Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:2

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind

2. Master ] Better, Rabbi: see on Joh 4:31.

who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? ] Literally, that he should be born blind (see note on Joh 8:56). This question has given rise to much discussion. It implies a belief that some one must have sinned, or there would have been no such suffering: who then was it that sinned? Possibly the question means no more than this; the persons most closely connected with the suffering being specially mentioned, without much thought as to possibilities or probabilities. But this is not quite satisfactory. The disciples name two very definite alternatives; we must not assume that one of them was meaningless. That the sins of the fathers are visited on the children is the teaching of the Second Commandment and of every one’s experience. But how could a man be born blind for his own sin?

Four answers have been suggested. (1) The predestinarian notion that the man was punished for sins which God knew he would commit in the course of his life. This is utterly unscriptural and scarcely fits the context.

(2) The doctrine of the transmigration of souls, which was held by some Jews: he might have sinned in another body. But it is doubtful whether this philosophic tenet would be familiar to the disciples.

(3) The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, which appears Wis 8:20 : the man’s soul sinned before it was united to the body. This again can hardly have been familiar to illiterate men.

(4) The current Jewish interpretation of Gen 25:22, Psa 51:5, and similar passages; that it was possible for a babe yet unborn to have emotions (comp. Luk 1:41-44) and that these might be and often were sinful. On the whole, this seems to be the simplest and most natural interpretation, and Joh 9:34 seems to confirm it.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Master, who did sin? … – It was a universal opinion among the Jews that calamities of all kinds were the effects of sin. See the notes at Luk 13:1-4. The case, however, of this man was that of one that was blind from his birth, and it was a question which the disciples could not determine whether it was his fault or that of his parents. Many of the Jews, as it appears from their writings (see Lightfoot), believed in the doctrine of the transmigration of souls; or that the soul of a man, in consequence of sin, might be compelled to pass into other bodies, and be punished there. They also believed that an infant might sin before it was born (see Lightfoot), and that consequently this blindness might have come upon the child as a consequence of that. It was also a doctrine with many that the crime of the parent might be the cause of deformity in the child, particularly the violation of the command in Lev 20:18.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Joh 9:2-8

Who did sin, this man, or his parents?

What the Master and what the disciples saw

At such a time it was very wonderful that He should see anything but the way out. His life was in peril. The plot was thickening, the pursuers were more than ever determined to murder Him. At such times men are likely to see only what concerns themselves and their own safety. It is a blessed proof of the way in which that most gracious heart lay open to all the sorrow and needs of men. Find out what people see, and you will know what they are. People mostly see what they look for; and they look for what they want. It is curious to listen to the account of what people have seen; how some saw a dress, and some a face, and some saw nothing. He looked for the worms, I for the gods, was the complaint of a certain stager. Jesus saw a blind man. Some people are very blind to blind men. There is, you know, a colour blindness, that cannot discern certain colours. There is, too, an inner colour blindness, that never sees sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity. It looks on the bright side of things by looking away from all that is wretched. Ah, never was there such an eye for sad hearts as Jesus Christs. Once seeing the blind man, He can go no further. Pharisees and perils are alike forgotten. Pity saw her opportunity, and she could not be denied. Oh, what a Christ is this! Well may His name be called wonderful. And the only Christianity that is worth the name is that which makes us like Him. So that however we be driven, harassed, threatened, there is within the soul a great atmosphere where love dwelleth. In this great London of ours, with its turmoil of the streets, the hurry of the thousands on its pavements, the roll and rumble of its traffic–yet you know how Gods sky bends over it, and Gods great sun shines upon it, and Gods kindly stars do look down upon it. That is the very purpose of Christs coming–to open up in our narrow, little, earthly, busy lives a whole heaven of pity, of love, of gracious help. The Master saw a blind man. What did the disciples see? His lace was full of pity only; theirs was full of a curious prying. With them is was a case for dissection, a poor body for their anatomy, and they began at once with the scalpel knife. Master, who did sin, etc.? Alas! how full the world is of people who are ready to cast stones at those who are down–stones that may break no bones, but that do bruise spirits and break hearts! What a strange lack of feeling! And what an extraordinary notion! Bad enough to be blind, and bad enough to be poor; but to be both might well move our pity. But no; to be poor shows that he is bad; to be blind shows that he must be very bad. It is a horrible notion! Yet it lives and thrives today. Would not any stranger coming into our midst suppose that the rich people must be good–born good? It is the poor who are so bad–so very bad. Who are city missionaries for, and tract distributors, and district visitors, and Bible women? All for the poor; until one might think that the Scripture, which says that the poor have the gospel preached to them, implies that the rich do not need it. Has it not been said in scores of good books that the subject was born of poor but pious parents? Why, indeed, the but? Of rich but pious parents is a phrase I never heard, and yet it were the greater wonder. Cold-blooded discussion of great social problems that involve the lives of men and women and little children is bad enough, but ten thousand times worse is it when good people stand tip-toe and look down from their lofty superiority with cold, steel eyes and lips of scorn and talk of the poor as a drunken, lazy lot. It is enough to provoke men and women to curse the very name of religion. Nothing could be more unlike that blessed Saviour who saved the world by loving it. What a gulf is there oftentimes between the Master and His followers! Very notable is the answer of Jesus. This blindness has not come from sin, but for your sakes, that His blindness may open your eyes; for you are blind except this blind man give you sight. A Divine homoeopathy, like curing like. I constantly have my eyes opened by blind men. I never know, indeed, that I have any eyes until I see a blind man; then I go on my way thanking God for this wondrous gift of sight. That he may show forth the works of God. Who most enriched the world when Christ was upon earth–the rich man or the beggars? Think how infinitely poorer all the ages had been if, when Christ came, there had been no sick, no suffering, no need in the world. What depths of tenderness, what hope for all men, what mighty helpfulness, what revelations of Christ are ours today, because there sat of old blind beggars and such needy sufferers l Surely when men are rewarded according to their service, these shall have great recompense. (M. G. Pearse.)

The purpose of chronic suffering

While our Lord perceived only another opportunity of lifting a shadow, the disciples caught a new chance of repeating the weary and worn question of the ages as to the source of the shadow. Christ did not find any fault with His followers for inquiring; only He asserted that they had entirely misapprehended the philosophy of the poor creatures history. And then He immediately put forth His almighty power, and bestowed upon him his sight as a new sense. Note

I. THE PATIENCE OF JESUS IN BEARING WITH HUMAN MISCONCEPTIONS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE. It would be unfair for one to indulge in any sharp comment upon the ignorance of the disciples. For other explanations of the origin of evil are in vogue and have continually been offered quite as wild as that which they proposed.

II. THE DISPOSITION OF SOME MEN TO INTERPOSE IN THE GOVERNMENT OF GODS WORLD. One of the ancient theories employed to reconcile suffering with benevolence, and relieve its mystery, has kept its place till our day–the existence of two spirits or principles of good and ill, warring with each other. The classic notion was that the jealous deities antagonized each others plans on Olympus. Wrathful gods and goddesses cut at those who confronted them, and men sometimes were caught on both sides, like unfortunate cloth between the shears. There were furies as well as fates; and it was the elements of disturbance in heaven which stirred up the affairs of mortals so on the earth. This story corrects everything in such a heathen mistake.

III. THE RECORD OF FOOLISH JUDGMENTS IN THE BIBLE IS NOT TO RE TAKEN AS AN INSPIRED DECISION. Some island people, when Paul was shipwrecked, openly stated that the reason why a viper fastened on his hand was because he was in all likelihood a murderer. When Jobs trials were at the highest, his miserable comforters accused him of sin, and that he had been in some way a hypocrite. It is an old and common insinuation which interprets misfortunes very much as Jesus followers did on this occasion and it is to be feared that this ungenerous world will never admit its mistakes in such particulars. Men call other peoples troubles judgments; and their own calamities.

IV. SUFFERING HAS SOME UNMISTAKABLE CONNECTION WITH SIN SOMEWHERE. For when our Lord told His disciples that neither this man nor his parents had sinned, we are not to understand Him as pronouncing them sinless. What He intended was that it was in no sense either a reckless calamity or a righteous retribution; for he was blind his whole life. And yet, we are not at liberty to pass by the warning which Christ gave, when the surmise was made concerning some on whom the tower of Siloam fell. A real connection must be admitted between the guilt of the race and the pain of the race. The conscientious conviction of mankind has a basis of truth. The wisest man there ever was on earth was inspired to say: As the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.

V. ALL CHRONIC PAIN IN ANY LIFE IS PART OF THE WISE PLAN OF GOD. Such a life, which, no doubt, had to himself seemed restrictive when men talked about the beauties that never gleamed in on his soul, was one definite part of the Divine purpose in the plan of redemption. And so in that splendid flash of vast disclosure, it was revealed that the eventful history of those darkened eyes was just a piece of Gods biography, rather than of mans–a chapter in the book that records the dealings of our Maker with His creatures. And all this worried existence on earth was already written on the luminous pages of a volume of annals in heaven, before the blind baby was born in Judaea.

VI. SUFFERING IN THIS WORLD, IN ALMOST EVERY INSTANCE, MAY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE A VICARIOUS REACH. There is in it an element hearing outwardly on others. Some trials are the direct punishment of personal transgression; and others are the hereditary consequences of parental wickedness. But there is a class of chronic disabilities which seem beyond any reference to sin. Such may have in them a discipline for those nearest the sufferer. Who shall say how much this blind mans darkness may have been instrumental in mellowing the tempers and softening the hearts of his family? Hardly any household can be found now in which there is not some victim of pain; and those who are watching and waiting are likely to grow gentle and considerate, and ingenious with expedients of alleviation, under the long scholarship.

VII. THOSE WHO ARE UNDER SUCH DISABILITIES ARE MOST OFTEN THE BRAVEST. Generally the bystanders put the questions, rather than those who are under the infliction. It was the disciples, and not the blind man, who raised the inquiry. For the poor groper never really knew what he lacked in his senses; he was only like a man who is told that it is a pity he has no ear for music; he cannot be made to appreciate the symphony the musicians give him. Possibly he had borne the life into which his deprivation drove him so long that he had become quite tame about it. There is nothing more beautiful or helpful than the cheer of some who are shadowed by great trials.

VIII. UNDERLYING EVERY GIFT OF OUR LOVING SAVIOUR IS A SUPREME SPIRITUAL GRACE. When the wonder of healing had been wrought, was the final cause of the mans blindness reached? Had he served but the same purpose as the jars of water, the fish with the coin, the barren fig tree, the barley loaves? Had he groped around all these years in order to be ready when Christ wanted a thing to work a miracle upon? And had he when he had become an evidence of Christianity, and when he had humbled a few Pharisees to there vanish? No, indeed! He was looked up in the Temple, where he was using his new eyes, and there a fresh benediction met his believing soul. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

Blindness a talent to be used for Gods glory

The excellent Mr. Moon, of Brighton, the blind friend of the blind, was present at a recent meeting of blind people at Manchester, and among the remarks he made was this: When I became blind, as a young boy, people condoled with my mother on the heavy dispensation with which I was afflicted. They were wrong, my friends. God gave me blindness as a talent to be used for His glory. Without blindness I should never have been able to see the needs of the blind. It is worthy of note that this excellent man, Mr. Moon, as one of the uses of this talent, has given the gospel published, in raised type, in nearly two hundred different languages and dialects to the blind throughout the world!

Blindness leading to Spiritual sight

Bob Roy says in his description of Mr. Moons mission to the blind at Beyrout: That poor fellow who sits on the form there was utterly ignorant. See how his delicate fingers run over the raised types of his Bible; and he reads aloud, and blesses God in his heart for the precious news, and for those who gave him the avenue for truth to his heart. Jesus Christ will be the first person I shall ever see, he says; for my eyes will be opened in heaven. Thus even this men becomes a missionary. At the annum examination of this school one of the scholars said, I am a little blind boy. Once I could see; but then I fell asleep–a long, long sleep–I thought I should never wake. And I slept till a kind gentleman, called Mr. Mort, came and opened my eyes; not these eyes, pointing to his sightless eyeballs, but these, lifting up his tiny fingers; these eyes. And, oh! they see such sweet words of Jesus, and how He loved the blind.

Who did sin, this man, or his parents?

Explanations of the disciples question

1. Some think that the Jews had imbibed the common Oriental notion of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls from one body to another, and that the disciples supposed that in some previous state of existence this blind man must have committed some great sin, for which he was now punished.

2. Some think that the question refers to a strange notion current among some Jews, that infants might sin before they were born. In support of this view they quote Gen 25:22 and Gen 38:28-29.

3. The most probable view is, that the question arose from a misapplication of such passages of Scripture as the second commandment, where God speaks of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children Exo 20:5), and from a forgetfulness of Eze 18:20, etc. There are few notions that men seem to cling to so naturally, as the notion that bodily sufferings, and all affliction, are the direct consequences of sin, and that a diseased or afflicted person must necessarily be a very wicked man. This was precisely the short-sighted view that Jobs three friends took up when they came to visit him, and against which Job contended. This was the idea of the people at Melita, when Paul was bitten by the viper, after the shipwreck: This man is a murderer. (Act 28:4). This appears to have been at the bottom of the question of the disciples. There is suffering; then there must have been sin. Whose sin was it? (Bishop Ryle.)

Suffering: its causes and privileges

There was no special connection between the parents sin in this instance and the blindness of their offspring. On the contrary, Christ seems to say, great sufferers are not always or of necessity great sinners, or the children of great sinners. Far otherwise. There is pain and suffering caused by no vice in the sufferer, inherited from no transgressions of their parents: pain and suffering, not indeed created by God, but allowed by God, allowed in mercy as a favour, and in proof of love. The natal blindness of this afflicted man was for the glory of God. And to suffer for such a purpose and with such a result is not a punishment but a privilege–a distinct and honourable privilege. This Divine philosophy of suffering was a new revelation given to the world by Jesus Christ. It was a revelation which apparelled suffering in robes of attractiveness, and turned the murmurs of lamentation into songs of rejoicing. The apostles gloried in suffering, directly the purpose of it had been unfolded and interpreted by their Lord. When they understood that the cause of suffering lay sometimes in the privilege of the sufferer to be the means of the manifestation, through his sufferings, of the Divine glory, they rejoiced in their infirmities, if so be the power of God might be manifested in them. They counted it all joy when it pleased God to let them fall into manifold trials, inasmuch as their trials afforded an opportunity for the glorification of God. Many other acknowledged advantages flow from suffering. It tends to wean men from the world, to purge away the dross of selfishness and strip off the tinsel from conceit. There is nothing like an abundance of trouble for keeping a man straight and helping him to remember his prayers. Suffering is not seldom thus its own reward Yet it is one thing to realize the benefits of suffering, another and far higher thing to realize its privilege. Think, e.g., of the man blind from his birth. How many long and weary hours he had sat near the Temple Gate, dark, lonely, miserable! How dreary his existence had been–sightless and hopeless, a stranger to the sense of beauty, looking onlythrough the deep darkness of life to the still deeper darkness of death! And yet how truly privileged he was! What a recompense after all those years of weary blindness to be permitted to be the instrument for showing forth the glory of God! It was worth being a blind and desolate beggar for! We, of this latter day, are not permitted to be the instruments for showing forth the glory of God miraculously. Our blind do not receive their sight, our dead are not raised, our lepers are not cleansed. But none the less truly does every Christian glorify God in his suffering body and his suffering spirit, whenever, by sweet holiness of patience, and heavenly-minded rejoicing in tribulation, he convinces the world that though the cause of all suffering is sin, yet no Christian suffering is without privilege. (J. W.Diggle, M. A.)

Blindness not judgment

A German pastor had made an engagement to preach before a meeting of the Gustavus Adolphus Society, at a distance of eighteen miles from his village. He had to walk all the way. The weather, which was fine at first, changed to violent rain, so that after walking half way with great difficulty, it seemed hopeless to proceed, as he could hardly drag his feet out of the mire. Greatly cast down, he found himself impatiently asking why it should rain so just that day, when he espied a solitary cottage, and gladly sought shelter in it. A young and sad looking woman was nursing her babe. Being invited to rest and dry himself, the pastor soon found that the beautiful babe was the cause of the mothers sorrow, for he had been born blind. The worst of it is, said the poor woman, no doubt it is all my fault; such a misfortune could only befall a child on account of its parents, for the poor dear children are innocent enough. For the last four months I have been tormenting myself to discover by what sin I can have brought upon it such a calamity. Her tears choked her voice, and she sobbed convulsively. The poor creature was quite ignorant of this beautiful story, but the pastor read it and expounded it. When he prepared to resume his toilsome walk, it was with feelings of joy and gratitude not unmingled with shame. He confessed how the rain had vexed him, and that he had repeatedly asked Why it must fall just today. Oh, my dear sir she replied joyfully, I know very well! (J. F. B. Tinling, B. A.)

Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him

Christs explanation of suffering

1. The man was sitting near to the Temple. It has been the custom in all ages for the needy of all kinds to get as near as they can to Gods house. It is on their part an instinctive homage to religion. Ii any man become known as professing religion he will have many applications for his pity. A congregational collection is the resort of every charitable institution.

2. If Jesus had seen this man on His way to or from worship, His conduct would not have excited special wonder. But it was when driven from the Temple and with His life in peril. But He forgot His danger in the fulness of His pity.

3. The disciples supposed that by making the man a subject for pity, Christ made him a fit subject for speculation. Some thought this calamity a fruit of parental sin, others a punishment for prospective guilt. They were wrong, but not so wrong as those who believe that sin will never be punished at all.

4. Christs solution of their difficulties suggests some important reflections.

I. THAT SUFFERING IS THE FRUIT OF SIN. Our Lord did not deny this incontestible principle in general, but only in this particular case. Gods laws in relation to the body, those of chastity, sobriety, industry and cleanliness, cannot be broken with impunity. If drunkenness and debauchery were checked the welfare of the country would be promoted and pestilence confined to a narrower region. If our great cities were governed with wisdom, if they were properly drained, the poor properly housed, the water pure and abundant, disease would be checked and good morals and happiness promoted. Asylums for the destitute, and hospitals for the sick are great necessities and embodiments of Christian loving kindness; but there wants something more than grappling with results, a grappling with the prolific cause. The great work of the Christian Church then is to deal with sin. Without sin our gaols would be superfluous, our workhouses not one tithe of their present magnitude, and half our hospitable beds empty.

II. THAT A GOOD DEAL OF SUFFERING IS NOT THE FRUIT OF SIN. People sometimes say had there been no sin there had been no sorrow. But where does the Bible say so? It is true that in heaven there is no sorrow, but then float is a place of rest and recompense, whereas earth is a place of trial and discipline. But there is this startling fact that the only sinless Being the world ever saw learned obedience by the things which He suffered. Dont then say in the case of a given sufferer Here is the wrath of God, for the varied forms of affliction are often Divine appliances for testing our principles, developing our graces and practising our virtues.

III. PERSONAL SUFFERING IS SOMETIMES FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, that their patience may be disciplined, their sympathy elicited, their character get its necessary training. It was so in the case of Lazarus–I am glad I was not there, etc. But some may ask, What is to become of the people who bear the cross that others may have these opportunities? Leave them with God. He has a vast universe and long ages to recompense them in. Jesus wore a crown of thorns, how glad today He is that He wore it! Mary and Martha were glad after he was raised that their brother died. Look at some of the sorrows of life. Why do the thorns grow? That you may have to pull them up and get improvement of character from the weeding. Why are children born ignorant and helpless? That you may care for them and teach them. Why do accidents happen? That you may minister. (C. Vince.)

Our proper attitude towards mysteries

Before a confessed and unconquerable difficulty (such as the origin and extent of evil) my mind reposes as quietly as in possession of a discovered truth. (T. Arnold, D. D.)

Origin of evil

Wise men will regard the entrance of evil as a man views a fire already begun in his house: it is too late to ask How came this? or Where did the fire begin? His single question will be, how he and his family and property can be secured. (R. Cecil, M. A.)

Christ and the blind man

1. We may learn from it to abstain from those superficial and dogmatic judgments on human life which, seeming to honour God with ready explanations of evil, really dishonour Him, and which are often cruelly unjust to men. Evil is in the world, and man is sinful as well as unfortunate. Wickedness works wretchedness, and penalty follows iniquity as echo follows voice, or pain the incision of the knife. But not all pains are punishments. Let despairing as well as cynical doubt be silent. Great as sin is, God is greater. Where sin abounds, grace superabounds. This is not the devils world, but Gods.

2. Let us learn that the supreme business of life is unselfish service, and that the time for service is now.

3. Let us learn the wisdom and power of Jesus method in reaching men. He authenticates Himself to men by His works as well as by His word–not merely by miraculous works, but by works that are Divine in their goodness. The Healer and Helper of men thus convincingly justifies His claim of Divine kinship. Bring men face to face with Jesus; then they too, like the blind man who was healed, will at last say, Lord, I believe, and their faith will express itself in homage and service.

4. Finally, let us learn the true nature of faith. Faith is not mere credulity, it is an attitude and an act of the soul. Its object is not a proposition, but a person. It reposes not on greatness or power alone, but on goodness. (History, Prophecy, and Gospel.)

The blind mans eyes opened; or, practical Christianity

Observe how little disconcerted our Lord was by the most violent enmity. Almost the moment after He had escaped stoning, He paused before and healed the blind man. One of His most noticeable characteristics was His marvellous calmness in the presence of His foes. The reasons were

1. He was never elated by the praise of men.

2. His unbroken communion with the Father.

3. His heart was so set upon His work that He would not be turned from it. Note

I. THE WORKER–a well-earned title.

1. There are many who ignore sorrow. The easiest thing to do with wicked London is not to know much about it. There are sights which might melt a heart of steel and make a nabob generous. But it is an easy way of escaping from the exercise of benevolence to shut your eyes. It is not so with Jesus. He has a quick eye to see the blind beggar if He sees nothing else.

2. There are others who see misery but instead of diminishing it, increase it by cold logical conclusions. Poverty they say is brought on by drunkenness, laziness, etc. Sickness is caused by wicked habits and neglect of sanitary laws. This may be true, but dont teach it till you are ill yourself. The disciples held this view and Jobs comforters. Cheap moral observations steeped in vinegar make a poor dish for an invalid. But Christ Upbraided not.

2. Others, who if not indifferent or cruel to sorrow, speculate where speculation is worthless. There is the question of the origin of evil. Such was the subject here proposed–foreseen guilt or hereditary taint? The master breaks up the fine speculation by practical service. Father, said a boy, the cows are in the corn. How ever did they get in? Boy, said the father, never mind how they got in, let us hurry to get them out. Postpone the inquiries till after the day of judgment, just now our business is to get evil out of the world. A man saw a boy drowning and lectured him on the imprudence of bathing out of his depth. Let us rescue him and tell him not to go there again.

3. In this nonspeculating, kind, helpful spirit, let us imitate the Master. What have we done to bless our fellow men? But if Jesus be such a worker what hope there is for us who need His services!

II. THE WORKROOM. Every worker needs a place to work in. Christ selected the fittest place.

1. One of the works of God is creation, and if Jesus is to perform it He must find out where something is missing which He can supply. The blind man gave occasion for Christ to give sight. If there is anything wanting in you there is room for Christ to work; if you are perfect there is no room.

2. This mans ignorance required almighty aid. God can not only create, He can illuminate. This man was as dark in mind as in body. He did not know the Son of God. Is that your case? Are you converted? Then there is space in you for Christ to work by converting grace. If you were not lost, you could not be saved.

3. All affliction may be regarded as affording opportunity for the mercy work of God. Whenever you see a man in trouble, do not blame him and ask how he came there, but say He is an opening for Gods almighty love. And do not kick at or be east down by your own afflictions, regard them as openings for mercy, and the valley of Achor shall be a door of hope. Sin itself makes room for Gods mercy. How could the unspeakable gift have been bestowed if there had been no sinners.

III. THE WORK BELL. You hear in early morning a bell which arouses the workers from their beds. Christs work bell was the sight of the blind man. Then he said I must work. The man had not said anything, but his sightless eyeballs spoke eloquently to the heart of Jesus.

1. Why must He work? Because

(1) He had come all the way from heaven on purpose.

(2) He had inward impulses which forced Him to work.

2. Let us learn this lesson. Wherever we see suffering, feel I must work.

3. What a blessing if you want to be saved to know that there is an impulse on Jesus to save!

IV. THE WORK DAY.

1. This is meant of our Lords earthly life. There was a certain day on which He could bless men, and that over He would be gone. He occupied thirty years in getting ready for it, and then in three years it was done. And how much He crowded into them! Some of us have had thirty years of work and have done very little; what if we have only three more. It we omit any part of our life work we can never make up the omission. No appendix is possible to the book of life.

2. If our Lord was so diligent to bless men while here, He is not less diligent now. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 2. Who did sin, this man, or his parents] The doctrine of the transmigration of souls appears to have been an article in the creed of the Pharisees, and it was pretty general both among the Greeks and the Asiatics. The Pythagoreans believed the souls of men were sent into other bodies for the punishment of some sin which they had committed in a pre-existent state. This seems to have been the foundation of the disciples question to our Lord. Did this man sin in a pre-existent state, that he is punished in this body with blindness? Or, did his parents commit some sin, for which they are thus plagued in their offspring?

Most of the Asiatic nations have believed in the doctrine of transmigration. The Hindoos still hold it; and profess to tell precisely the sin which the person committed in another body, by the afflictions which he endures in this: they profess also to tell the cures for these. For instance, they say the headache is a punishment for having, in a former state, spoken irrevently to father or mother. Madness is a punishment for having been disobedient to father or mother, or to one’s spiritual guide. The epilepsy is a punishment for having, in a former state, administered poison to any one at the command of his master. Pain in the eyes is a punishment for having, in another body, coveted another man’s wife. Blindness is a punishment for having killed his mother: but this person they say, before his new birth, will suffer many years’ torment in hell. See many curious particulars relative to this in the AYEEN AKBERY, vol. iii. p. 168-175; and in the Institutes of Menu, chap. xi. Inst. 48-53.

The Jewish rabbins have had the same belief from the very remotest antiquity. Origen cites an apocryphal book of the Hebrews, in which the patriarch Jacob is made to speak thus: I am an angel of God; one of the first order of spirits. Men call me Jacob, but my true name, which God has given me, is Israel: Orat. Joseph. apud ORIG. Many of the Jewish doctors have believed that the souls of Adam, Abraham, and Phineas, have successively animated the great men of their nation. Philo says that the air is full of spirits, and that some, through their natural propensity, join themselves to bodies; and that others have an aversion from such a union. See several other things relative to this point in his treatises, De Plant. Noe-De Gigantibus-De Confus. Ling.-De Somniis, c. and see Calmet, where he is pretty largely quoted.

The Hindoos believe that the most of their misfortunes arise out of the sins of a former birth; and, in moments of grief not unfrequently break out into exclamations like the following:-“Ah! in a former birth how many sins must I have committed, that I am thus afflicted!” “I am now suffering for the sins of a former birth; and the sins that I am now committing are to fill me with misery in a following birth. There is no end to my sufferings!”

Josephus, Ant. b. xvii. c. 1, s. 3, and War, b. ii. c. 8, s. 14, gives an account of the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject. He intimates that the souls of those only who were pious were permitted to reanimate human bodies, and this was rather by way of reward than punishment; and that the souls of the vicious are put into eternal prisons, where they are continually tormented, and out of which they can never escape. But it is very likely that Josephus has not told the whole truth here; and that the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject was nearly the same with that of the Papists on purgatory. Those who are very wicked go irrecoverably to hell; but those who are not so have the privilege of expiating their venial sins in purgatory. Thus, probably, is the Pharisean doctrine of the transmigration to be understood. Those who were comparatively pious went into other bodies, for the expiation of any remaining guilt which had not been removed previously to a sudden or premature death, after which they were fully prepared for paradise; but others who had been incorrigibly wicked were sent at once into hell, without ever being offered the privilege of amendment, or escape. For the reasons which may be collected above, much as I reverence Bishop Pearce, I cannot agree with his note on this passage, where he says that the words of the disciples should be thus understood:-Who did sin? This man, that he is blind? or his parents, that he was born so? He thinks it probable that the disciples did not know that the man was born blind: if he was, then it was for some sin of his parents-if he was not born so, then this blindness came unto him as a punishment for some crime of his own. It may be just necessary to say, that some of the rabbins believed that it was possible for an infant to sin in the womb, and to be punished with some bodily infirmity in consequence. See several examples in Lightfoot on this place.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The disciples question supposed two things for truth:

1. That all bodily punishments and afflictions come upon men for sin.

2. That as some come upon them for personal sins, so others come upon them for the sins of their parents.

The latter is unquestionably true: so is the former, but not universally: as there are afflictions which are punishments of sin, so there are some that are trials.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. who did sin, this man or hisparents, that he was born blindnot in a former state ofexistence, in which, as respects the wicked, the Jews did notbelieve; but, perhaps, expressing loosely that sin somewherehad surely been the cause of this calamity.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And his disciples asked him,…. It may be that some of the twelve apostles, or others of his disciples, might put the following question to him on sight of this blind man, who by some means or another knew was born blind:

saying, master, who did man, or his parents, that he was born blind? the first of these questions, whether the man himself had sinned before he was born, which might be the occasion of his blindness, proceeds not upon the doctrine of original sin, though the Jews then believed that; [See comments on Ro 5:12]; since that was common to all men, and therefore could not admit of such a question; but either upon the notion of transmigration of souls into other bodies; and so the disciples might ask whether this man had sinned in a pre-existent state when in another body, which was the reason of this blindness, or of his being put into a blind body. This notion, Josephus says a, was embraced by the Pharisees; though, according to him, it seems, that they only understood it of the souls of good men; and if so, this could lay no foundation for such a question, unless these disciples had given into the Pythagorean notion of a transmigration of all souls, which was to be known by defects, as blindness, c. b or else this question proceeded upon a principle received by the Jews, that an infant might do that which was faulty and criminal, and actually sin in the womb; of which Dr. Lightfoot has given instances: the second question proceeds upon the methods which sometimes God has taken with men, by visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children; or, as the above learned writer observes, upon a notion the Jews had, that a child might suffer for what the mother did whilst it was in the womb; or on another, which prevailed among them, that there should be neither merit nor demerit in the days of the Messiah; that is, that neither the good deeds, nor bad deeds of their parents, should be imputed to their children, neither the one to their advantage, nor the other to their disadvantage: and therefore since he the Messiah was come, they ask, how this blindness should come to pass? what should be the reason of it?

a De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 14. b Sallust. de Diis, c. 20.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Who did sin? ( ;). Second aorist active indicative of . See Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8 for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. Mark 8:23; Mark 10:46) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Mt 11:5). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Lu 13:1-5). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Ex 20:5, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Eze 18:20) says: “The soul that sinneth it shall die” (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything.

That he should be born blind ( ). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of with first aorist passive subjunctive of .

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

This man, or his parents. It was a common Jewish view that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear in the children, and that the thoughts of a mother might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring. The apostasy of one of the greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the sinful delight of his mother in passing through an idol grove.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And his disciples asked him,” (kai erotesan auton hoi mathetai autou) “And his disciples inquired of him,” His own disciples who still clung to some old beliefs and fixed assumptions, inquired specifically about this blind man’s cause of blindness.

2) “Saying, Master, who did sin,” (legontes hrabbi tis hemarten) “Saying, rabbi, who sinned,” to cause this man’s blindness. It was commonly believed, and too generally assumed, that all special calamities were caused by special sins. Such had some basis for such conscientious thoughts, since God warned that He would visit iniquities of fathers upon their children to the fourth generation, Exo 20:5; Exo 34:7; Num 14:18.

3) “This man, or his parents,” (houtos e hoi goneis autou) “This one who is blind or his parents?” On whom may we focus the cause, or fix the blame, for his blindness, as if all afflictions were punishment for some personal sin.

4) “That he was born blind?” (hina tuphlos gennethe) “in order that he came to be born blind?” This was also the conclusion of the Pharisees, Joh 9:34.

Numerous examples may be given of punishment following, from parent to child, Num 14:33-34; Jer 32:18.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2. Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents? In the first place, as Scripture testifies that all the sufferings to which the human race is liable proceed from sin, whenever we see any person wretched, we cannot prevent the thought from immediately presenting itself to our minds, that the distresses which fall heavily upon him are punishments inflicted by the hand of God. But here we commonly err in three ways.

First, while every man is ready to censure others with extreme bitterness, there are few who apply to themselves, as they ought to do, the same severity. If my brother meets with adversity, I instantly acknowledge the judgment of God; but if God chastises me with a heavier stroke, I wink at my sins. But in considering punishments, every man ought to begin with himself, and to spare himself as little as any other person. Wherefore, if we wish to be candid judges in this matter, let us learn to be quick in discerning our own evils rather than those of others.

The second error lies in excessive severity; for no sooner is any man touched by the hand of God, than we conclude that this shows deadly hatred, and we turn small offenses into crimes, and almost despair of his salvation. On the contrary, by extenuating our sins, we scarcely think that we have committed very small offenses, when we have committed a very aggravated crime.

Thirdly, we do wrong in this respect, that we pronounce condemnation on all, without exception, whom God visits with the cross or with tribulation. (253) What we have lately said is undoubtedly true, that all our distresses arise from sin; but God afflicts his own people for various reasons. For as there are some men whose crimes he does not punish in this world, but whose punishment he delays till the future life, that he may inflict on them more dreadful torments; so he often treats his believing people with greater severity, not because they have sinned more grievously, but that he may mortify the sins of the flesh for the future. Sometimes, too, he does not look at their sins, but only tries their obedience, or trains them to patience; as we see that holy Job — a righteous man, and one that feareth God, (254) is miserable beyond all other men; and yet it is not on account of his sins that he is sore distressed, but the design of God was different, which was, that his piety might be more fully ascertained even in adversity. They are false interpreters, therefore, who say that all afflictions, without any distinction, are sent on account of sins; as if the measure of punishments were equal, or as if God looked to nothing else in punishing men than to what every man deserves.

Wherefore, there are two things here that ought to be observed: that

judgment begins, for the most part, at the house of God, (1Pe 4:17😉

and, consequently, that while he passes by the wicked, he punishes his own people with severity when they have offended, and that, in correcting the sinful actions of the Church, his stripes are far more severe. Next, we ought to observe that there are various reasons why he afflicts men; for he gave Peter and Paul, not less than the most wicked robbers, into the hands of the executioner. Hence we infer, that we cannot always put our finger on the causes of the punishments which men endure.

When the disciples, following the common opinion, put the question, what kind of sin it was that the God of heaven punished, as soon as this man was born, they do not speak so absurdly as when they ask if he sinned before he was born. And yet this question, absurd as it is, was drawn from a common opinion which at that time prevailed; for it is very evident from other passages of Scripture, that they believed the transmigration ( μετεμψύχωσις) of which Pythagoras dreamed, or that souls passed from one body into another. (255) Hence we see that the curiosity of men is an exceedingly deep labyrinth, especially when presumption is added to it. They saw that some were born lame, some squint-eyed, some entirely blind, and some with a deformed body; but instead of adoring, as they ought to have done, the hidden judgments of God, they wished to have a manifest reason in his works. Thus through their rashness they fell into those childish fooleries, so as to think that a soul, when it has completed one life, passes into a new body, and there endures the punishment due on account of the life which is already past. Nor are the Jews in the present day ashamed to proclaim this foolish dream in their synagogues, as if it were a revelation from heaven.

We are taught by this example, that we ought to be exceedingly careful not to push our inquiries into the judgments of God beyond the measure of sobriety, but the wanderings and errors of our understanding hurry and plunge us into dreadful gulfs. It was truly monstrous, that so gross an error should have found a place among the elect people of God, in the midst of which the light of heavenly wisdom had been kindled by the Law and the Prophets. But if God punished so severely their presumption, there is nothing better for us, in considering the works of God, than such modesty that, when the reason of them is concealed, our minds shall break out into admiration, and our tongues shall immediately exclaim, “Thou art righteous, O Lord, and thy judgments are right though they cannot be comprehended.”

It is not without reason that the disciples put the question, Did his parents sin ? For though the innocent son is not punished for his father’s fault, but

the soul which hath sinned shall itself die, (Eze 18:20,)

yet it is not an empty threatening, that the Lord throws the crimes of the parents into the bosom of the children, and

revenges them to the third and fourth generation, (Exo 20:5.)

Thus it frequently happens that the anger of God rests on one house for many generations; and, as he blesses the children of believers for the sake of their fathers, so he also rejects a wicked offspring, destining the children, by a just punishment, to the same ruin with their fathers. Nor can any man complain, on this account, that he is unjustly punished on account of the sin of another man; for, where the grace of the Spirit is wanting, from bad crows — as the proverb says (256) — there must be produced bad eggs. This gave reason to the apostles to doubt if the Lord punished, in the son, some crime of his parents.

(253) “ Par croix ou tribulation.”

(254) “ Homme juste, et craignaut Dieu.”

(255) “ Que les ames passoyent d’un corps eu l’autre.”

(256) “ Comme dit le proverbe.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(2) Who did sin, this man, or his parents?The disciples noticed that He looked at the man, and it may be that He halted as He was walking by. Their attention is directed to the sufferer, and with suffering they connect the idea of sin. They ask a question which may have come to them many times before, and which has in various forms come to mens hearts many times since. Some of them may have heard it discussed in Rabbinic schools, and may have wished to know what answer He whom they had come to regard as greater than the Rabbis, would give. But it is a question not of the learned only, but of men generally, and those who now ask it do not propound it as a matter for discussion, but as a mystery of human life brought home to them in all its darkness, and for which they seek a solution at His hands. His teaching on the wider questions of the existence of evil and the connection of sin and suffering, though coming in the order of events after these words, and in part probably arising out of them, has in the order of the record occurred before them, and has been already dealt with in Notes on Luk. 13:1-5. What is special to the question, as it meets us here, is that what is deemed to be the punishment had come with birth before possibility of thought or action, and therefore, as we think, before possibility of sin.

The form of the question puts two alternatives on precisely the same grounds; and we have no right therefore to assume that one of them is excluded by the questioners themselves. The fact of sin is stated as beyond question. The problem is, Was the sin that of the man himself, or that of his parents? The latter alternative is familiar to us, and daily experience shows us that within limits it holds good in both the moral and the physical worlds. It was clearly taught in the Second Commandment, and there is abundant evidence that the belief was at this time widely spread. We have greater difficulty in tracing the origin of the former alternative. It is not easy to accept the view that they thought of sin in his mothers womb, though it seems certain that the Jews currently interpreted such passages as Gen. 25:22, and Psa. 51:5 in this sense. That a more or less definite belief in the transmigration of souls was common among Jews at the time of our Lords ministry, is made probable by references in Philo and Josephus. We know it was a doctrine of the Essenes and of the Cabbala; and we find it in the nearly contemporary words of the Wisdom of Solomon, Yea rather being good, I came into a body undefiled (Wis. 8:20). Still it has been urged that it is not likely that such a belief would have made its way among the fishermen of Galilee. We have to remember, however, that among the disciples there are now men of Jerusalem as well as of Galilee, and that questions which men found hard to understand were constantly being raised and answered in the Rabbinic schools. In the meetings of the yearly festivals the answers of great Rabbis would be talked over and become generally known, and be handed on as maxims to those who knew little of the principle on which they were based. It was, then, probably with some thought that the life in this maimed body may not have been the first stage of his existence, that they ask, Did this man sin?

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2. Who did sin? We have here a bit of speculative theology. The disciples assume the prevalent doctrine as true, that special calamities are the result of special sinfulness. If they had assumed that the race is liable to miseries because the race is depraved, there would have been no error. It is also true that many sins entail particular sufferings upon posterity, physical, moral, and political. Nevertheless, special sufferings are not absolute proof of special guilt.

This man, or his parents But how could the apostles conceive that this man had sinned before his birth? Some commentators have held that they imagined that the man’s soul may have sinned in a previous body. That would imply the doctrine of metempsychosis or transmigration, by which the same soul is supposed to inhabit different bodies; and so the soul may have sinned in a former body and be punished in this. There is no clear proof that this doctrine was prevalent among these Jews. Others hold that they believed that the child in the womb, before its birth, could be guilty of wicked impulses and motions. Others, that the disciples asked a confused question without distinctly perceiving the implications it contained. But, note, this may have been the very difficulty they desired the Lord ultimately to explain; namely, how this man’s birth-blindness could have been the result of his own sin. On the popular supposition that suffering was the result of a sin, they desire to know of whose sin this man’s suffering is the consequence. Was it his parents’ sin or his own? And if Jesus had replied his own the next question would have been, If his own, how?

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Joh 9:2-3. His disciples asked him, saying, &c. Some have thought that the Jews, having derived from the Egyptians the doctrines of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, (see Wis 8:19-20.) supposed that men were punished in this world for the sins that they had committed in their pre-existent state. From the account which Josephus gives of this matter, it appears that the Pharisees believed that the souls of good men only went into other bodies, whereas the souls of the wicked, they thought, went immediately into eternal punishment,an opinion somewhat different from that which the disciples expressed on this occasion. For, if they spake accurately, they must have thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had been a sinner, and was now punished for his sins then committed, by having his soul thrust into a blind body. Nevertheless, from what they say, we cannot certainlydetermine whether they thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had lived on earth as a man, which is the notion that Josephus describes; or, whether they fancied he had pre-existed in some higher order of being, which was the Platonic notion. The disciples might possibly have been acquainted with these principles; and might have put the question in the text, on purpose to know our Lord’s decision on so curious a subject; though, for my own part, I am rather inclined to think that the disciples were men of too little erudition to have imbibed notions of this sort. “The apostles,”saysTheophylact,afterChrysostom,”hadnotreceivedthosetrifling notions of the Gentiles, that the soul can sin in a pre-existent state, and so be punished in another body for the faults committed ina former one: for, being plain fishermen, it is not to be supposed that they had heard these things, which were the doctrines of the philosophers.” Several kinds of diseases, particularly blindness, were esteemed by the Jews to be the punishments of sin; and our Lord’s disciples, from the address which he made to the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, ch. Joh 5:14 might be confirmed in this prejudice, and ask him whether, as this man was born blind, he must not be supposed to be punished for the sins of his parents. Another opinion was imbibed by the Jews during their captivity, that all their sufferings descended upon them for the crimes of their fathers, and were wholly unmerited on their part. It was this opinion which drew from the divinely-inspired pen of Ezekiel that severe remonstrance and animated vindication of the ways of Providence in his 18th chapter. Some remains of this opinion might have possessed the minds of the apostles. They fancied that they saw in the man born blind, a case which could not be accounted for, but by supposing him to suffer for a parent’s guilt. Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? The question they thought admitted but of one reply; the crime must precede the punishment: the punishment in this case commenced before there could be any personal guilt in the sufferer: it must therefore descend from the parent’s sin. But our Lord shewed them that the case admitted of a very different solution; Jesus answered, neither hath this man, &c. “Suffering is not in this case the effect of sin. This private calamity is permitted for a public good, to give me an opportunity of displaying to the world that divine power by which I act.” See ch. Joh 11:4.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

By this question of the disciples, we cannot suppose that they meant in relation to original sin; as if they doubted the universal corruption of mankind in Adam. This could not be the sense of the disciples’ words. They knew what the Lord had said by Moses; that the iniquity of the Father is visited upon the children. Exo 20:5 . But the Reader should be told, that many years before the coming of Christ, a system of Philosophy had been introduced, by one called Pythagorus, who taught, that all mankind had existed in some other body before their appearance in the present form of human nature: and that the sins which had been committed by any of them during that former state, was punished in this. The disciples availed themselves perhaps of this opportunity, to know Christ’s sentiments upon it, and put the question, whether the present blindness of this man was according to this system, the result of his father’s sins, or his own. I should not have noted the folly and wickedness of such a doctrine, but with a view to call upon the Reader to remark with me, the awful blindness and ignorance of the world before the coming of Christ; when among the wisest of men, such childish and ridiculous notions prevailed. My brother! calculate, if you be able, the auspicious and blessed consequences which the Son of God brought with him, when he graciously visited our world!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Ver. 2. Who did sin, this man? ] How could he sin before he was born? But the disciples dreamed of a Pythagorical transanimation; hence this foolish question. Imbuti erant Iudaei dogmate . Beza.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2. ] According to Jewish ideas, every infirmity was the punishment of sin (see Joh 9:34 ). From Exo 20:5 , and the prevailing views on the subject, the disciples may have believed that the man was visited for the sins of his parents: but how could he himself have sinned before his birth? Beza and Grotius refer the question to the doctrine of metempsychosis; that he may have sinned in a former state of existence; this however is disproved by Lightfoot and Lampe. The Pharisees believed that the good souls only passed into other bodies, which would exclude this case (see Jos. Antt. xviii. 1. 3, and B. J. ii. 8. 14). Lightfoot, Lcke, and Meyer refer it to the possibility of sin in the womb; Tholuck to predestinated sin , punished by anticipation: De Wette to the general doctrine of the pr-existence of souls, which prevailed both among the Rabbis and Alexandrians: see Wis 8:19-20 (the applicability of which passage is doubted by Stier, iv. 455 note, edn. 2). So Isidore of Pelusium in the Catena (Lcke, ii. 372), , , , .

The question may have been asked vaguely without any strict application of it to the circumstances, merely taking for granted that some sin must have led to the blindness, and hardly thinking of the non-applicability of one of the suppositions to this case. Or perhaps, as Stier inclines to suppose, the , may mean, ‘this man, or, for that is out of the question ( dieser selbst, oder, da uns dies doch nicht denkbar ist, ), his parents?’

as a cause why he should be , used : not (Olsh.), expressing the mere consecution of events.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

disciples. Not necessarily the Twelve. See note on “neighbours” (Joh 9:8) and Structure “M”.

asked. Greek. erotao. App-135.

Master. Greek. Rabbi. App-98.

sin. App-128. The only sign (with the third; “C”, p. 194)* connected with sin. See Joh 5:14. *[Conversion Note: The original text is shown here. Page 194 references Num 10:10-10:36. It’s completely unclear which of his comments or Bible text the author is referring to. The author presented no Structure diagrams on page 194.]

this man. The Lord was appealed to as Rabbi to settle a much controverted point as to pre-natal sin; or another question that “there shall be neither merit nor demerit in the days of the Messiah “(Lightfoot, xii, p. 326), referring back to “My day “(Joh 8:56).

that = in order that. Greek. hina.

was = should be.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2.] According to Jewish ideas, every infirmity was the punishment of sin (see Joh 9:34). From Exo 20:5, and the prevailing views on the subject, the disciples may have believed that the man was visited for the sins of his parents: but how could he himself have sinned before his birth? Beza and Grotius refer the question to the doctrine of metempsychosis; that he may have sinned in a former state of existence; this however is disproved by Lightfoot and Lampe. The Pharisees believed that the good souls only passed into other bodies, which would exclude this case (see Jos. Antt. xviii. 1. 3, and B. J. ii. 8. 14). Lightfoot, Lcke, and Meyer refer it to the possibility of sin in the womb; Tholuck to predestinated sin, punished by anticipation: De Wette to the general doctrine of the pr-existence of souls, which prevailed both among the Rabbis and Alexandrians: see Wis 8:19-20 (the applicability of which passage is doubted by Stier, iv. 455 note, edn. 2). So Isidore of Pelusium in the Catena (Lcke, ii. 372), , ,- , .

The question may have been asked vaguely without any strict application of it to the circumstances, merely taking for granted that some sin must have led to the blindness, and hardly thinking of the non-applicability of one of the suppositions to this case. Or perhaps, as Stier inclines to suppose, the , may mean, this man, or, for that is out of the question (dieser selbst, oder, da uns dies doch nicht denkbar ist, ), his parents?

as a cause why he should be ,-used :-not (Olsh.), expressing the mere consecution of events.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 9:2. , asked) They were well aware of the [omniscient] knowledge of their Master.-, this man) This question of the disciples ought not to be curiously examined into; whether, and when, that blind man could have sinned and thence contracted blindness. An interrogation, especially a disjunctive one, asserts nothing; and an assertion of the disciples would not compel us to an assent.-, that he should be born) That he was born blind, the disciples had heard from others.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 9:2

Joh 9:2

And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?-The Jews cherished the idea that since affliction came as the result of sin, every afflicted one, or his parents, had been guilty of sin. The idea seems to have prevailed among the Jews that all bodily afflictions came as the result of the sins of the person afflicted or of his parents. Often men were miraculously smitten with affliction on account of sins. Uzziah was smitten with leprosy for assuming priestly functions. Zacharias was made dumb because he doubted the angel. Sins were visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations. The Jews concluded that affliction is the result of the sin of the person afflicted or of his parents. The Jews had clear ideas of punishment for sin only in this world. In a very general sense all affliction-all suffering-came as the result of sin. Without sin no suffering would have been known on earth. Yet sin once introduced, and mortality inflicted, discord prevailing, disease and affliction have come upon man through his surroundings without moral guilt or sin upon his part. The disciples shared the common belief of the Jews on this subject and asked Jesus whether this blindness was for his own sin or that of the sins of his parents. The Jews said to the blind man (Joh 8:34): Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? This may mean that they thought he was blind because of the sins of his parents so he was altogether born in sin.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

who: Joh 9:34, Mat 16:14

Reciprocal: Job 19:5 – plead Luk 13:2 – Suppose Act 14:8 – being Act 28:4 – No doubt

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2

The question the disciples asked Jesus could only have been on the theory known as the “transmigration of souls.” This notion is explained at Mat 14:2. Jesus did not endorse the theory, because it was untrue and foolish, but he did not take time to deal with every kind of error he met. However, both he and the apostles sometimes used the popular notions to illustrate a point or expose some inconsistency among the people. The present instance is one of them, which was used by Paul when he spoke of “eternal judgment” in Heb 6:2. And being “baptized for [in place of] the dead in 1Co 15:29, is another instance where the apostle used an erroneous practice without endorsing it, but to expose the inconsistency of those who did it.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

[Who did sin, this man, or his parents?] I. It was a received doctrine in the Jewish schools, that children, according to some wickedness of their parents, were born lame, or crooked, or maimed and defective in some of their parts, etc.; by which they kept parents in awe, lest they should grow remiss and negligent in the performance of some rites which had respect to their being clean, such as washings and purifyings, etc. We have given instances elsewhere.

II. But that the infant should be born lame or blind, or defective in any part, for any sin or fault of his own, seems a riddle indeed.

1. Nor do they solve the matter who fly to that principle of the transmigration of souls; which they would have the Jews tinctured with; at least if we will admit Josephus as a just interpreter and judge of that principle. For thus he:

It is the opinion of the Pharisees that “the souls of all are immortal, and do pass into another body; that is, those of the good only [observe this]; but those of the wicked are punished with eternal torments.” So that unless you will say that the soul of some good man passing into the body of this man was the cause of his being born blind (a supposition that every one would cry shame of), you say nothing to the case in hand. If the opinion of the transmigration of souls amongst the Jews prevailed only so far, that they supposed ‘the souls of good men only’ passed into other bodies, the very subject of the present question is taken away; and all suspicion of any punishment or defect happening to the infant upon the account of transmigration wholly vanisheth, unless you will say it could happen upon a good soul’s passing out of the body of a good man.

2. There is a solution attempted by some from the soul’s preexistency; which, they would pretend, the Jews had some smatch of, from what they say about those souls which are in Goph; or Guph.

“R. Jose saith, The Son of David will not come till the souls that are in Goph are consummated.” The same passage is recited also in Niddah; and Jevamoth; where it is ascribed to R. Asi.

“There is a repository (saith R. Solomon), the name of which is Goph; and from the creation, all the souls that ever were to be born were formed together and there placed.”

But there is another Rabbin brought in by another commentator, that supposeth a twofold Goph; and that the souls of the Israelites and of the Gentiles are not in one and the same Goph. Nay further, he conceives that in the days of the Messiah there will be a third Goph; and a new race of souls made.

R. Jose deduceth his opinion from Isa 57:16; miserably wresting the words of the prophet to this sense, “My will shall hinder for the souls which I have made.” For so Aruch and the commentators explain his mind.

Grant now that what I have quoted might be sufficient confirmation that the Jews did entertain the opinion of the soul’s preexistence, yet what concern the preexistence of souls hath with this place, I confess I have not so quick an apprehension as any way to imagine.

III. I would therefore seek to untie this knot some other way.

I. I would have that passage observed which we have in Vajicra Rabba; “And the days draw nigh, in the which thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them,” Ecc 12:1. “Those are the days of the Messiah, wherein there shall be neither merit nor demerit “: that is, if I mistake not, wherein neither the good deserts of the parents shall be imputed to the children for their advantage, nor their deserts for their fault and punishment. They are the words of R. Akibah in locum; and they are his application of that passage in Ecclesiastes, and indeed his own invention: but the opinion itself, that there shall be neither merit nor demerit in the days of the Messiah; is what is commonly received amongst the Jews. If so, then let me a little enlarge this question of our Saviour’s disciples, by way of paraphrase, to this purpose: “Master, we know that thou art the Messiah, and that these are the days of the Messiah; we have also learned from our schools, that there is no imputation of merit or demerit from the parents in the days of the Messiah; whence then is it that this man is born blind? That in these days of the Messiah he should bring into the world with him some mark and imputation of fault or blame somewhere? What, was it his parents’ fault? This seems against the received opinion. It seems therefore that he bears some tokens of his own fault: is it so, or not?”

2. It was a conceit amongst the Jews, that the infant, when formed and quickened in the womb, might behave itself irregularly, and do something that might not be altogether without fault.

In the treatise last mentioned, a woman is brought in complaining in earnest of her child before the judge, that it kicked her unreasonably in the womb. In Midras Coheleth and Midras Ruth; cap. iii. 13, there is a story told of Elisha Ben Abujah, who departed from the faith, and became a horrible apostate; and, amongst other reasons of his apostasy, this is rendered for one:

“There are which say, that his mother, when she was big with child of him, passing through a temple of the Gentiles, smelt something very strong, and they gave to her of what she smelt, and she did eat; and the child in the womb grew hot, and swelled into blisters, as in the womb of a serpent.”

In which story his apostasy is supposed as originally rooted and grounded in him in the womb, upon the fault of his mother eating of what had been offered to idols. It is also equally presumed, that an infant may unreasonably and irregularly kick and punch in the womb of its mother beyond the rate of ordinary infants. The infants in the womb of Rebecca may be for an instance; where the Jews indeed absolve Jacob from fault, though ht took Esau by the heel; but will hardly absolve Esau for rising up against his brother Jacob.

“Antoninus asked R. Judah, ‘At what time evil affections began to prevail in the man? Whether in the first forming of the foetus in the womb, or at the time of its coming forth?’ The Rabbi saith unto him, ‘From the time of its first coming.’ ‘Then,’ saith Antoninus, ‘it will kick in the mother’s womb and rush out.’ The Rabbi saith, ‘This I learned of Antoninus; and the scripture seems to back it when it saith, Sin lieth at the door.’ ”

It appears from this dispute, whether true or feigned, that the ancient opinion of the Jews was, that the infant, from its first quickening, had some stain of sin upon it. And that great doctor, R. Judah the Holy, was originally of that opinion himself, but had lightly changed his mind upon so paltry an argument. Nay, they went a little further, not only that the infant might have some stain of sin in the womb, but that it might, in some measure, actually sin, and do that which might render it criminal. To which purpose this passage of the disciples seems to have some relation; “Did this man sin, that he was born blind?” That is, Did he, when his mother carried him in her womb, do any foul or enormous thing that might deserve this severe stroke upon him, that he should bring this blindness with him into the world?

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Joh 9:2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? It is not said that the disciples were moved to pity, but it is not right to assume the contrary. That Jesus had looked on the blind man would be enough to raise their expectation of a cure; but expressly to relate this might well seem needless. Whatever feeling, however, the sight may have stirred in them, it recalled a problem which was very familiar to the thought of the Jews, and which repeatedly meets us in the Scriptures of the Old Testament,the connection between personal sin and bodily suffering or defect. Here was a signal example of physical infirmity: what was its cause? The question seems to show a conviction on their part that the cause was sin; but the conviction may have been less firm than the words themselves would imply. In assuming that the blindness was the consequence of sin they were following the current theology of their time: but how was this dogma to be applied in the case before them? Who had sinned? Was it the man himself? Or had his parents committed some offence which was now visited upon their child? (comp. Exo 20:5; Exo 34:7; Num 14:18; Num 14:33; Jer 32:18). The passages to which we have referred throw light on the latter alternative; but what is the meaning of the former, as the man was born blind? It is not necessary to discuss the various explanations that have been given, some of which seem wholly improbable. Three only need be mentioned, as having apparently some sanction from what we know of Jewish thought in the apostolic age. (1) We are told by Josephus that the Pharisees held the belief that, whereas the souls of the wicked are eternally punished, the souls of the righteous pass into other bodies. Hence it has been maintained that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the transmigration of souls; and the passage before us is frequently explained accordingly. If, however, we compare all the passages in which Josephus refers to tenets of the Pharisees respecting the state of man after death, it will at least appear very uncertain that such a meaning should be attached to his words as quoted above. It is very possible that the historian is there referring entirely to a state of being beyond the limits of this worlds history; or that, in the attempt to present the belief of his countrymen in a form familiar to the Roman conquerors, he has used language which conveys an erroneous impression. At all events we cannot assume that the transmigration of souls was a tenet widely embraced by the Jewish people of that age, without far stronger evidence than we now possess. (2) The philosophic doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was certainly held by many Jews at the time of which we are speaking. As early as the book of Wisdom we find a reference to this doctrine (see chap. Joh 8:19-20), and passages of similar tendency may easily be quoted from Philo. Yet it seems improbable that an opinion which was essentially a speculation of philosophy, and was perhaps attractive to none but philosophic minds, should manifest itself in such a question as this, asked by plain men unacquainted with the refinements of Greek thought. (3) It seems certainly to have been an ancient Jewish opinion that sin could be committed by the unborn child; and that the narrative of Genesis 25, appearing to teach that the odious character of a supplanter belonged to Jacob even before birth, gave the authority of Scripture to such a belief. On the whole this seems to afford the best explanation of the question of the disciples: Was the sin so severely punished committed by this man himself, in the earliest period of his existence, or have the iniquities of his parents been visited upon him? (On the word Rabbi, see chap. Joh 1:38.)

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here observe, Something implied or supposed; namely,

1. That all bodily afflictions and calamities do come upon us for sin. Whereas afflictions although they always fall upon a sinner, yet they are not always sent to punish sin, but by way of purigation and prevention of sin.

2. It is here supposed, that as some afflictions come upon men for personal sins, so others come upon them for parental sins, and that children may, and oft-times do, very justly suffer for their parents sins.

3. It is here supposed, that there is no other reason of a person’s sufferings, but only sin: whereas though sin be much and often the cause of suffering.

4. It is implied here, that there is a transmigration of souls from one body to another; the disciples supposed, that this soul, when it was in another body, and was now punished by being put into a blind body. This pythagon error was crept in amoung the Pharisees, and the disciples here seemed to be tainted and infected with it. This may teach us, how far the holiest and wisest of men are from an infallible spirit, and that the best of men may be misled by a common error.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Jews regarded blind people as especially worthy of charity. [Note: Ibid., 2:178.] The disciples’ question reflected popular Jewish opinion of their day. Clearly the Old Testament taught that sin brings divine punishment (e.g., Exo 20:5; Exo 34:7; Eze 18:4). This cause and effect relationship led many of the Jews, as well as many modern people, to conclude that every bad effect had an identifiable sinful cause. [Note: Cf. Talmud tractates Shabbath 55 a, and Nedarim 41 a, quoted in Edersheim, 1:494.] That conclusion goes farther than the Bible does (cf. Job; 2Co 12:7; Gal 4:13). Sin does lie behind all the suffering and evil in the world, but the connection between sin and suffering is not always immediate or observable.

The disciples, like their contemporaries, assumed that either one or both of the blind man’s parents had sinned, or he had, and that this sin was the cause of his blindness.

"It is not absolutely certain they were thinking of the possibility of the man having sinned in a pre-natal condition. As R. A. Knox points out, they may not have known that the man was born blind, and the Greek might be understood to mean, ’Did this man sin? or did his parents commit some sin with the result that he was born blind?’" [Note: Tasker, p. 126. The source mentioned is Ronald A. Knox, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ newly translated from the Vulgate Latin . . ., 1945 ed.]

"The disciples did not look at the man as an object of mercy but rather as a subject for a theological discussion. It is much easier to discuss an abstract subject like ’sin’ than it is to minister to a concrete need in the life of a person." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:324.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)