he knew nothing of Jesus; but without
knowledge or definite hope he obeys Christ’s direction, goes to the
pool of Siloam, washes, sees. He still knows nothing of the Healer but
that he is “a man that is called Jesus.” Despite the timidity of his
parents, and the threatening of the Pharisees, he maintains the truth,
defends the unknown, asserts him to be a prophet, and a man of God.
Finally, he finds in him the Messiah, the Son of God. Fidelity, in that
which is least, is the condition of receiving larger gifts in knowledge
and faith.
39 And Jesus said, For[382] judgment I am come into this
world, that they which see not[383] might see; and that
they which see might be made blind.[384]
[382] ch. 5:22, 27; 12:47.
[383] 1 Pet. 2:9.
[384] ch. 3:19; Matt. 13:13.
=39. For judgment am I come into this world.= Contrast chaps. 8:15;
12:47. Christ does not hesitate to state truths at different times in
forms which make his statements apparently contradictory. He does not
come to announce judgment or condemnation, but to provide mercy;
nevertheless, he has come _for judgment_, since he draws to himself
all that love the divine character and the divine life, and repels all
that are worldly and selfish. He does not condemn, but they that
reject him are self-condemned, testifying that they love darkness
rather than light because their deeds are evil.--=That they which see
not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.= The
meaning is not, _That they which see not their own blindness might be
made to see it_; this interpretation makes the second clause of the
sentence either a mere repetition of the first, _And that they which
think they see might be made aware that they are blind_, or unmeaning.
Nor is it to be rendered, _That they which see not spiritual things
might be made to see them, and they which see the world might be made
blind to that as a preparation for seeing Christ_; for though this
would be in analogy with Paul’s metaphor (Rom. 6:11; 7:9), it would
not interpret Christ’s declaration that he has come for judgment. The
two clauses of the sentence are to be interpreted alike. Christ’s
coming gave moral and spiritual sight to the publicans who were
without moral culture, but opened their hearts to receive Christ’s
instructions; and it darkened such moral sense as the Pharisees
already possessed, since they closed their eyes to the clear
revelation which Christ brought. Thus Christ is both savor of life
unto life and of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16), both the corner-stone
and the stone of stumbling (1 Pet. 2:6-8; comp. Matt. 3:12, note).
40 And _some_ of the Pharisees which were with him heard
these words, and said unto him, Are we[385] blind also?
[385] Rom. 2:19; Rev. 3:17.
41 Jesus said unto them, If[386] ye were blind, ye should
have no sin: but now ye say, We see: therefore[387] your
sin remaineth?
[386] ch. 15:22, 24.
[387] Is. 5:21; Luke 18:14; 1 John 1:8-10.
=40, 41. Some of the Pharisees which were with him.= That is, who
happened to be present. But their presence as auditors, coupled
with their question, perhaps implies that they were of that class
which were inclined to regard Jesus as a prophet (ver. 17; ch.
10:21).--=Are we blind also?= The form of the original implies a
strong expectation of a negative reply. It might be rendered, _Surely
we are not blind also_.--=If ye were blind ye should have no sin.=
This is not to be interpreted away, as equivalent to, Your sin would
be less. It is literally true, that sin is in the proportion of
knowledge, so that one who is, by no fault of his own, absolutely
ignorant of moral distinctions, is absolutely free from moral
responsibility.--=Ye say, We see; therefore your sin remains.= They
had the law and the prophets which foretold the Messiah (ch. 5:39),
and they had the knowledge of his works and the moral capacity to
judge them, and did adjudge that God was with him (ch. 3:2), and that
he could not be a sinner (ch. 9:16). This was enough to render them
guilty in not following out their convictions by a public confession
of Christ as a prophet, which they really saw him to be. Comp. ch.
15:24; and with the entire passage (vers. 39-41), Rom. 2:17-24.