Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:13
They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
13 41. Opposite Results of the Sign
13. They brought, &c.] Better, they bring him to the Pharisees, him that once was blind. These friends and neighbours are perhaps well-meaning people, not intending to make mischief. But they are uncomfortable because work has been done on the Sabbath, and they think it best to refer the matter to the Pharisees, the great authorities in matters of legal observance and orthodoxy (comp. Joh 7:47-48). This is not a meeting of the Sanhedrin. S. John’s formula for the Sanhedrin is ‘the chief priests and (the) Pharisees’ (Joh 7:45, Joh 11:47; Joh 11:57, Joh 18:3), or ‘the Pharisees and the chief priests’ (Joh 7:32).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
To the Pharisees – To the members of the Sanhedrin. They did this, doubtless, to accuse Jesus of having violated the Sabbath, and not, as they ought to have done, to examine into the evidence that he was from God.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 9:13-18
They brought to the Pharisees him
The first examination of the Man
I.
AN IMPORTANT ADMISSION. The Pharisees recognized that the man saw (Joh 9:13). If therefore he had been previously blind, there must have been a miracle.
II. AN IRRELEVANT QUESTION. They wished to know how the man had received his sight (Joh 9:15), when all that they had to determine was whether he had received his sight.
III. A STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER. The man having nothing to conceal, gave a simple recitation of what had taken place (Joh 9:15).
IV. A PALPABLE EVASION. Some of the Pharisees attempted to avoid giving judgment as to the miracle by pronouncing on a question that was not before them, viz., the character of Christ, whom they declared could not be from God, because He kept not the Sabbath (Joh 9:16).
V. A SOUND CONCLUSION. Others reasoned that the miracle had been proved, and decided that the worker of such a sign could not be a sinner, and therefore could not have really violated the Sabbath law (Joh 9:16).
VI. A SAFE DEDUCTION. The healed man inferred, as Nicodemus had done Joh 3:2), that the Physician who had cured him was a prophet (Joh 3:17).
VII. A DISINGENUOUS PROCEDURE. The matter seemed settled and the miracle made out; but the hostile party, unwilling to allow a verdict so favourable for Jesus to go forth, determined to hold the man an impostor, or at least to suspend their judgment until they had heard the mans parents. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)
Types of character in relation to Christs work–Those who are bitterly prejudiced against it
Four things marked the character of these Pharisees.
I. THEY WERE TECHNICAL RATHER THAN MORAL IN THEIR STANDARD OF JUDGMENT (Joh 9:16). Christ, in performing the miracle on the Sabbath, struck a blow at their prejudices, and declared The Sabbath was made for man. Instead of thanking God that their poor brother had been healed, and seeking acquaintance with the Healer, they endeavour to make the whole thing a ceremonial crime. They had more respect for ceremonies than for souls. They exalted the letter above the spirit, the ritual above the moral.
II. THEY WERE BIASSED RATHER THAN CANDID IN THEIR EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE. They had made up their minds not to believe, and all their questionings and cross questionings were intended to throw discredit on the fact. They did not want evidence, and if it came up they would suppress or misinterpret it. This spirit is too common in every age, and shows the blindness of prejudice and the heartlessness of technical religion.
III. THEY WERE DIVIDED RATHER THAN UNITED IN THEIR CONCLUSIONS. There was a division, There were some, perhaps Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, touched with candour, who could not but see the Divinity of the act. Infidels ridicule Christians for their divisions, whilst they themselves are never agreed. Error is necessarily schismatic; evil has no power to unite.
IV. THEY WERE MALIGNANT RATHER THAN GENEROUS IN THEIR AIMS. Had they been generous they would have been disposed to believe in the mission of the Divine Restorer. Instead of that they repudiate the fact. Their browbeating of the young man, their accusation that Christ was a sinner, and their excommunication of those who behoved on Him show that the malign not the benign was their inspiration. Conclusion: This class is not extinct. There are those who are bitterly prejudiced against Christianity everywhere. They are proof against all evidence and argument. Prejudice turns a mans heart into stone. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Power of prejudice
Voltaire once said, If in the market of Paris, before the eyes of a thousand men, and before my own eyes a miracle should be performed, I would much rather disbelieve the two thousand eyes and my own too, than believe it. So here, these men, fleeing as they do from the light and choosing the darkness, take up the matter over again, in the hope of being able to detect some traces of fraud. (R. Besser, D. D.)
What will not prejudice do? It was that which made the Jews call Christ a Samaritan, a devil, a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. It was that which made them hale the apostles to their governors, and cry out, Away with them! it is not fit that they should live. It was this made Ahab hate the upright Micaiah, and the Athenian condemn the just Aristides, though he had never seen him. It was this made the poor man, who knew not what John Husss doctrine was, so busy and industrious to carry wood for his funeral pile, and as zealous to kindle it, inasmuch that the martyr could not but cry out, O holy simplicity! It is this sets men against consideration of their ways, and makes them give out that it will crack their brains and disorder their understanding. (Anthony Horneck.)
True conversion evident to all
None of the Pharisees said to him, Are you sure you can see? Those twinkling eyes of his, so full of fun and wit, and sarcasm, were proofs most plain that he could see. Ah! your friends at home will know that you are converted if it is really so; they will hardly want telling, they will find it out. The very way you eat your dinner will show it. It will! You eat it with gratitude, and seek a blessing on it. The way you will go to bed will show it. I remember a poor man who was converted, but he was dreadfully afraid of his wife–not the only man in the world that is in that rear–and therefore he was fearful that she would ridicule him if he knelt to pray. He crept upstairs in his stockings that he might not be heard, but might have a few minutes prayer before she knew he was there. His scheme broke down. His wife soon found him out. Genuine conversion is no more to be hidden than a candle in a dark room. You cannot hide a cough. If a man has a cough, he must cough; and if a man has grace in his heart, he will show grace in his life. Why should we wish to hide it? Oh, may the Lord give you such an eye opening this day that friends and relatives shall know that your eyes have been opened! (C. H.Spurgeon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 13. They brought to the Pharisees] These had the chief rule, and determined all controversies among the people; in every case of religion, their judgment was final: the people, now fully convinced that the man had been cured, brought him to the Pharisees, that they might determine how this was done, and whether it had been done legally.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Whether the neighbours, or his near relations, is not said. Nor is the place mentioned where this convention of Pharisees was, whether in the temple, or in some synagogue, or in the great court which they called the sanhedrim; nor is it material for us to inquire into.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. They brought to thePhariseessitting probably in council, and chiefly of that sect(Joh 7:47; Joh 7:48).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
They brought to the Pharisees,…. That is, to the sanhedrim, which chiefly consisted of Pharisees; and so Nonnus calls them the priests and chief priests:
him that was aforetime blind; to be examined by them. And something like this is the method used by carnal relations and friends, who when they have any belonging to them under a work of grace, have them to their learned doctors of a different religion, to talk to them, and dissuade them from the ways of truth and godliness.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Cavilling of the Pharisees; The Cavilling of the Pharisees Refuted. |
| |
13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. 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 can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. 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. 18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. 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. 22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. 24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. 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. 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? 28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. 29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 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. 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
One would have expected that such a miracle as Christ wrought upon the blind man would have settled his reputation, and silenced and shamed all opposition, but it had the contrary effect; instead of being embraced as a prophet for it, he is prosecuted as a criminal.
I. Here is the information that was given in to the Pharisees concerning this matter: They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind, v. 13. They brought him to the great sanhedrim, which consisted chiefly of Pharisees, at least the Pharisees in the sanhedrim were most active against Christ. 1. Some think that those who brought this man to the Pharisees did it with a good design, to show them that this Jesus, whom they persecuted, was not what they represented him, but really a great man, and one that gave considerable proofs of a divine mission. What hath convinced us of the truth and excellency of religion, and hath removed our prejudices against it, we should be forward, as we have opportunity, to offer to others for their conviction. 2. It should seem, rather, that they did it with an ill design, to exasperate the Pharisees the more against Christ, and there was no need of this, for they were bitter enough of themselves. They brought him with such a suggestion as that in Joh 11:47; Joh 11:48, If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him. Note, Those rulers that are of a persecuting spirit shall never want ill instruments about them, that will blow the coals, and make them worse.
II. The ground which was pretended for this information, and the colour given to it. That which is good was never maligned but under the imputation of something evil. And the crime objected here (v. 14) was that it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. The profanation of the sabbath day is certainly wicked, and gives a man a very ill character; but the traditions of the Jews had made that to be a violation of the law of the sabbath which was far from being so. Many a time this matter was contested between Christ and the Jews, that it might be settled for the benefit of the church in all ages. But it may be asked, “Why would Christ not only work miracles on the sabbath day, but work them in such a manner as he knew would give offence to the Jews? When he had healed the impotent man, why should he bid him carry his bed? Could he not have cured this blind man without making clay?” I answer, 1. He would not seem to yield to the usurped power of the scribes and Pharisees. Their government was illegal, their impositions were arbitrary, and their zeal for the rituals consumed the substantials of religion; and therefore Christ would not give place to them, by subjection, no not for an hour. Christ was made under the law of God, but not under their law. 2. He did it that he might, both by word and action, expound the law of the fourth commandment, and vindicate it from their corrupt glosses, and so teach us that a weekly sabbath is to be perpetually observed in the church, one day in seven (for what need was there to explain that law, if it must be presently abrogated?) and that it is not to be so ceremonially observed by us as it was by the Jews? Works of necessity and mercy are allowed, and the sabbath-rest to be kept, not so much for its own sake as in order to the sabbath-work. 3. Christ chose to work his cures on the sabbath day to dignify and sanctify the day, and to intimate that spiritual cures should be wrought mostly on the Christian sabbath day. How many blind eyes have been opened by the preaching of the gospel, that blessed eye-salve, on the Lord’s day! How many impotent souls cured on that day!
III. The trial and examination of this matter by the Pharisees, v. 15. So much passion, prejudice, and ill-humour, and so little reason, appear here, that the discourse is nothing but crossing questions. One would think, when a man in these circumstances was brought before them, they would have been so taken up in admiring the miracle, and congratulating the happiness of the poor man, that they could not have been peevish with him. But their enmity to Christ had divested them of all manner of humanity, and divinity too. Let us see how they teased this man.
1. They interrogated him concerning the cure itself.
(1.) They doubted whether he had indeed been born blind, and demanded proof of that which even the prosecutors had acknowledged (v. 18): They did not believe, that is, they would not, that he was born blind. Men that seek occasion to quarrel with the clearest truths may find it if they please; and they that resolve to hold fast deceit will never want a handle to hold it by. This was not a prudent caution, but a prejudiced infidelity. However, it was a good way that they took for the clearing of this: They called the parents of the man who had received his sight. This they did in hopes to disprove the miracle. These parents were poor and timorous, and if they had said that they could not be sure that this was their son, or that it was only some weakness or dimness in his sight that he had been born with, which if they had been able to get help for him might have been cured long since, or had otherwise prevaricated, for fear of the court, the Pharisees had gained their point, had robbed Christ of the honour of this miracle, which would have lessened the reputation of all the rest. But God so ordered and overruled this counsel of theirs that it turned to the more effectual proof of the miracle, and left them under a necessity of being either convinced or confounded. Now in this part of the examination we have,
[1.] The questions that were put to them (v. 19): They asked them in an imperious threatening way, “Is this your son? Dare you swear to it? Do you say he was born blind? Are you sure of it? Or did he but pretend to be so, to have an excuse for his begging? How then doth he now see? That is impossible, and therefore you had better unsay it.” Those who cannot bear the light of truth do all they can to eclipse it, and hinder the discovery of it. Thus the managers of evidence, or mismanagers rather, lead witnesses out of the way, and teach them how to conceal or disguise the truth, and so involve themselves in a double guilt, like that of Jeroboam, who sinned, and made Israel to sin.
[2.] Their answers to these interrogatories, in which,
First, They fully attest that which they could safely say in this matter; safely, that is, upon their own knowledge, and safely, that is, without running themselves into a premunire (v. 20): We know that this is our son (for they were daily conversant with him, and had such a natural affection to him as the true mother had, 1 Kings iii. 26, which made them know it was their own); and we know that he was born blind. They had reason to know it, inasmuch as it had cost them many a sad thought, and many a careful troublesome hour, about him. How often had they looked upon him with grief, and lamented their child’s blindness more than all the burdens and inconveniences of their poverty, and wished he had never been born, rather than be born to such an uncomfortable life! Those who are ashamed of their children, or any of their relations, because of their bodily infirmities, may take a reproof from these parents, who freely owned, This is our son, though he was born blind, and lived upon alms.
Secondly, They cautiously decline giving any evidence concerning his cure; partly because they were not themselves eye-witnesses of it, and could say nothing to it of their own knowledge; and partly because they found it was a tender point, and would not bear to be meddled with. And therefore, having owned that he was their son and was born blind, further these deponents say not.
a. Observe how warily they express themselves (v. 21): “By what means he now seeth we know not, or who has opened his eyes we know not, otherwise than by hearsay; we can give no account either by what means or by whose hand it was done.” See how the wisdom of this world teaches men to trim the matter in critical junctures. Christ was accused as a sabbath-breaker, and as an imposter. Now these parents of the blind man, though they were not eye-witnesses of the cure, were yet fully assured of it, and were bound in gratitude to have borne their testimony to the honour of the Lord Jesus, who had done their son so great a kindness; but they had not courage to do it, and then thought it might serve to atone for their not appearing in favour of him that they said nothing to his prejudice; whereas, in the day of trial, he that is not apparently for Christ is justly looked upon as really against him, Luk 11:23; Mar 8:38. That they might not be further urged in this matter, they refer themselves and the court to him: He is of age, ask him, he shall speak for himself. This implies that while children are not of age (while they are infants, such as cannot speak) it is incumbent upon their parents to speak for them, speak to God for them in prayer, speak to the church for them in baptism; but, when they are of age, it is fit that they should be asked whether they be willing to stand to that which their parents did for them, and let them speak for themselves. This man, though he was born blind, seems to have been of quick understanding above many, which enabled him to speak for himself better than his friends could speak for him. Thus God often by a kind providence makes up in the mind what is wanting in the body, 1Co 12:23; 1Co 12:24. His parents turning them over to him was only to save themselves from trouble, and expose him; whereas they that had so great an interest in his mercies had reason to embark with him in his hazards for the honour of that Jesus who had done so much for them.
b. See the reason why they were so cautious (Joh 9:22; Joh 9:23): Because they feared the Jews. It was not because they would put an honour upon their son, by making him his own advocate, or because they would have the matter cleared by the best hand, but because they would shift trouble off from themselves, as most people are in care to do, no matter on whom they throw it. Near is my friend, and near is my child, and perhaps near is my religion, but nearer is myself–Proximus egomet mihi. But Christianity teaches another lesson, 1Co 10:24; Est 8:6. Here is,
(a.) The late law which the sanhedrim had made. It was agreed and enacted by their authority that, if any man within their jurisdiction did confess that Jesus was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Observe,
[a.] The crime designed to be punished, and so prevented, by this statute, and that was embracing Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, and manifesting this by any overt-act, which amounted to a confessing of him. They themselves did expect a Messiah, but they could by no means bear to think that this Jesus should be he, nor admit the question whether he were or no, for two reasons:–First, Because his precepts were all so contrary to their traditional laws. The spiritual worship he prescribed overthrew their formalities; nor did any thing more effectually destroy their singularity and narrow-spiritedness than that universal charity which he taught; humility and mortification, repentance and self-denial, were lessons new to them, and sounded harsh and strange in their ears. Secondly, Because him promises and appearances were so contrary to their traditional hopes. They expected a Messiah in outward pomp and splendour, that should not only free the nation from the Roman yoke, but advance the grandeur of the sanhedrim, and make all the members of it princes and peers: and now to hear of a Messiah whose outward circumstances were all mean and poor, whose first appearance and principal residence were in Galilee, a despised province, who never made his court to them, nor sought their favour, whose followers were neither sword-men nor gown-men, nor any men of honour, but contemptible fishermen, who proposed and promised no redemption but from sin, no consolation of Israel but what is spiritual and divine, and at the same time bade his followers expect the cross, and count upon persecution; this was such a reproach to all the ideas they had formed and filled the minds of their people with, such a blow to their power and interest, and such a disappointment to all their hopes, that they could never be reconciled to it, nor so much as give it a fair or patient hearing, but, right or wrong, it must be crushed.
[b.] The penalty to be inflicted for this crime. If any should own himself a disciple of Jesus, he should be deemed and taken as an apostate from the faith of the Jewish church, and a rebel and traitor against the government of it, and should therefore be put out of the synagogue, as one that had rendered himself unworthy of the honours, and incapable of the privileges, of their church; he should be excommunicated, and expelled the commonwealth of Israel. Nor was this merely an ecclesiastical censure, which a man that made no conscience of their authority might slight, but it was, in effect, an outlawry, which excluded a man from civil commerce and deprived him of his liberty and property. Note, First, Christ’s holy religion, from its first rise, has been opposed by penal laws made against the professors of it; as if men’s consciences would otherwise naturally embrace it, this unnatural force has been put upon them. Secondly, The church’s artillery, when the command of it has fallen into ill hands, has often been turned against itself, and ecclesiastical censures have been made to serve a carnal secular interest. It is no new thing to see those cast out of the synagogue that were the greatest ornaments and blessings of it, and to hear those that expelled them say, The Lord be glorified, Isa. lxvi. 5. Now of this edict it is said, 1. That the Jews had agreed it, or conspired it. Their consultation and communion herein were a perfect conspiracy against the crown and dignity of the Redeemer, against the Lord and his Anointed. 2. That they had already agreed it. Though he had been but a few months in any public character among them, and, one would think, in so short a time could not have made them jealous of him, yet thus early were they aware of his growing interest, and already agreed to do their utmost to suppress it. He had lately made his escape out of the temple, and, when they saw themselves baffled in their attempts to take him, they presently took this course, to make it penal for any body to own him. Thus unanimous and thus expeditious are the enemies of the church, and their counsels; but he that sits in heaven laughs at them, and has them in derision, and so may we.
(b.) The influence which this law had upon the parents of the blind man. They declined saying any thing of Christ, and shuffled it off to their son, because they feared the Jews. Christ had incurred the frowns of the government to do their son a kindness, but they would not incur them to do him any honour. Note, The fear of man brings a snare (Prov. xxix. 25), and often makes people deny and disown Christ, and his truths and ways, and act against their consciences. Well, the parents have thus disentangled themselves, and are discharged from any further attendance; let us now go on with the examination of the man himself; the doubt of the Pharisees, whether he was born blind, was put out of doubt by them; and therefore,
(2.) They enquired of him concerning the manner of the cure, and made their remarks upon it, Joh 9:15; Joh 9:16.
[1.] The same question which his neighbours had put to him now again the Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. This they enquired not with any sincere desire to find out the truth, by tracing the report to the original, but with a desire to find an occasion against Christ; for, if the man should relate the matter fully, they would prove Christ a sabbath-breaker; if he should vary from his former story, they would have some colour to suspect the whole to be a collusion.
[2.] The same answer, in effect, which he had before given to his neighbours, he here repeats to the Pharisees: He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. He does not here speak of the making of the clay, for indeed he had not seen it made. That circumstance was not essential, and might give the Pharisees most occasion against him, and therefore he waives it. In the former account he said, I washed, and received sight; but lest they should think it was only a glimpse for the present, which a heated imagination might fancy itself to have, he now says, “I do see: it is a complete and lasting cure.”
[3.] The remarks made upon this story were very different, and occasioned a debate in the court, v. 16.
First, Some took this occasion to censure and condemn Christ for what he had done. Some of the Pharisees said, This man is not of God, as he pretends, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. 1. The doctrine upon which this censure is grounded is very true–that those are not of God–those pretenders to prophecy not sent of God, those pretenders to saintship not born of God–who do not keep the sabbath day. Those that are of God will keep the commandments of God; and this is his commandment, that we sanctify the sabbath. Those that are of God keep up communion with God, and delight to hear from him, and speak to him, and therefore will observe the sabbath, which is a day appointed for intercourse with heaven. The sabbath is called a sign, for the sanctifying of it is a sign of a sanctified heart, and the profaning of it a sign of a profane heart. But, 2. The application of it to our Saviour is very unjust, for he did religiously observe the sabbath day, and never in any instance violated it, never did otherwise than well on the sabbath day. He did not keep the sabbath according to the tradition of the elders and the superstitious observances of the Pharisees, but he kept it according to the command of God, and therefore, no doubt, he was of God, and his miracles proved him to be Lord also of the sabbath day. Note, much unrighteous and uncharitable judging is occasioned by men’s making the rules of religion more strict than God has made them, and adding their own fancies to God’s appointments, as the Jews here, in the case of sabbath-sanctification. We ourselves may forbear such and such things, on the sabbath day, as we find a distraction to us, and we do well, but we must not therefore tie up others to the same strictness. Every thing that we take for a rule of practice must not presently be made a rule of judgment.
Secondly, Others spoke in his favour, and very pertinently urged, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? It seems that even in this council of the ungodly there were some that were capable of a free thought, and were witnesses for Christ, even in the midst of his enemies. The matter of fact was plain, that this was a true miracle, the more it was searched into the more it was cleared; and this brought his former similar works to mind, and gave occasion to speak magnificently of them, toiauta semeia—such great signs, so many, so evident. And the inference from it is very natural: Such things as these could never be done by a man that is a sinner, that is, not by any mere man, in his own name, and by his own power; or, rather, not by one that is a cheat or an imposter, and in that sense a a sinner; such a one may indeed show some signs and lying wonders, but not such signs and true wonders as Christ wrought. How could a man produce such divine credentials, if he had not a divine commission? Thus there was a division among them, a schism, so the word is; they clashed in their opinion, a warm debate arose, and the house divided upon it. Thus God defeats the counsels of his enemies by dividing them; and by such testimonies as these given against the malice of persecutors, and the rubs they meet with, their designs against the church are sometimes rendered ineffectual and always inexcusable.
2. After their enquiry concerning the cure, we must observe their enquiry concerning the author of it. And here observe,
(1.) What the man said of him, in answer to their enquiry. They ask him (v. 17), “What sayest thou of him, seeing that he has opened thine eyes? What dost thou think of his doing this? And what idea hast thou of him that did it?” If he should speak slightly of Christ, in answer to this, as he might be tempted to do, to please them, now that he was in their hands, as his parents had done–if he should say, “I know not what to make of him; he may be a conjuror for aught I know, or some mountebank”–they would have triumphed in it. Nothing confirms Christ’s enemies in their enmity to him so much as the slights put upon him by those that have passed for his friends. But, if he should speak honourably of Christ, they would prosecute him upon their new law, which did not except, no, not his own patient; they would make him an example, and so deter others from applying to Christ for cures, for which, though they came cheap from Christ, yet they would make them pay dearly. Or perhaps Christ’s friends proposed to have the man’s own sentiments concerning his physician, and were willing to know, since he appeared to be a sensible man, what he thought of him. Note, Those whose eyes Christ has opened know best what to say of him, and have great reason, upon all occasions, to say well of him. What think we of Christ? To this question the poor man makes a short, plain, and direct answer: “He is a prophet, he is one inspired and sent of God to preach, and work miracles, and deliver to the world a divine message.” There had been no prophets among the Jews for three hundred years; yet they did not conclude that they should have no more, for they knew that he was yet to come who should seal up vision and prophecy, Dan. ix. 24. It should seem, this man had not any thoughts that Christ was the Messiah, the great prophet, but one of the same rank with the other prophets. The woman of Samaria concluded he was a prophet before she had any thought of his being the Messiah (ch. iv. 19); so this blind man thought well of Christ according to the light he had, though he did not think well enough of him; but, being faithful in what he had already attained to, God revealed even that unto him. This poor blind beggar had a clearer judgment of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and saw further into the proofs of a divine mission, than the masters in Israel, that assumed an authority to judge of prophets.
(2.) What they said of him, in reply to the man’s testimony. Having in vain attempted to invalidate the evidence of the fact, and finding that indeed a notable miracle was wrought, and they could not deny it, they renew their attempt to banter it, and run it down, and do all they can to shake the good opinion the man had of him that opened his eyes, and to convince him that Christ was a bad man (v. 24): Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner. Two ways this is understood: [1.] By way of advice, to take heed of ascribing the praise of his cure to a sinful man, but to give it all to God, to whom it was due. Thus, under colour of zeal for the honour of God, they rob Christ of his honour, as those do who will not worship Christ as God, under pretence of zeal for this great truth, that there is but one God to be worshipped; whereas this is his declared will, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father; and in confessing that Christ is Lord we give glory to God the Father. When God makes use of men that are sinners as instruments of good to us, we must give God the glory, for every creature is that to us which he makes it to be; and yet there is gratitude owing to the instruments. It was a good word, Give God the praise, but here it was ill used; and there seems to be this further in it, “This man is a sinner, a bad man, and therefore give the praise so much the more to God, who could work by such an instrument.” [2.] By way of adjuration; so some take it. “We know (though thou dost not, who hast but lately come, as it were, into a new world) that this man is a sinner, a great impostor, and cheats the country; this we are sure of, therefore give God praise” (as Joshua said to Achan) “by making an ingenuous confession of the fraud and collusion which we are confident there is in this matter; in God’s name, man, tell the truth.” Thus is God’s name abused in papal inquisitions, when by oaths, ex officio, they extort accusations of themselves from the innocent, and of others from the ignorant. See how basely they speak of the Lord Jesus: We know that this man is a sinner, is a man of sin. In which we may observe, First, Their insolence and pride. They would not have it thought, when they asked the man what he thought of him, that they needed information; nay, they know very well that he is a sinner, and nobody can convince them of the contrary. He had challenged them to their faces (ch. viii. 46) to convince him of sin, and they had nothing to say; but now behind his back they speak of him as a malefactor, convicted upon the notorious evidence of the fact. Thus false accusers make up in confidence what is wanting in proof. Secondly, The injury and indignity hereby done to the Lord Jesus. When he became man, he took upon him the form not only of a servant, but of a sinner (Rom. viii. 3), and passed for a sinner in common with the rest of mankind. Nay, he was represented as a sinner of the first magnitude, a sinner above all men; and, being made sin for us, he despised even this shame.
3. The debate that arose between the Pharisees and this poor man concerning Christ. They say, He is a sinner; he says, He is a prophet. As it is an encouragement to those who are concerned for the cause of Christ to hope that it shall never be lost for want of witnesses, when they find a poor blind beggar picked up from the way-side, and made a witness for Christ, to the faces of his most impudent enemies; so it is an encouragement to those who are called out to witness for Christ to find with what prudence and courage this man managed his defence, according to the promise, It shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak. Though he had never seen Jesus, he had felt his grace. Now in the parley between the Pharisees and this poor man we may observe three steps:–
(1.) He sticks to the certain matter of fact the evidence of which they endeavour to shake. That which is doubtful is best resolved into that which is plain, and therefore, [1.] He adheres to that which to himself at least, and to his own satisfaction, was past dispute (v. 25): “Whether he be a sinner or no I know not, I will not now stand to dispute, nor need I, the matter is plain, and though I should altogether hold my peace would speak for itself;” or, as it might better be rendered, “If he be a sinner, I know it not, I see no reason to say so, but the contrary; for this one thing I know, and can be more sure of than you can be of that of which you are so confident, that whereas I was blind, now I see, and therefore must not only say that he has been a good friend to me, but that he is a prophet; I am both able and bound to speak well of him.” Now here, First, He tacitly reproves their great assurance of the ill character they gave of the blessed Jesus: “You say that you know him to be a sinner; I, who know him as well as you do, cannot give any such character.” Secondly, He boldly relies upon his own experience of the power and goodness of the holy Jesus, and resolves to abide by it. There is no disputing against experience, nor arguing a man out of his senses; here is one that is properly an eyewitness of the power and grace of Christ, though he had never seen him. Note, As Christ’s mercies are most valued by those that have felt the want of them, that have been blind and now see, so the most powerful and durable affections to Christ are those that arise from an experimental knowledge of him, 1Jn 1:1; Act 4:20. The poor man does not here give a nice account of the method of the cure, nor pretend to describe it philosophically, but in short, Whereas I was blind, now I see. Thus in the work of grace in the soul, though we cannot tell when and how, by what instruments and by what steps and advances, the blessed change was wrought, yet we may take the comfort of it if we can say, through grace, “Whereas I was blind, now I see. I did live a carnal, worldly, sensual life, but, thanks be to God, it is now otherwise with me,” Eph. v. 8. [2.] They endeavour to baffle and stifle the evidence by a needless repetition of their enquiries into it (v. 26): What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes? They asked these questions, First, Because they wanted something to say, and would rather speak impertinently than seem to be silenced or run a-ground. Thus eager disputants, that resolve they will have the last word, by such vain repetitions, to avoid the shame of being silenced, make themselves accountable for many idle words. Secondly, Because they hoped, by putting the man upon repeating his evidence, to catch him tripping in it, or wavering, and then they would think they had gained a good point.
(2.) He upbraids them with their obstinate infidelity and invincible prejudices, and they revile him as a disciple of Jesus, v. 27-29, where the man is more bold with them and they are more sharp upon him than before.
[1.] The man boldly upbraids them with their wilful and unreasonable opposition to the evidence of this miracle, v. 27. He would not gratify them with a repetition of the story, but bravely replied, I have told you already, and you did not hear, wherefore would you hear it again, will you also be his disciples? Some think that he spoke seriously, and really expecting that they would be convinced. “He had many disciples, I will be one, will you also come in among them?” Some zealous young Christians see so much reason for religion that they are ready to think every one will presently be on their mind. But it rather seems to be spoken ironically: “Will you be his disciples? No, I know you abhor the thoughts of it; why then should you desire to hear that which will either make you his disciples or leave you inexcusable if you be not?” Those that wilfully shut their eyes against the light, as these Pharisees here did, First, Make themselves contemptible and base, as these here did, who were justly exposed by this poor man for denying the conclusion, when they had nothing to object against either of the premises. Secondly, They forfeit all the benefit of further instructions and means of knowledge and conviction: they that have been told once, and would not hear, why should they be told it again? Jer. li. 9. See Matt. x. 14. Thirdly, They hereby receive the grace of God in vain. This implied in that, “Will you be his disciples? No, you resolve you will not; why then would you hear it again, only that you may be his accusers and persecutors?” Those who will not see cause to embrace Christ, and join with his followers, yet, one would think, should see cause enough not to hate and persecute him and them.
[2.] For this they scorn and revile him, v. 28. When they could not resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke, they broke out into a passion, and scolded him, began to call names, and give him ill language. See what Christ’s faithful witnesses must expect from the adversaries of his truth and cause; let them count upon all manner of evil to be said of them, Matt. v. 11. The method commonly taken by unreasonable man is to make out with railing what is wanting in truth and reason.
First, They taunted this man for his affection to Christ; they said, Thou art his disciple, as if that were reproach enough, and they could not say worse of him. “We scorn to be his disciples, and will leave that preferment to thee, and such scoundrels as thou art.” They do what they can to put Christ’s religion in an ill name, and to represent the profession of it as a contemptible scandalous thing. They reviled him. The Vulgate reads it, maledixerunt eum–they cursed him; and what was their curse? It was this, Be thou his disciple. “May such a curse” (saith St. Augustine here) “ever be on us and on our children!” If we take our measures of credit and disgrace from the sentiment or rather clamours of a blind deluded world, we shall glory in our shame, and be ashamed of our glory. They had no reason to call this man a disciple of Christ, he had neither seen him nor heard him preach, only he had spoken favourably of a kindness Christ had done him, and this they could not bear.
Secondly, They gloried in their relation to Moses as their Master: “We are Moses’s disciples, and do not either need or desire any other teacher.” Note, 1. Carnal professors of religion are very apt to trust to, and be proud of, the dignities and privileges of their profession, while they are strangers to the principles and powers of their religion. These Pharisees had before boasted of their good parentage: We are Abraham’s seed; here they boast of their good education, We are Moses’s disciples; as if these would save them. 2. It is sad to see how much one part of religion is opposed, under colour of zeal for another part. There was a perfect harmony between Christ and Moses; Moses prepared for Christ, and Christ perfected Moses, so that they might be disciples of Moses, and become the disciples of Christ too; and yet they here put them in opposition, nor could they have persecuted Christ but under the shelter of the abused name of Moses. Thus those who gainsay the doctrine of free grace value themselves as promoters of man’s duty, We are Moses’s disciples; while, on the other hand, those that cancel the obligation of the law value themselves as the assertors of free grace, and as if none were the disciples of Jesus but they; whereas, if we rightly understand the matter, we shall see God’s grace and man’s duty meet together and kiss and befriend each other.
Thirdly, They gave some sort of reason for their adhering to Moses against Christ (v. 29): We know that God spoke unto Moses; as for this fellow, we know not whence he is. But did they not know that among other things which God spoke unto Moses this was one, that they must expect another prophet, and further revelation of the mind of God? yet, when our Lord Jesus, pursuant to what God said to Moses, did appear, and gave sufficient proofs of his being that prophet, under pretence of sticking to the old religion, and the established church, they not only forfeited, but forsook, their own mercies. In this argument of their observe, 1. How impertinently they allege, in defence of their enmity to Christ, that which none of his followers ever denied: We know that God spoke unto Moses, and, thanks be to God, we know it too, more plainly to Moses than to any other of the prophets; but what then? God spoke to Moses, and does it therefore follow that Jesus is an impostor? Moses was a prophet also? Moses spoke honourably of Jesus (ch. v. 46), and Jesus spoke honourably of Moses (Luke xvi. 29); they were both faithful in the same house of God, Moses as a servant, Christ as a Son; therefore their pleading Moses’ divine warrant in opposition to Christ’s was an artifice, to make unthinking people believe it was as certain that Jesus was a false prophet as that Moses was a true one; whereas they were both true. 2. How absurdly they urge their ignorance of Christ as a reason to justify their contempt of him: As for this fellow. Thus scornfully do they speak of the blessed Jesus, as if they did not think it worth while to charge their memories with a name so inconsiderable; they express themselves with as much disdain of the Shepherd of Israel as if he had not been worthy to be set with the dogs of their flock: As for this fellow, this sorry fellow, we know not whence he is. They looked upon themselves to have the key of knowledge, that none must preach without a license first had and obtained from them, under the seal of their court. They expected that all who set up for teachers should apply to them, and give them satisfaction, which this Jesus had never done, never so far owned their power as to ask their leave, and therefore they concluded him an intruder, and one that came not in by the door: They knew not whence nor what he was, and therefore concluded him a sinner; whereas those we know little of we should judge charitably of; but proud and narrow souls will think none good but themselves, and those that are in their interest. It was not long ago that the Jews had made the contrary to this an objection against Christ (ch. vii. 27): We know this man whence he is, but when Christ comes no man knows whence he is. Thus they could with the greatest assurance either affirm or deny the same thing, according as they saw it would serve their turn. They knew not whence he was; and whose fault was that? (1.) It is certain that they ought to have enquired. The Messiah was to appear about this time, and it concerned them to look about them, and examine every indication; but these priests, like those, Jer. ii. 6, said not, Where is the Lord? (2.) It is certain that they might have known whence he was, might not only have known, by searching the register, that he was born in Bethlehem; but by enquiring into his doctrine, miracles, and conversation, they might have known that he was sent of God, and had better orders, a better commission, and far better instructions, than any they could give him. See the absurdity of infidelity. Men will not know the doctrine of Christ because they are resolved they will not believe it, and then pretend they do not believe it because they do not know it. Such ignorance and unbelief, which support one another, aggravate one another.
(3.) He reasons with them concerning this matter, and they excommunicate him.
[1.] The poor man, finding that he had reason on his side, which they could not answer, grows more bold, and, in prosecution of his argument, is very close upon them.
First, He wonders at their obstinate infidelity (v. 30); not at all daunted by their frowns, nor shaken by their confidence, he bravely answered, “Why, herein is a marvelous thing, the strangest instance of wilful ignorance that ever was heard of among men that pretend to sense, that you know not whence he is, and yet he has opened mine eyes.” Two things he wonders at:– 1. That they should be strangers to a man so famous. He that could open the eyes of the blind must certainly be a considerable man, and worth taking notice of. The Pharisees were inquisitive men, had a large correspondence and acquaintance, thought themselves the eyes of the church and its watchmen, and yet that they should talk as if they thought it below them to take cognizance of such a man as this, and have conversation with him, this is a strange thing indeed. There are many who pass for learned and knowing men, who understand business, and can talk sensibly in other things, who yet are ignorant, to a wonder, of the doctrine of Christ, who have no concern, no, not so much as a curiosity, to acquaint themselves with that which the angels desire to look into. 2. That they should question the divine mission of one that had undoubtedly wrought a divine miracle. When they said, We know not whence he is, they meant, “We know not any proof that his doctrine and ministry are from heaven.” “Now this is strange,” saith the poor man, “that the miracle wrought upon me has not convinced you, and put the matter out of doubt,–that you, whose education and studies give you advantages above others of discerning the things of God, should thus shut your eyes against the light.” It is a marvelous work and wonder, when the wisdom of the wise thus perisheth (Isa. xxix. 14), that they deny the truth of that of which they cannot gainsay the evidence. Note, (1.) The unbelief of those who enjoy the means of knowledge and conviction is indeed a marvelous thing, Mark vi. 6. (2.) Those who have themselves experienced the power and grace of the Lord Jesus do especially wonder at the wilfulness of those who reject him, and, having such good thoughts of him themselves, are amazed that others have not. Had Christ opened the eyes of the Pharisees, they would not have doubted his being a prophet.
Secondly, He argues strongly against them, v. 31-33. They had determined concerning Jesus that he was not of God (v. 16), but was a sinner (v. 24), in answer to which the man here proves not only that he was not a sinner (v. 31), but that he was of God, v. 33.
a. He argues here, (a.) With great knowledge. Though he could not read a letter of the book, he was well acquainted with the scripture and the things of God; he had wanted the sense of seeing, yet had well improved that of hearing, by which faith cometh; yet this would not have served him if he had not had an extraordinary presence of God with him, and special aids of his Spirit, upon this occasion. (b.) With great zeal for the honour of Christ, whom he could not endure to hear run down, and evil spoken of. (c.) With great boldness, and courage, and undauntedness, not terrified by the proudest of his adversaries. Those that are ambitious of the favours of God must not be afraid of the frowns of men. “See here,” saith Dr. Whitby, “a blind man and unlearned judging more rightly of divine things than the whole learned council of the Pharisees, whence we learn that we are not always to be led by the authority of councils, popes, or bishops; and that it is not absurd for laymen sometimes to vary from their opinions, these overseers being sometimes guilty of great oversights.”
b. His argument may be reduced into form, somewhat like that of David, Ps. lxvi. 18-20. The proposition in David’s argument is, If I regard iniquity in my heart, God will not hear me; here it is to the same purport, God heareth not sinners: the assumption there is, But verily God hath heard me; here it is, Verily God hath heard Jesus, he hath been honoured with the doing of that which was never done before: the conclusion there is to the honour, Blessed be God; here to the honour of the Lord Jesus, He is of God.
(a.) He lays it down for an undoubted truth that none but good men are the favourites of heaven (v. 31): Now we know, you know it as well as I, that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and does his will, him he heareth. Here,
[a.] The assertions, rightly understood, are true. First, Be it spoken to the terror of the wicked, God heareth not sinners, that is, such sinners as the Pharisees meant when they said of Christ, He is a sinner, one that, under the shelter of God’s name, advanced the devil’s interest. This bespeaks no discouragement to repenting returning sinners, but to those that go on still in their trespasses, that make their prayers not only consistent with, but subservient to, their sins, as the hypocrites do; God will not hear them, he will not own them, nor give an answer of peace to their prayers. Secondly, Be it spoken to the comfort of the righteous, If any man be a worshipper of God, and does his will, him he heareth. Here is, 1. The complete character of a good man: he is one that worships God, and does his will; he is constant in his devotions at set times, and regular in his conversation at all times. He is one that makes it his business to glorify his Creator by the solemn adoration of his name and a sincere obedience to his will and law; both must go together. 2. The unspeakable comfort of such a man: him God hears; hears his complaints, and relieves him; hears his appeals, and rights him; hears his praises, and accepts them; hears his prayers, and answers them, Ps. xxxiv. 15.
[b.] The application of these truths is very pertinent to prove that he, at whose word such a divine power was put forth as cured one born blind, was not a bad man, but, having manifestly such an interest in the holy God as that he heard him always (Joh 9:31; Joh 9:32), was certainly a holy one.
(b.) He magnifies the miracles which Christ had wrought, to strengthen the argument the more (v. 32): Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. This is to show either, [a.] That it was a true miracle, and above the power of nature; it was never heard that any man, by the use of natural means, had cured one that was born blind; no doubt, this man and his parents had been very inquisitive into cases of this nature, whether any such had been helped, and could hear of none, which enabled him to speak this with the more assurance. Or, [b.] That it was an extraordinary miracle, and beyond the precedents of former miracles; neither Moses nor any of the prophets, though they did great things, ever did such things as this, wherein divine power and divine goodness seem to strive which should outshine. Moses wrought miraculous plagues, but Christ wrought miraculous cures. Note, First, The wondrous works of the Lord Jesus were such as the like had never been done before. Secondly, It becomes those who have received mercy from God to magnify the mercies they have received, and to speak honourably of them; not that thereby glory may redound to themselves, and they may seem to be extraordinary favourites of Heaven, but that God may have so much the more glory.
(c.) He therefore concludes, If this man were not of God, he could no nothing, that is, nothing extraordinary, no such thing as this; and therefore, no doubt, he is of God, notwithstanding his nonconformity to your traditions in the business of the sabbath day. Note, What Christ did on earth sufficiently demonstrated what he was in heaven; for, if he had not been sent of God, he could not have wrought such miracles. It is true the man of sin comes with lying wonders, but not with real miracles; it is likewise supposed that a false prophet might, by divine permission, give a sign or a wonder (Deu 13:1; Deu 13:2), yet the case is so put as that it would carry with it its own confutation, for it is to enforce a temptation to serve other gods, which was to set God against himself. It is true, likewise, that many wicked people have in Christ’s name done many wonderful works, which did not prove those that wrought them to be of God, but him in whose name they were wrought. We may each of us know by this whether we are of God or no: What do we? What do we for God, for our souls, in working out our salvation? What do we more than others?
[2.] The Pharisees, finding themselves unable either to answer his reasonings or to bear them, fell foul upon him, and with a great deal of pride and passion broke off the discourse, v. 34. Here we are told,
First, What they said. Having nothing to reply to his argument, they reflected upon his person: Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us? They take that amiss which they had reason to take kindly, and are cut to the heart with rage by that which should have pricked them to the heart with penitence. Observe, 1. How they despised him, and what a severe censure they passed upon him: “Thou wast not only born in sin, as every man is, but altogether so, wholly corrupt, and bearing about with thee in thy body as well as in thy soul the marks of that corruption; thou wast one whom nature stigmatized.” Had he still continued blind, it had been barbarous to upbraid him with it, and thence to gather that he was more deeply tainted with sin than other people; but it was most unjust to take notice of it now that the cure had not only rolled away the reproach of his blindness, but had signalized him as a favourite of Heaven. Some take it thus: “Thou hast been a common beggar, and such are too often common sinners, and thou hast, no doubt, been as bad as any of them;” whereas by his discourse he had proved the contrary, and had evinced a deep tincture of piety. But when proud imperious Pharisees resolve to run a man down, any thing shall serve for a pretence. 2. How they disdain to learn of him, or to receive instruction from him: Dost thou teach us? A mighty emphasis must be laid here upon thou and us. “What! wilt thou, a silly sorry fellow, ignorant and illiterate, that hast not seen the light of the sun a day to an end, a beggar by the way-side, of the very dregs and refuse of the town, wilt thou pretend to teach us, that are the sages of the law and grandees of the church, that sit in Moses’s chair and are masters in Israel?” Note, Proud men scorn to be taught, especially by their inferiors, whereas we should never think ourselves too old, nor too wise, nor too good, to learn. Those that have much wealth would have more; and why not those that have much knowledge? And those are to be valued by whom we may improve in learning. What a poor excuse was this for the Pharisees’ infidelity, that it would be a disparagement to them to be instructed, and informed, and convinced, by such a silly fellow as this!
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
They bring him ( ). Vivid dramatic present active of . These neighbours bring him.
To the Pharisees ( ). The accepted professional teachers who posed as knowing everything. The scribes were usually Pharisees.
Him that aforetime was blind ( ). Simply, “the once blind man.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “They brought to the Pharisees him,” agousin auton pros tous Pharisaious) “They lead him then to the Pharisees,” a popular band of religious Jews that had repeatedly sought occasion to kill Jesus, Mat 12:14; Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18; Joh 7:1; Joh 7:19-20; Joh 7:25; Joh 8:37; Joh 8:40; Mar 11:18; Mar 14:55. It was an authoritative group of Pharisees, who had power to exclude one from the rights and privileges of the synagogue, Joh 9:22.
2) “That aforetime was blind.” (ton pote tuphlon) “The one who had at one time been blind,” until he met Jesus, as well as former beggar, Joh 9:1; Joh 9:8-9. But now he could see, Joh 9:10; Joh 9:15; Joh 9:25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
13. They bring to the Pharisees. The following narrative shows that wicked men are so far from profiting by the works of God, that, the more they are urged by their power, so much the more are they constrained to pour out the venom which dwells within their breasts. The restoration of sight to the blind man ought undoubtedly to have softened even hearts of stone; or, at least, the Pharisees ought to have been struck with the novelty and greatness of the miracle, so as to remain in doubt for a short time, until they inquired if it were a divine work; but their hatred of Christ drives them to such stupidity, that they instantly condemn what they are told that he has done.
The Evangelist mentions the Pharisees; not that other sects were favorable to Christ, but because this sect was more zealous than the rest in maintaining the present condition. Hypocrisy is always proud and cruel. Being swelled with a false opinion of their holiness, they were chiefly wounded by the doctrine of the Gospel, which condemned all their counterfeit righteousnesses; and above all, they fought for their power and kingdom, under the pretense of endeavoring to maintain the Law.
When the Evangelist says that the multitude brought the blind man to the Pharisees, it is difficult to determine with what disposition or with what intention they did so. Scarcely an individual among them could then be ignorant of the inveterate hostility of the Pharisees to Christ; and therefore it is possible that many flatterers, in order to obtain their favor, purposely attempted to conceal the glory of the miracle. Yet I think it is probable that the greater part of the people, suspending their judgment, as usually happens, determined to refer to the arbitration and decision of those who held the government. But wilfully shutting their eyes, while the sun is shining, they bring darkness on themselves to obscure its light. It is a foolish superstition of the common people that, under the pretense of honoring God, they adore the wicked tyrants of the Church, and despise God himself, both in his word and in his works, or, at least, do not deign to look at him.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES
Joh. 9:13. They brought.Better They bring.
Joh. 9:14. Now it was a Sabbath on the day that Jesus made the clay, etc.It was most likely a festival Sabbath.
Joh. 9:15. The Pharisees.In the lesser Sanhedrin, or Synagogue Councils.
Joh. 9:16. This man is not of God a division among them.The prophecy that was uttered at His presentation in the temple was being fulfilled (Luk. 2:34). The Light was separating the righteous from the unrighteous (Joh. 7:43, Joh. 10:19).
Joh. 9:22. The Jews had agreed, etc.The Sanhedrin had not likely come openly to this agreement. They would have found opposition in their own ranks. A party of the leading sect had done so, however (Act. 23:20). Put out of the synagogue.Publicly excommunicated from participation in all religious privileges for a time, or for life.
Joh. 9:24. Give glory to God.Many think that these words are simply a call to the man to abjure his supposed former error, in having called Christ a prophet, although He had broken the rabbinical Sabbath law (see Jos. 7:19). But it surely means also (since they could not deny the fact of the miracle), Give glory to God for the cure of thy blindness.
Joh. 9:27. And ye did not hearken would ye also become His disciples?Indignant irony at the crooked method of these Pharisees, who sought to turn truth to error, echoes in these words.
Joh. 9:28. Thou art the disciple of that man, etc.They implicitly accused him of disloyalty to the law.
Joh. 9:31. Heareth not sinners, etc.I.e. men who are hardened and impenitentwicked men, such as you accuse this prophet of being. A worshipper.I.e. a devout, pious man ().
Joh. 9:33. Of God.The mighty work done by Him proves He is not a wicked man; it proves more, viz. that He is of God.
Joh. 9:34. Cast him out.There were three degrees of excommunication. The first excluded the person under the ban for a short period from religious privileges. The second extended for a longer period, and was much more severe in that it debarred the person banned even from social intercourse for the time. The third was almost a virtual cutting off from Israel of the person excommunicated. Perhaps the meaning here is simply that they thrust the man violently out of the place of assembly. Those who were trying him might not have full power to excommunicate. Born in sins.These men held the idea repudiated by our Lord (Joh. 9:3).
Joh. 9:35. When He found him.Jesus had a greater work to perform on him than even the cure of his blindness, and therefore He sought him. Son of God.Some MSS. read Son of man (Tischendorf, Ed. 8, etc.); and this to a devout Jew would mean the Messiah, the King of the eternal kingdom (Dan. 7:13).
Joh. 9:38. Worshipped ().This word does not mean reverence merely, but worship due to God (Joh. 12:20, etc.).
Joh. 9:39. For judgment, etc.Not to execute judgment (), but judgment (), a judicial decision, would follow from His very presence among men. The Light must reveal (Joh. 3:17-20). This world.In which there is much darkness, much evil and sin (Gal. 1:4).
Joh. 9:40. Some of the Pharisees, etc.Probably some who still believed on Him (Joh. 8:30); but no doubt also others who, it may be, kept a watch on Christ and His actions. They were not conscious of their spiritual blindness, and thus were not driven to rely on Him who is the light of men.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Joh. 9:13-41
The progress of faith and the descent of unbelief.A mighty miracle had been wrought. The blind mans neighbours, and many who had before known him as blind, were astonished at the event. But the more minute their inquiries, the more fully was the greatness of the miracle established. The man gave a brief but complete account of what had occurred (notice the circumstantiality of the account; he had not seen how the clay was preparedJoh. 9:11). But here also the hatred of Christs enemies indirectly made itself felt, even in their absence. They had agreed on a line of action which would deter men from openly allying themselves with Christ (Joh. 9:22). Fear of this, and perhaps a wish to ingratiate themselves with the powerful class of the Pharisees, made the mans neighbours, etc., bring him before a sort of religious judicial courta lesser Sanhedrincomposed apparently chiefly of Pharisees (Joh. 9:18). In place of a judicial inquiry those unjust counsellors sought only by persuasion and threatening to set aside the truth. But their evil design proved abortive. They brought only confusion on themselves and greater glory to Christ. In this narrative we see
I. The progress of faith.
1. The blind man came seeing, after having washed in Siloam. What a wonderful evening that was for him, when first on that long-sealed vision the gentle light of the setting sun and gathering twilight revealed the world in its visible wonder and beauty, the human face divine, etc., and when as night descended the wonders of the celestial sphere, in all the brilliance of an Eastern night, first met his gaze, etc. So much was there indeed to attract his attention, that next day probably, when questioned as to the manner in which he had received his sight, he simply gave the facts, telling what the man called Jesus had done and said. Whilst full of gratitude for what had been done, he had not yet given thought as to the source of this mans power.
2. But the question was soon to be pressed on him for an answer. Taken before the council of the Pharisees and questioned by them, he answered them apparently with some curtness, perhaps desiring to avoid a conflict with this powerful sect. He was no doubt aware of their threat (Joh. 9:22), and also of the fact that the miracle, having been wrought on the Sabbath day, would further excite their enmity. This incontestable evidence had weight with the more honest and open-minded section of the council. The others, however, even though the voice of truth must have spoken to their consciences, clothed themselves in the triple brass of their tradition. But this division among them, and the further question asked, led the man another step upward on the stairway of faith. He is a prophet. Could He be less? for were not wondrous works the mark of a prophet? was that not, indeed, what Nicodemus, one of the Sanhedrin, had openly declared Christ to be (Joh. 7:51-52)?
3. Thus the light which they imagined had been suppressed (Joh. 8:59) burst out on them with even greater brilliancy. Baffled, yet unreconciled to the truth, they sought to prove the man an impostor or a liar, and proceeded to cross-question his parents concerning him. His parents in their answer left no doubt as to his identity, or the fact that their son had been born blind; but in regard to the manner in which their son was healed, they referred their questioners to the man himself, probably bearing in mind the threat of the rulers. With the man who had been born blind they tried another method (Joh. 9:24). The fact of the miracle could not be denied: let the glory be given to God, and Christ denied any genuine participation in the wonder, on the supposition that He was a sinner. But their wicked attempt only led to the man ascending another step toward complete faith in Christ. His scornful utterance on their further cross-examination, Will ye also be His disciples? his trenchant repudiation of their attempt to make out Jesus to be a sinner, and his clear affirmation, If this man were not of God, etc. (Joh. 9:33), show the man rising rapidly toward a true conception of Christs nature and office.
4. And now the rage of Christs enemies knew no bounds. We seem to hear the shriek of anger in their closing words as they carried out their threat in this case and excommunicated the man (Joh. 9:34, but see p. 261). But as persecution never really hinders, but ever helps to forward truth, so the rage of our Lords enemies against him led this poor man nearer to that spiritual enlightenment toward which he had been progressing. When the Lord heard what had happened He sought out His persecuted disciple, who was now passing through an experience which all His followers would speedily pass through (Joh. 16:2), and gladly aided him up the last step to faith and spiritual enlightenment. In reply to Jesus question, Dost thou believe? etc. (Joh. 9:35), he had answered, Who is He, Lord? etc. (Joh. 9:36). He had already implicit faith in Jesus word. And when Jesus in His reply first gently reminded him of the miracle that had been wrought on him, Thou hast both seen Him, i.e. with eyes enlightened by Him, etc., the spiritual darkness passed away from the mans soul, and from the summit of faith he saw salvation (Joh. 9:38). Earth with all its beauty was now lost sight of comparatively in the light of that new spiritual vision which the soul had attained to, and to which a new world of spiritual beauty and eternal glory had been opened. The blind had indeed been made to see (Joh. 9:39). In this history there is further seen
II. The downward progress of unbelief.
1. The spirit of unbelief is essentially dogmatic and persecuting. The enemies of Jesus had made up their minds, and no amount of evidence of the truth would convince them. This is brought out in their determination to anathematise whoever should be openly favourable to the claims of Jesus. So now unbelief is dogmatic still. It will accept no proof, no evidence, for the truth of the faith. It has agreed to regard supernatural religion as an exploded idea.
2. The next step the Pharisees took was to attempt to weaken the credibility of the chief witness of the great miracle here recordedto endeavour to show that the subject of the miracle was, in short, a liar. So unbelief still seeks to discredit the witnesses of the gospel, to resolve their writings into mythical histories, and to class their writers as romancers or forgers.
3. The next step of the Pharisees was virtually to admit the fact of the miracle, as all their attempts to throw discredit on it only made it more evident; but to call upon the man on whom it was wrought to deny to its immediate Author any real participation in itindeed, by acknowledging Him as an especial sinner and transgressor (Joh. 9:14; Joh. 9:16; Joh. 9:24), to declare that He could have had no part in it. So to-day there are many who cannot help acknowledging the beauty, the moral power, and the wonderfully elevating force in the gospel; but they would have men think that this is so not because the author of the gospel is the power of God. They would have them believe that it is all the result of a natural evolution of the human mind. The insincerity of the Pharisees is typical of a certain insincerity of modern unbelief.
4. These baffled Jews, unable to overturn the truth, used the weapon of excommunication. So the leaders of unbelief have their own engine of petty persecution. Refusing themselves to investigate candidly into the origin and progress of the faith, they shut themselves within their charmed circle, excluding therefrom all pertaining to the Christian faith, and stigmatising those who still adhere to it as unscientific. But their anathemas will no more prevail finally against the truth than those of the Jews of Jerusalem.
Joh. 9:25. One thing I know.Scepticism affected to disbelieve in the reality of this miracle, jealousy sought to argue that it was due to other agencies, persecution set itself to awe the man into contradictions. But through all he persisted in his artless and eloquent tale, with its unanswerable conclusion, If this man were not of God, He could do nothing. Mark
I. The change.
1. It was a radical change. It is impossible to conceive of two more opposite or different states than that of the blind and the seeing. And there is an analogy between this and spiritual blindness. There is the same glorious change from darkness unto light. Do we know it?
2. It was a divinely effected change. No power but a divine power could have wrought this miracle in the man born blind. So, too, with our spiritual blindness. Reason, education, civilisation may all seek to alleviate mans condition; they cannot effect this change. Not by might, not by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.
3. The change was wrought by means. Christ on this occasion chose to employ them. Thus too, in giving sight to those spiritually blind, God does not supersede the use of means, but He vitalises those means, which must be used, just as the blind man had to go and wash in Siloam. With the divine word the human effort must be conjoined.
II. In this miracle there was a testimony given.
1. The miracle was so noised abroad that the Pharisees felt constrained to inquire into the circumstances of it. Every effort was made to bring the man who was healed to contradict himself, but in vain. He fell back on the evidence of his own senses. One thing I know, was his testimony. So is it in the spiritual life. Religion is a real change. And when God has changed a mans spiritual life, that man should be able to say, One thing I know, etc. Does the Spirit of God testify with our spirit?
2. This testimony is consistent and clear. The man who had been born blind was bold and fearless, telling his tale with outspoken frankness. And so, too, are the witnesses of Gods grace equally sincere. There are differences of temperament. Some are reserved and silent. But all on whom this change has passed will in some way testify to its reality.
3. This testimony is consistent under all circumstances, under every pressure. When, indeed, have these faithful witnesses not spoken? Not only in the fellowship of the saints, but amid the darkest scenes of life. Reproach may bow down the spirit, but it does not silence the testimony. Affliction may shrivel up the strength, but the Spirit-life waxes into comelier and more heavenly beauty. Even death pauses till the dying can shout, O death, where is thy sting? Yes, the testimony is consistentall circumstances have witnessed it. In every scene alike, whether of human gladness or of human woe, the cry of the faithful has gone upward to the skies: One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. How is it with us, brethren?Abridged from Rev. Robert Russell.
Joh. 9:29 ff. God spake unto Moses.
I. In affirming, as they did, We know that God spake to Moses, etc., the Pharisees virtually condemned themselves, for
1. In acknowledging the authority of Moses, his authority as a lawgiver commissioned by God, the Pharisees showed themselves capable of being acted on by that sort of proof which a messenger from heaven might be expected to adduce. Therefore
2. They were bound, on every principle of justice, to admit the authority of any alleged teacher from heaven who should give as strong proof and of the same kind as Moses. On what ground was Moses acknowledged to have spoken in the name of Jehovah? The supernatural powers he displayed, etc.the plagues, etc.
3. But if all this was received as an undoubted proof of Moses claim as a prophet heaven-sent, much more the beneficent miracles of Jesus should have been held to prove His divine mission. So we can offer the Jew precisely the same reasons for believing in Christ from the New Testament as those on which he founds the authority of Moses in the Old Testament.
II. And if the Pharisees were self-condemned, it becomes us to ask ourselves whether we stand in the same casewhether there may not be in our actions and creeds sufficient to convict us, at the judgment, were we to die without interest in the mercies of the Gospel.
1. There may be many who are furnishing against themselves such a testimony as that which was furnished by the Phariseesa testimony as to a power of attending to what they neglect, believing what they disbelieve, or doing what they omit, which will supersede all necessity for any other evidence when they shall stand to receive sentence from the Judge of quick and dead.
2. An illustration of this is the forethought men apply to earthly things. But that which urges us to provide against to-morrow ought to urge us to provide against eternity. Religion requires nothing but that we be, in respect of another world, what we continually show ourselves to be in respect of the present world.
3. Again, the first and great commandment is, Thou shalt love, etc.; and there is no commandment commonly thought more impracticable. It will be urged by some that God is too highly exalted and removed by the majesty and spirituality of His nature to be the object of love on the part of men. We will love our earthly benefactors and friends, but, as for God, He is too great and too glorious for such an affection. Well, if men are so constituted that goodness is with them an object of love, then, as God is emphatically good, He ought surely to excite this love. Men are attached to others by kindness, love, etc. Surely, then, they ought to be attracted to God, whose lovingkindness, etc., is over all His works. It will not do to say: The creature is seen, the Creator unseen. It is not needful that our benefactor should be visible to awaken our gratitude and love. Let a man, in affliction and poverty, be told of some exalted and admirable person who seems to have gathered every virtue into his character; let him know this person only by the description of his qualities, and let him receive from him continued proofs of his benevolence, the supply of every want, the solace of every care, the shield from every danger: will it be impossible for him to love this unknown and invisible benefactor? You know better. No; the domestic charities, feelings of children toward parents, etc., all testify that we are capable of loving God.Abridged from Henry Melvill.
Joh. 9:39-41. The coming of the Light of the world results in a discrimination or judgment.In these words our Lord made a general observation on the whole course of the events that had just occurred. Jesus came not to judge but to save the world, and His words here are no contradiction of that truth; they are simply a statement of what did actually occur on Christs advent. It is not an act of judgment which He performs, but a declaration of the consequences of His coming to various classes of men. But even when considered in this light the passage is a very terrible one. It means that He who came to bring salvation and blessing to men must, through the individual sin and folly of many, become to them a stone of stumbling, etc. (1Pe. 2:8). Nor could the result be unexpected. How many make Gods gifts, through prodigal and sinful misuse or neglect of them, to become a curse to them in place of a blessing? And it was foreseen that such would be the result to many, of the sending of Gods best gift (Luk. 2:34-35). The result of Christs coming as the light of the world is
I. That they which see not might see.
1. These are those who are longing for the light, but on whom it has not yet risen. Those whose knowledge of divine things is limited and meagre, who, in the words of the Jews, know not the law (Joh. 7:49), but who are conscious of this ignorance and desire enlightenmentthese are the babes in Christ to whom the Saviour once and again so lovingly refers (Mat. 11:25; Luk. 10:21). Their hearts and minds are open to the truth, and when it comes they eagerly embrace it.
2. No doubt, also, our Lord refers to those who were in the profoundest spiritual darkness, the other sheep not of that fold which He was to bring in (Joh. 10:16). On those who sat in this great darkness the light was to shine, and to be seen by them with joy (Isa. 9:2; Isa. 60:2, etc.).
3. Such were those who were blind, and who rejoiced when Jesus came with healing, illuminating powermen like the subject of the great miracle which had been wrought, like the Samaritans who gladly believed His word Joh. 4:41), etc.
II. That they which see might be made blind.
1. Those who see are those who prided themselves on their knowledge of the law (Joh. 9:29), and who thought themselves infallible interpreters of and guides to truth.
2. But their knowledge was no true knowledge. It was founded on misconceptions of the revelation committed to them. They did not seek to understand its divine, spiritual meaning, but rather sought to make it bear testimony to their own conceptions, and to minister to their own vanity and national pride.
3. From having been long immured in those darkened caverns of tradition, their sight had become defective and rudimentary (like that of the fishes in the waters in great caverns), unable to bear the light, or quite insensible to it. So were those men blind leaders of the blind (Rom. 2:17-20). In their proud self-sufficiency they lacked all desire for knowledge of the truth. They accounted themselves so wise and prudent, so infallible, that when the Truth appeared, because He did not conform to their preconceptions of what He should be, they rejected Him blindly and stubbornly.
4. They should have known. A true spiritual life and a spiritual desire to know the divine oracles committed to them would have led them, like a Simeon, an Anna (Luk. 2:25-38), a Nathanael (Joh. 1:49), at once to rejoice in the light when it appeared. But they did not, would not. It was knowingly, in face of the divine revelation committed to them, that they rejected Jesus. They hardened their hearts, and thus committed that sin against the Holy Ghost which abideth. The former class were blind because the eye of knowledge yet waited for the revealing light, and the eye of faith was thus dim. Their sin was thus not the result of wilful rejection, and hope remained for them. Thus the coming of Christ was a revelation of menthe thoughts of many hearts were revealed.
III. The proclamation of the gospel leads to the same result now.
1. Now, as of old, Christs truth is hid from the wise and prudent, those who presumptuously imagine that their knowledge and wisdom are the measure of the universe. Are they not around usthe men of scientific and philosophical learning, who (like the Sadducees of the council) rely on their own reason and the results of human investigation alone, and who will accept no revelation immediately given by the Eternal, who deny that such a revelation is possible? Founding on their own fancied infallibility, they reject the truth of Christ, forgetting that they, and all men, can see but a little way into the secrets of universal nature even, not to say the Infinite. Even their own boasted knowledge, wonderful as it really is, should lead them to pause in humility, and to examine reverently and earnestly what professes to be a divine revelation. Surely even more truly rational is the position of those who, like the pious Isaac Newton, acknowledge the limits of their knowledge, and confess themselves to be like children sporting on the shore of the infinite ocean of truth,that the universe is the centre of a circle whose circumference is infinity (Pascal). These are the men whose hearts are open to truth, the babes to whom the Father will reveal eternal realities (Mat. 11:25).
2. There are those also who, like the Pharisees, shut themselves up in the cells of traditional systems, claiming infallibility; so that when the truth comes to them it must judge; they must choose between it and their traditions. And how many resolutely shut their eyes to the light, whilst at the same time refusing to permit others access to the word of truth, by which they might be led to the light! They take away the key of knowledge, etc., and thus choose the darkness, become wilfully blind. But those whose hearts are open to the word, like Luther and the leaders of the Reformation, burst through the walls of the traditional system. They go, following the divine command, untrammelled by supposed infallible systems, and search in the divine word itself, earnestly desiring the truth, and they come seeing.
3. Again, there is a large class who, like many of the Jewish rulers, are actuated by actual enmity to and hatred of the gospel. Had the people accepted and followed Christ, the personal pride and ambition of those rulers would have been thwartedindeed, were being thwarted. So with many now. Christ and His gospel stand athwart the path of their pleasure, gain, ambitions, etc. Thou art an hard man, etc. (Mat. 25:24); and they refuse to serve, and the end is darkness (Mat. 25:30). This is the Heir; come, let us kill Him, etc., and the end is destruction (Luk. 20:14-16). It is to those who realise that earth and the things of earth are not all, who wisely resolve to subordinate and make subservient the things of time to those of eternity, that light shall rise in obscurity, and their darkness be as the noonday (Isa. 58:8-10).
Joh. 9:39-41. Spiritual blindness.In this miracle this judgment here spoken of was effected, when Christ said: For judgment am I come, etc. For just as Moses of old divided Egypt in such a fashion that in all the parts of it inhabited by the Egyptians there was darkness, whilst the Israelites rejoiced in day; thus at the same time when Jesus Christ enlightened the man born blind He blinded the Pharisees, who were the wise and the prudent of the Jewish people. This is a judgment which is daily renewed among us. In this discourse the terrible aspect will be dwelt upon, that some are stricken with an inner blindness, which keeps the soul in the most gross and fatal errors. There is nothing on which Scripture pronounces with such variety of terms as on spiritual blindness. Three kinds of it are here distinguisheda blindness which is itself sin, a blindness which is the cause of sin, and a blindness caused by sin.
I. A blindness which is sin, i.e. which is itself criminal. Why? Because it is voluntary. Such is the blindness of libertines and so-called atheists, who in themselves, and by the way of nature, have light more than sufficient for some knowledge of God, and who in consequence only cease to believe in Him because they will not subject themselves to Him. By continually sinning against Him they come to forget Him and then to deny Him. Such is the blindness of the unfaithful, of sensual and voluptuous men, who in order to be able to enjoy their infamous pleasures, without having their minds disturbed, do not desire to hear eternal truth spoken of. Such is the blindness of certain minds full of vanity, who by the reason of their pride cannot endure the truth, as it humiliates them. Not only will they not see their faults, however gross, but desire others to applaud even their weaknesses. Such is the blindness of many called Christians, who do not desire to be enlightened in certain directions, regarding certain doubts, certain troubles of conscience, because they well know that they are not disposed to accomplish the duties which this enlightenment would press upon them. Noluit intelligere ut bene ageret. There is no more pernicious sin than this, nor one more inimical to salvation.
1. Because this voluntary blindness excludes the beginning of all gracethe light divineand thus arrests the progress of every grace.
2. Because it not only excludes the light, but takes away all desire for the light.
3. Because it makes our will opposed to the divine will, and leads us to flee from the light. God, it is true, can enlighten us; but when we flee from the light, when we hate it, we put serious obstacles in the way of salvation. Let us pray like David, Open mine eyes. Lord, enlighten me.
II. Blindness as a cause of sin.Thus the Jews crucified Christ, because they knew Him not. This species of blindness is still common. How often do men offend against justice, charity, etc., without knowing it, and because they did not know that these acts are sinful! But does this excuse men before God? If it were so, why did David pray, Cleanse Thou me from secret faults? I assert that this ignorance is not always a legitimate excusethat it never is in the case of the majority of Christians; for in the age in which we live there is more than sufficient light to render this excuse invalid. If I had not come and spoken unto them, etc. (Joh. 15:22), said Jesus to the Jews. Apply this personally. How many have preached to you and instructed you? They have Moses and the prophets, said Abraham to Dives. So God says to men now. When, therefore, men who are Christians sin through ignorance their sin is inexcusable. Then you have servants, children. Their ignorance will not form an excuse for them; but still less will you be excused. It is your duty to endeavour that they should be able to instruct themselves, etc.
III. Blindness as the effect of sin.When the making of men blind enters into the order of the divine decrees, it must be believed that it is an effect of sin, because it is one of the penalties God attaches to sin: in the words of Isaiah He said, Shut their eyes (Isa. 6:10). If we take the Scripture terms in all their strictness and literality, one would conclude that God effected this blindness by a positive action. But according to their real meaning their signification is, as St. Augustine says, that if God makes us blind it is by way of privation, by withdrawing the light. But, as Augustine adds, God never absolutely deprives men of the light of His grace and the power of choice. He leaves men grace sufficient at least to lead them to seek the way of salvationto pray, if not to act. This species of blindness is the most terrible punishment God can inflict. It is purely evil, without any leaven of good. After such considerations St. Augustine concludes, Do you say that God does not even in this life punish sinful men and libertines? If God has not brought this severe judgment on some of you, it is because He has extended His mercy toward you. But who knoweth whether He will longer delay? Who would not tremble at the thought that there is a sin, perhaps, which God has marked as the limit of His forbearance, of His efficacious and victorious grace? What is this sin? I know not. But let me for neglect get nothing, O God, to avert this great evil.Abridged from Bourdaloue.
Joh. 9:13-41. The gospel of the man born blind.Jesus Christ healed this blind man; but the Pharisees, who sought to depreciate the works of the Son of God, disputed the reality of the miracle. The man who was born blind nevertheless maintained the fact of the miracle, and boldly bore witness to it. From the history we understand:
I. Into what blindness our self-interest is capable of leading us, and does lead us daily, as it led the Pharisees. This passion of self-interest blinded the Pharisees
1. As to the person of Jesus Christ.As He was opposed to the Pharisees, and His influence gave them umbrage, that was sufficient to lower Him in their estimation. They declared He was a sinner, and in spite of all that could be said they believed it or would believe it. Such is the malignity of the spirit of this world. What is it that ordinarily blinds men in their opinions of others and makes them prejudiced? Their selfish interests. If a man is on our side, his devotion to our interests renders him so far as we are concerned a man of worth. But let him be opposed to us; he is then, according to us, one of the most unworthy of men. Justice withdraws when once self-interest prevails. It is because of this that we have a right to challenge a judge or witness in law, if he is proved to be swayed by some special interest in the case to be adjudicated on.
2. As to the miracles of Christ.However glorious was the miracle wrought on the man born blind the Pharisees would not acknowledge it; and when finally obliged to admit the fact, they denied the working of it to Christ. They denied it without reason, I say, and in opposition to reason, because they thought it was their interest to deny it. This spirit produces the same effects to-day, or the same errors, not only in regard to the miracles of the Son of God, but generally
(1) in regard to the most incontestable facts of religion. A libertine will not believe so that his disordered and corrupt life may not be self-condemned.
(2) In regard to the most natural and best-established duties. A man may reason very justly concerning some matter proposed to him, and give a stringent decision, so long as his own interests are not concerned. But let these be touched, and he will soon modify the stringency of his judgment, and find reasons for doubting what seemed before incontestable.
(3) In regard to the most evident facts relating to justice and charity toward our neighbour. Why do we prepossess ourselves with a thousand false suppositions, which we seek to prove true, supported by judgments that are rash and futile often, but because our self-interests occupy our whole heart, and leave to the mind no room for the exercise of reflection and reason? Consider
II. How the testimony of the man healed of his blindness teaches us to dissipate the darkness of error by the light of faith, and to confound falsehood by a holy confession of the truth.The testimony of this man has four qualities:
1. It was a sincere testimony.His sincerity touched on navet, and it was this that disconcerted the Pharisees. They questioned Him narrowly. But because the truth never contradicts itself, and is ever the same, they could not embarrass the man or cause him to contradict himself. What could they do or say to elude the force of a testimony so simple and faithful?
2. It was a noble testimony.In vain did the Pharisees threaten this poor man. They managed to intimidate his parents. But he feared nothing, and maintained his position. This showed a generosity and nobleness which was humiliating to those proud men. But it also condemns much more the weakness of many Christians who are persuaded of the truth, and are slack and timid in their defence of it.
3. It was a convincing testimony.It is worthy of admiration, this stand of a poor man, who, without study or preparation, so reasoned as to shut the mouths of those doctors of the law. The wisest theologians could not have given better answers than those he gave to all they brought up against him. Such is the victory of faith, and so has she triumphed, and will triumph, over the wisdom of the world.
4. It was a steadfast testimony.He constantly persisted in glorifying his Benefactor, and in publishing abroad the blessing that had been bestowed on him. The Pharisees cast him out of the synagogue with every mark of ignominy; but he became only the more attached to the Saviour. He worshipped Him as God, and embraced His law. If he had been perhaps less firm, as many are, he might have belied by a shameful inconstancy what he had just affirmed in his noble confession. Many of us yield in face of the least difficulty, and permit our faith to become disturbed. Novelty draws us away, and seduces us by the vain glory with which she decks herself. Let us hold fast the faith of Christ Jesus.Abridged from Bourdaloue.
HOMILETIC NOTES
The healing of the man born blind; or, Jesus, the light of the world.I. Jesus is the light of the world.
1. This truth is perceived in the disclosure He makes regarding the designs of God in the enigmatical and inexplicable concerns of this life (Joh. 9:1-3).
2. As the light of the world He has (like the sun) a set time for His earthly activity (Joh. 9:4).
3. He declares Himself to be the light of the world (Joh. 9:5).
4. And shows Himself to be so through the healing of the man born blind (Joh. 9:6-7).
II. The evidence adduced in proof of this truth (Joh. 9:8-23).
1. Such evidence is necessary, for many are doubtful as to the power of Christ (Joh. 9:8-9).
2. This testimony should be given by those who have experienced the power and grace of Jesus in themselves (Joh. 9:9): I am (Joh. 9:33).
3. Such must be prepared to give such testimony before everyone (Joh. 9:13-15).
4. And should courageously witness to the truth, not caring how their testimony is received (Joh. 9:16-17).
5. Many allow themselves to be deterred through the fear of man from giving an open testimony (Joh. 9:18-23).
III. This testimony must be borne in face of persecution (Joh. 9:24-34).
1. The world, which is inimical to Jesus, seeks false witnesses against Him (Joh. 9:24).
2. This sinful world hates and reviles the steadfast and constant friends of the truth (Joh. 9:25-28).
3. They wantonly refuse to recognise the divine mission of Jesus (Joh. 9:29).
4. They scorn the most powerful and irrefutable witnesses to the honour of Jesus and the holiness of His person (Joh. 9:30-33).
5. They persecute with passionate anger the witnesses of the truth (Joh. 9:34).
IV. The merciful Saviour receives to Himself those who suffer for His sake (Joh. 9:35-38).
1. He seeks those cast out by the world (Joh. 9:35).
2. He inquires into their convictions (Joh. 9:36).
3. He reveals Himself in His dignity to them as the Son of God (Joh. 9:37).
4. He thus works in them joyful faith in His divine mission (Joh. 9:38).
V. The manner in which fellowship with Jesus, the light of the world, is attained (Joh. 9:39-41).
1. Not all attain to this fellowship (Joh. 9:39).
2. Humble confession of their own blindness in regard to divine things prepares men for this fellowship (Joh. 9:40-41).
3. Vain-glorious conceit in their own wisdom shuts men out from this fellowship. (Joh. 9:41). But now ye say, etc.F. G. Lisco.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Joh. 9:30. The careless are inexcusable.This indication of forethought shall suffice to condemn the ungodly. Why did you live in carelessness as to religion? Why did death come upon you, and find you unprepared? Is it that you could not look forward? Is it that you were shut up, through the nature of your constitution, within things that were, and could not so extricate yourselves as to give heed to things to come? Nay, let the counting-house, the shop, the academy, the study, all witness upon this. These are beings who were always on the wing. They sprang toward coming days, and sought to make them their own. To-day was, with them, but a seed-time for tomorrow. The one toiled for fame, and made his appeal to posterity; another aimed at high station, though there stood many between himself and advancement. This man rose early, and late took rest, that he might add to wealth which he could not exhaust; and that, in order to ennoble his children. In one way or another, they all lived for the future; and, therefore, might they all have lived for eternity. Ay, there is not one of us whom his care for the things of this life will not suffice to condemn for his carelessness as to the things of the next life. There is not one who ever enters into a speculation, who attempts to lay up anything in store, who takes the least pains to secure himself against a possible evil or procure for himself a possible good, who does not thereby show that he might, if he would, give attention to the concerns of the soul, and that, therefore, can he have none but himself to blame if he enter another world with no provision made for the trial to be undergone. The parallel is most accurate, as we would again and again show, between any such case and that of the Pharisees. The careless mancareless, we mean, as to his soulwill be condemned by his own carefulness; the improvident man, by his own providence; the man who laid up no treasures in heaven, by the treasures which he laid up on earth; the man who sought not the honour which cometh from God, by his having sought the honour which cometh from the world. The great demand of Christianity is, that we live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world, mortifying evil affections, denying ourselves in things which a corrupt nature solicits, but reconciled to present sacrifices and endurances by the prospect of future and everlasting happiness. Does this seem hard? is it too much to ask of us to crucify the flesh, in hope of recompense in some yet distant state? Nay, do not men continually submit to inconvenience, to toil, to pain, for the sake of some advantage which they hope hereafter to reap? Will not a man abandon his home and his family, and go forth to face all varieties of peril and effort, sustained by the hope of accumulating wealth which will enable him to return and spend in quiet ease the close of his days?Henry Melvill.
Joh. 9:31. A clear proof of our divine sonship.Let us take heed, then, how we continue to treasure up witness against ourselves. Examine carefully what you are proved capable of doing as to God and eternity, by what you are in the habit of doing as to man and time. This is the gist of our discourse: that in things commonly believed and performed there is conclusive testimony that men might, if they would, have believed the Bible and performed Gods will. God may go, as it were, into our households; and there, not by the blemishes which He finds, but by the beauties; not by the stormy passions which often agitate the inmates, but by those lovely affections which give a sacredness to our firesidesby the respect which parents feel and expect as their due, by the meek submissiveness of children, by their devoted attention to those who gave them life, by their obedience to their wishes, by their regard to their feelingsmay He proceed to make good His charges against us, if it shall be found, that having drawn from Him our being, been sustained by His bounty, and protected by His power, we have yielded Him no homage and given Him no love. All then who perish must perish self-condemned, their actions attesting that it was in their power to have obtained salvation, and that, therefore, it was their guilt to have missed it.Idem.
Joh. 9:39. Praise to Jesus for spiritual sight.Praise be to Thee, Lord Jesus, that Thou hast brought us to the knowledge of our spiritual blindness. We are born blind, and know not what we shall do for our salvation. But we would fain be saved, and so we plead with Thee this Thy precious word, that Thou hast come that those who see not might see. Oh, let Thy face be turned toward us also. But what do we ask? Hast Thou not opened the eyes of us Thy Christian people in the washing of regeneration? (Tit. 3:5). Yes, Lord, but Thou knowest also that the devil, the world, the flesh, have again obscured our eyes, and that daily the sand of sin streams in on them. Therefore enable us through faith at all times to turn to the Siloam prepared for us, so that the imperishable power of this gracious spring of life may renew us, and that our whole course of life may be continued within the limits of this sacred experience: I went and washed and came seeing. Let Thy grace indeed be known by us from experience, and may we hold it fast whatever worldly wisdom, pride of reason, and human authority may say against it. Let us not be weary in acknowledging what Thou hast done for us, and never deny Thee before a generation at enmity with Thee and Thine. If men cast us out, take Thou us up, O Lord. Make those seasons in which we suffer for Thy names sake seasons of quickening for our inner man, so that we may grow in Thy grace and knowledge. May the comfort of Thy seeking love be precious to us; and when we have been found through Thy shepherd faithfulness, let us ever hear and know Thy voice as the voice of the Son of God who speaks to us: It is He that talketh with thee. Yes, in Thy word would we see Thee; strengthen our faith in Thy word, so that we may keep it unto the end and let us then see Thy face eternally.Besser, Bibelst.
Joh. 9:40. We see the boast of present-day scepticism.Just as the Jews felt in their relation to the Gentiles, and as among the Jews the Pharisees felt and comported themselves toward those among their people who were ignorantself-satisfied, self-sufficient, haughtyso are there not such in our own generation? We see, so speak many cultivated people nowadays; we see the ark of the Church pierced by our scepticism, riddled by our negationsthe Church is no longer a proud ship, she is now only a sinking wreck. We see, they affirm further in their selfrighteousness; there is in reality no sinweaknesses and imperfections, but no guilt which requires forgiveness, no corruption that needs redemption. We see, and we behold Christ deposed from His throne, brought down to the common level, divested of the miraculous, as a Jewish rabbi, an enthusiast, the founder of a religion, and at all events a brave martyr; the days are gone past, for ever gone, in which as the Redeemer He shall wash men clean from their guilty stains, as the Prince of life shall lead them through the dark valley of death, and shall plead for them as their surety at the last judgment. We, we seewe see the coherence of nature as a huge machine: the mechanism of this machine has stifled the breathing of prayer; the regular succession of events has set aside the miraculous; the telescope has dissolved the other world. Like a foundling exposed on the sandbank of the Present, man must just accommodate himself to his poverty as well as he can, must put a good face on a bad business. We are all the more proud to rest on our own resourcesunaided to fight the battle of existence. How then? Would not the Lord be justified in replying thus to those people, culture-proud, cultivated, and arrogant: Now you say, We see, therefore your sin remainethit abideth unknown, unacknowledged, unconfessed, unforgiven?Kgel, Predigt.
Joh. 9:41. The doom of indecision.The undecided come under the judgment of Him who said, He who is not with Me is against Me. He is called the Amen. Yes, and shall He love a theologian to whom yea and nay are alike? He is called the Bread of Life, who for our sakes came down into this wilderness; and shall He leave unpunished those who adopt the thankless tongue of the fault-finder, and say, That is common food. His kingdom opposes the kingdom of Satan as light opposes darkness, as holiness opposes impurity, as life opposes death. How then? Shall there be before His sight a position lying midway between right and wrong, sweet and sour? Freedom and the kingdom of heaven will have no half-loyalty. The undecided Pilate crucified Christ. King Agrippa remained with arms crossed, an idle spectator, over against Paul in bonds. The vacillator does not take part in the scourging, but he permits it; he does not mock, but permits the mockery. The receiver stands on the same level as the thief. Participator in the act is to be participator in the punishment. First strabitic, then blind.Idem.
Joh. 9:41. The folly of indecision.How foolish, on every calculation, is indecisive behaviour! Would that they would take one side or the other, that they would either be servants of Christ in earnest, or renounce Him openly, and say that they have nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth and His salvation. Happy, indeed, would it be for the Church of Christ if all its false friends were to declare themselves its enemies: the gospel would then no more be reproached with the scandal of their evil lives, and the true believers would be drawn more closely to one another, and would feel the name of Christian to be a real tie of brotherhood. But how much more happy if any of those who know not the Son of God might be brought to learn who He is, and to believe and to worship Him in spirit and in truth? And, under God, there is no way so likely to draw them home as for those who do know Christ, and believe in Him and love Him, to increase their knowledge and love more and more, and to bring their lives to a more perfect conformity with His gospel. That in many things we offend all is a truth which the consciences of every one of us can abundantly confirm; but that our offences may daily become fewer and less flagrant should be at once our labour and our prayer. And for all who in sincerity of heart do thus strive to increase their faith and knowledge of their Saviour, His words to the blind man are a most comfortable prophecy of what He will one day say to them, that they have seen Him, and He has talked with them,on earth, by His word and Spirit; in heaven, by His presence revealed to them, when they shall see Him as He is.Dr. T. Arnold.
Joh. 9:41. Men must choose light or darkness.Through the whole of the New Testament runs an eitheror. Gods word is a two-edged sword; Christ is a Rock, on which men either raise themselves, or on which they are broken. The cross is either the power of God unto salvation, or weakness and foolishness to men. The gospel is either a savour of death unto death or of life unto life. The Alexandrian catechist of the fourth century, Didymus, who was blind from his fifth year, and who attained the age of ninety, once said to one who sought to console him, that he could not sorrow over the want of that eyesight which is common even to flies and mosquitoesthe Lord be praised he had been given such an eye as angels see with, with which God can be seen and His light received. How had that master of harmony Hndel, blind in his later years, sought to raise his hands in prayer in the aria composed by him in the oratorio of Samson:
Darkness aroundnor sun nor moon nor stars.
With what fervency did a Milton, when singing his Paradise Lost, pray for inner light! Send forth Thy light and Thy truth; let them lead me, etc. (Psalms 43); let Thy word be a light unto my feet; open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law. Let the eyes of my understanding be opened for a double purposethat I may realise my sinfulness, and recognise my Saviour, that Saviour who said, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. I am come, etc. In the grey dawn, of morning, in the falling night, I lift up mine hands and pray: Make me to see, make me blest, O Jesus! Away over the roses and lilies which summer bring forth, over the stubble, across which blows the cold breath of autumn, I cry, Make me to see, etc. Over biers that go under, over kingdoms that crash in ruin, over a new generation growing up, high over all I pray Him who was and is and is to come, Ever make me to see, ever bless me, O Jesus!Translated from Kgel, Predigt.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
THE BLIND MAN INVESTIGATED
Text 9:13-23
13
They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
14
Now it was the sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15
Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and I see.
16
Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them.
17
They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a prophet.
18
The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight,
19
and asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20
His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21
but how he now seeth, we know not; or who opened his eyes, we know not; ask him; he is of age; he shall speak for himself.
22
These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23
Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
Queries
a.
Why the disagreement among the Pharisees (Joh. 9:16)?
b.
Why did the Jews refuse to believe that the man had been healed until they questioned his parents?
c.
Were the mans parents really ignorant of who had opened their sons eyes?
Paraphrase
Then they conducted the former blind man to the Pharisees (and it should be remembered that it was on the sabbath day that Jesus made clay and opened the mans eyes). The man was being asked again, now by the Pharisees, how he had received his sight. So he said to them, He put clay on my eyes and I washed, and now I am seeing. Some of the Pharisees were saying, This fellow is no man sent from God, for he is not keeping the sabbath. Others were saying, How is a sinner-man able to do such great signs? And there was disagreement among them. Therefore they spoke again to the man, saying, What do you say about him seeing that you have declared that he opened your eyes? The blind man replied, He is a prophet! However, the Jews would not believe the beggar that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the mans parents and questioned them, saying, Is this man your son, whom you are saying was born blind? How then is it that he now sees? The mans parents answered, We know that this is our son and we know that he was born blind. How he is now able to see, or who opened his eyes we do not know! Ask him; he is of age. He can speak for himself. His parents gave this answer because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jewish authorities had already agreed that anyone who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ should be excommunicated from the synagogue. And for this very reason his parents said, He is of age, ask him.
Summary
The Pharisees will not even believe that the man was formerly blind. His parents testify that he was born blind. But the mans parents will not testify as to who their sons Healer is, for fear of excommunication. One thing is certain to the Pharisees: Jesus of Nazareth cannot be a God-sent miracle worker for he violates their Sabbath traditions.
Comment
Who brought the former blind man before the Pharisees? We do not know. The best guess is that some of the helpers of the Pharisees were sent to find the beggar and bring him in for questioning. It is doubtful that any of the neighbors of the man would be so eager to involve him. The news of the miracle would certainly get back to the Pharisees rapidly for, as John says parenthetically, Jesus performed the miracle on the Sabbath! For Jesus to heal again on the Sabbath was like waving a red flag in the face of a herd of enraged bulls. (For a study of Jesus and controversy, see our Volume I, pages 214217.)
This seems to have been a formal investigation by the Pharisees, called for the specific purpose of questioning the man and passing judgment upon the miracle and the miracle-worker. It was the duty of the religious leaders to investigate all such incidents. They were charged with investigating the claims and doctrines of all who professed a message from God (Mat. 23:2; Joh. 1:19-24). For an excellent discussion of this matter see Hendriksens commentary on this section. It was also the duty and responsibility of the Pharisees to judge righteous judgment. These men, however, had already passed judgment on the miracle-worker, Jesus, before they investigated the miracle. They had already made up their minds that Jesus was a blasphemer. This investigation could only be a mockery of truth.
The beggar answered the first question simply and precisely. It is interesting to note that the beggar used the present tense when he said, I see. Instead of saying, I was made to see, he says, I am seeing. He wants to emphasize for the Pharisees that although they may never know how the miracle took place, they can be sure that it did take place!
The Pharisees, caring not one iota that a man had been delivered from the chains of darkness, are interested only in their sanctimonious Sabbath traditions. The real issue here, however, is not their Sabbath traditions, but finding some straw of an accusation with which to condemn Jesus of Nazareth and sentence Him to death.
Others of the Pharisees are less emotional. There stood the beggarformerly blind from birth but now seeing. Their problem was: How can a man that is an open sinner do such great signs? The word used for sinner is hamartolos, used in most places as an intensifier (cf. Luk. 7:37; Luk. 7:39; Luk. 13:2) and means an open sinner or flagrant sinner. Jesus claimed to work miracles greater than any other (cf. Joh. 15:24) and the beggar claims this miracle to be extraordinary (Joh. 9:32). There may have been a division in their thinking here, but it is quickly resolved and in united action they both condemn Jesus and excommunicate the beggar (Joh. 9:28-29; Joh. 9:34).
For the moment, however, the judges cannot agree among themselves. They hope they have frightened the beggar by hauling him before their august court. If he is frightened enough, perhaps he will say exactly what they want him to say about JesusHe is a profaner of the Law. But the beggar is far from frightened. He is indeed a man of courage and conviction. He answers, He is a prophet! The Pharisees had already expressed their judgment of Jesus (Sabbath breaker), but with the bravery of conviction the beggar confessed Jesus to be a prophet. What a contrast! Men who had studied the Law and the Prophets all their lives could not see that Jesus was sent from God, while a man blind from birthunable to have ever studied the Scripturescan readily see that Jesus must be a prophet sent from God. The real contrast is between those who would not see and one who would see; it is a matter of wanting to see! The Pharisees were also wanting the beggar to commit himself to an opinion concerning Jesus that they might use it against him later. If they cannot harm Jesus, they will harm the man He healed. The hate of the Jewish rulers for Jesus was so intense that they would go to any length to express it. Later they would seek to kill the resurrected Lazarus out of their hate for Jesus (cf. Joh. 12:9-11).
Although the Pharisees had the testimony of the man himself and, perhaps, the testimony of those who brought the beggar to them, they refused to accept the fact that the man had been blind and had been miraculously given his sight. That should have been enough evidence. But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and judge their reaction after more evidence has been presented.
The parents of the beggar are called before the investigating committee, In answer to the question as to whether he is their son they answer affirmatively. In answer to the question concerning his congenital blindness, again the answer is, Yes, he was born blind. Now the facts are incontrovertible. That a very notable miracle has been wrought is undeniable. Now if the Pharisees will not believe it is not a matter of insufficient evidence but of willful rejection of the truth!
The parents could have used some of the courage and conviction of their son. They were evidently not telling the truth when they said, . . . who opened his eyes, we know not . . . for Joh. 9:22 implies that they did know. But, as Hendriksen points out, before we criticize them too severely we must consider what we would have done in similar circumstances. To be excommunicated for the Jew was even more fearful than modern-day excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. The excommunicated Jew was literally cut off from all social, religious, economic, or fraternal associations. His family counted him as dead (cf. Joh. 12:42; Joh. 16:2). The excommunicated Jew was to become to his countrymen as a heathen (cf. Mat. 18:17).
The parents, fearing these terrible consequences, determined before facing the Pharisees that they would never confess Jesus as the Messiah. It should also be clear that the Pharisees did not call this investigation to determine the truth. They had already agreed among themselves and made a public declaration that anyone openly confessing Jesus as the Messiah would be excommunicated. This inquiry was made in hopes that they might get some evidence to make what they had already determined to dokill Jesusappear less evil.
There is a very expressive phrase in the Greek rendering of Joh. 9:23. The English Therefore of Joh. 9:23 is a translation of the Greek, dia touto, which would best be translated Because of this, or For this very reason . . . There was no doubt in Johns mind that the parents reluctance to confess Jesus as the one who had healed their son was for the very reason that they feared excommunication.
Quiz
1.
Is this investigation by the Pharisees a seeking after the truth? Why?
2.
Why ask the beggar his opinion of Jesus?
3.
Why did the Jews not believe that the beggar had formerly been blind?
4.
After the answers of the parents, what must the Pharisees admit?
5.
What was involved in being put out of the synagogue?
6.
What was the real reason for the refusal of the parents to tell who had healed their son?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(13) They brought to the Pharisees.More exactly, They bring . . . The present tense speaks of what they did, as the writer thinks of it in actual occurrence. Their question in the previous verse, and the fact stated in the following verse, seem to indicate that they did this in the spirit of opposition to our Lord. They may have been influenced also, as the parents were, by the agreement of the Jews to excommunicate any who should confess Christ (Joh. 9:22). By the term, to the Pharisees, we are not to understand the Sanhedrin, which did not meet on the Sabbath, and which is not spoken of by St. John as simply the Pharisees, but a body of the leading Pharisees who were the most bitter foes of Christ, and who seem at this time to have formed practically a permanent committee of the Sanhedrin, always ready to take counsel or action against Him. (Comp. Notes on Joh. 7:32; Joh. 7:45; Joh. 7:48.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The man’s first examination before the court, Joh 9:13-17.
That this was an authoritative body appears from their power to send for the different parties, (Joh 9:18; Joh 9:24,) and from their expelling from the synagogue, 34. It was probably the lesser Sanhedrim, called the Pharisees, as being mainly composed of that sect.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
13. They brought to the Pharisees We see no proof of hostility to Jesus ( attributed by some commentators) in their thus referring to the proper examiners so extraordinary a fact. The humble neighbours were perfectly willing that its author should be pronounced a prophet.
‘They bring to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind.’
The Pharisees were looked on by the people as their spiritual guides, so it was quite a natural act for them to bring the matter to their attention. They probably thought that they would get some good spiritual lessons from it, and hear their voice of approval. But they were to be disappointed.
The inquiry of the Pharisees:
v. 13. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
v. 14. And it was the Sabbath-day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.
v. 15. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
v. 16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This Man is not of God because He keepeth not the Sabbath-day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
v. 17. They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him that He hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
The matter was of such importance that the people deemed it their duty to bring the man to the rulers of the people, among whom the Pharisees were the most prominent. To these sticklers for external forms and observances the most important point was of course this, that the healing had been done on a Sabbath. The mixing of the clay, in their estimation, was the work of a mason, and the order to the man to go and wash himself an unnecessary piece of work. So the Pharisees promptly took the man and cross-questioned him as to how he had received his sight. The man’s testimony was not to be shaken. He gave them the same account which he had given the neighbors. And the hypocrites immediately pounced upon the fact that the healing had been done on the Sabbath; that was the charge against the Healer. Jesus had, as it seems, purposely performed the miracle on the Sabbath, in order to give offense to the Pharisees. He gave these malicious people, that refused to accept the truth, reasons to become ever more offended and thus to fulfill the measure of their transgressions. That is the terrible punishment of unbelief, the self-hardening of the heart. But some of the members of the Sanhedrin, whose spiritual insight had not been altogether lost, made the hesitating remark: How can a sinner do such signs? They felt that God would not permit an open transgressor of His holy Law to go unpunished, much less give to him such unusual powers to perform miracles. The result of the entire discussion was that there was a division in the council, they could not come to an agreement in their judgment of the case. For a digression, they asked the former blind man what he thought of his benefactor. He did not hesitate for a moment to confess Christ, whom he had never seen, as a great prophet sent by God, thus ascribing his healing to God. The enemies of Christ are always on the lookout for someway of discrediting the miracles of the Gospel, but they have no success; the Word of God stands too secure.
Joh 9:13 f. ] These belong still to the persons designated in Joh 9:8 . They act thus because the healing had taken place on the Sabbath (Joh 9:14 ), the violation of which they, in their servile dependence, believed it to be their duty not to conceal from the guardians of the law who ruled over the people. It does not, however, follow, from the fact that there were no sittings of the courts on the Sabbath, that the man was not brought on the day of the healing (so Lcke and several others suppose), but that by . is meant neither the Sanhedrim (Tholuck, Baeumlein), nor a synagogal court (Lcke, Lange), [49] of which, moreover, the text contains no notice (comp. Joh 7:45 , Joh 11:47 ). Especially must it be remembered that in John the Sanhedrim is never simply designated (not even Joh 7:47 ), but always . ., or (Joh 7:32 ) in the reverse order. The Pharisees as a corporate body are meant, and a number of them might easily have come together at one of their houses to form a kind of sitting.
.] A more precise definition of ; see Buttmann, Neut. Gr . p. 342 [E. T. p. 400].
Joh 9:14 assigns the reason why they bring him.
] the clay in question.
[49] Of such subordinate courts with twenty-three members there were two in Jerusalem. See Saalschtz, Mos. R. p. 601.
They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. (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 can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. (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, (18) But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. (19) And they asked them, saving, 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. (22) These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. (23) Therefore said his parents, He is of age, ask him. (24) Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise we know that this man is a sinner. (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. (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? (28) Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. (29) We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. (30) The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. (31) Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. (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. (34) They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? and they cast him out.
If there be a part of this interesting narrative that we may pass over, as less demanding attention, one, than another, it is this. To behold the wretched delusion of those awful characters, the Pharisees! Their natural enmity to Christ. Their implacable malice to his doctrine. Their determined resolution to oppose, and deafen if possible, the voice of this Charmer, charm he never so wisely! Psa 58:5 . But, Reader! let you, and I, learn from hence the unspeakable mercy of distinguishing grace! Who is it that maketh us to differ from another? And what have we, or what are we, that we did not receive? 1Co 4:7 .
Their bitterness in excommunicating the blind man, shews to what a desperate state they were arrived. Whether this was the milder act of excommunication, called Niddui, which extended but to thirty days separation; or whether the more severe, called Cherem, which was a total separation forever from the congregation of Israel, is not said. But, Reader! how sweetly may we apply the words of the Lord, which he used upon another occasion, to this and all the other cruelties of men. And I say unto you my friends, (said Jesus,) be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear. Fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say unto you, fear him. Luk 12:4-5 .
But, Reader, it is high time to look at this miracle in another, and a far more endearing point of view, than the mercy shewn to the body, and see, what rich and blessed lessons there are taught in it, in relation to the soul. I remarked, at the opening of the Chapter, that according to my apprehension, while I behold God the Holy Ghost appointing a whole Chapter to this record of a single miracle of Christ, I am inclined to think, that it was intended, among other things, to minister to this great end; that by so beautiful an illustration, might be shewn, the Lord Jesus spiritually giving sight to the blind in soul, and opening the mind born in trespasses and sins, to the knowledge of himself, in grace here, and to glory hereafter.
And I cannot begin my observations on this ground, without remarking, that if it was the gracious design of God the Spirit, from this miracle of Jesus, to instruct the Church in this precious truth, nothing can be more exactly suited from every circumstance of it. Though the Church of Jesus hath from everlasting a grace-union with her glorious Head; hath a being in him, and a well-being, which nothing in her time-state can finally destroy: yet born as in every individual instance the whole Church is, in the Adam-nature of a fallen, sinful, and corrupt state; all are blind to all knowledge of God, or themselves. So that like this poor man in nature, such is the Church as to grace, alt blind from birth.
And as it was Jesus passing by and seeing him, which first led to the mercy he obtained, so is it in grace; there are no advances made by the blind sinner to the Lord, until the Lord hath passed by and bid him live. Eze 16:1-14 . John was taught by the Holy Ghost, thus to teach the Church: If we love him, it is because he first loved us. 1Jn 4:19 .
Moreover, the case is the same, with respect to the divine glory, in both instances. This man’s blindness of body, gave occasion for the works of God to be made manifest in him; so the blindness of soul, affords opportunity for God in Christ, to be magnified in the works of grace. The clay and the pool of Siloam, were merely instrumental, in the hand of Christ: so ordinances and means of grace are but mere channels of communication, from him to his people. And without him, as the clay would rather have contributed to obstruct sight than to give it; so ordinances unaccompanied with his blessing, tend more to increase spiritual blindness than remove it. We are (saith Paul,) unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that are saved, and in them that perish. 2Co 2:15-16 ; Rev 3:18 .
The conduct of the neighbors upon this occasion, in the surprize they expressed, at beholding one, so long known to them as blind, now suddenly blessed with sight; is not unsimilar to that wonder and astonishment the carnal world not unfrequently shew, when at any time some ungodly sinner hath his eyes spiritually opened, to the light of the divine life. The work itself is so great and altogether so divine, that God the Holy Ghost hath caused it to be celebrated in one of his songs of praise. When the Lord, turned again the captivity of Zion; then were we like to them that dream. Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing. Then said they among the heathen, the Lord hath done great things for them. The Lord hath done great things for us: whereof we are glad. Psa 126 .
One word more in relation to the poor man who stands forth in this scripture, and in the Lord’s Church so precious a monument of sovereign mercy. He was not conscious at the first, who his great benefactor was. Neither could he tell, how the Lord had accomplished the wonderful cure. He only knew, that he was once blind, and now had sight. Such is not unfrequently the case in respect to spiritual mercies. How little do we know of Jesus, when first he manifests himself to us otherwise than he doth to the world. And even after renewed love tokens of his favor, how backward we are, in apprehension. All the objects we at first behold in spiritual discernment, are but indistinct, like the sight to him, who saw man as trees walking. Mar 8:22-26 . But, Reader! it is blessed to be able to give the same sweet testimony as this man. Though you, or I, or any other child of God cannot exactly tell how or when or where, as to time place and method, the Lord was pleased to adopt to our effectual calling; still the day of small things is not to be despised, when we can truly say as he did: One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.
13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
Ver. 13. They bring him to the Pharisees ] Who should have been moved with the miracle to think the better of him that wrought it; and have better informed those that brought the man to them, with what mind soever. But they had conceived such an incurable prejudice, such a deadly hatred against Christ, that what he did they presently condemn, as George Duke of Saxony did Luther’s reformation, as the monks of Mentz did the reformation begun there by Hermanus their archbishop, professing that they would rather receive Mahometanism than submit to that new religion, as they called it; as Philip king of Spain would choose rather to have no subjects than Lutheran subjects; and out of a blind and bloody zeal, suffered his eldest son Charles to be murdered by the cruel Inquisition, because he seemed to favour the truth.
13. ] The neighbours appear to have brought him to the Pharisees , out of hostility to Jesus (see Joh 9:12 ): and Joh 9:14 alleges the reason of this: or perhaps from fear of the sentence alluded to in Joh 9:22 . The ‘ Pharisees ’ here may have been the court presiding over the synagogue, or one of the lesser local courts of Sanhedrim. Lcke inclines to think they were an assembly of the great Sanhedrim, whom John sometimes names .: see ch. Joh 7:47 ; Joh 11:46 : Meyer regards them as some formal section of the Pharisees, as a body: but were there such?
Joh 9:13-34 . The man is examined by the Pharisees, who eventually excommunicate him ,
Joh 9:13 . . “They,” some of the neighbours and others already mentioned, “bring him who had formerly been blind to the Pharisees,” not to the Sanhedrim, but to an informal but apparently authoritative (Joh 9:34 ) group of Pharisees, who were members of the court.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 9:13-17
13They brought to the Pharisees the man who was formerly blind. 14Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. 15Then the Pharisees also were asking him again how he received his sight. And he said to them, “He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see. 16Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them. 17So they said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
Joh 9:13 “they” This must refer to the neighbors.
“the Pharisees” The Jewish leaders go by two different terms in John. They are usually referred to as “the Jews” (cf. Joh 9:18; Joh 9:22). However, in this chapter they are called the Pharisees in Joh 9:13; Joh 9:15-16; Joh 9:40. See Special Topic at Joh 1:24.
Joh 9:14 “Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay” The Jewish leaders’ traditional rules (the Oral Traditions codified in the Talmud) took precedent over this person’s need (cf. Joh 5:9; Joh 9:16; Mat 23:24). It is almost as if Jesus acted on the Sabbath intentionally for the purpose of entering into a theological dialog with these leaders. See note at Joh 5:9.
Joh 9:16 The Pharisees might have been basing their judgement of Jesus on Deu 13:1-5.
“there was a division among them” Jesus always causes this (cf. Joh 6:52; Joh 7:43; Joh 10:19; Mat 10:34-39).
Joh 9:17 “He is a prophet” This chapter shows the development of this man’s faith (cf. Joh 9:36; Joh 9:38). For “Prophet” see Special Topic at Joh 4:19.
brought = bring.
to. Greek pros. App-104.
Pharisees. See App-120.
13.] The neighbours appear to have brought him to the Pharisees, out of hostility to Jesus (see Joh 9:12): and Joh 9:14 alleges the reason of this:-or perhaps from fear of the sentence alluded to in Joh 9:22. The Pharisees here may have been the court presiding over the synagogue, or one of the lesser local courts of Sanhedrim. Lcke inclines to think they were an assembly of the great Sanhedrim, whom John sometimes names .: see ch. Joh 7:47; Joh 11:46 : Meyer regards them as some formal section of the Pharisees, as a body: but were there such?
Joh 9:13. , to the Pharisees) as if to inquisitors.
Joh 9:13
Joh 9:13
They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.-The Pharisees were the most active of the sects of Judaism. They were the most learned and pretentious, and so the blind man was brought by the executive command to them for further explanation of the occurrence.
the Testimony of Personal Experience
Joh 9:13-25
The jealous Pharisees now set themselves to discredit the miracle and to throw suspicion upon the witness. But their hostility, prompted by jealousy and vindictiveness, forced the healed man to realize the moral majesty of Jesus. His eyes became opened to the true values of things, as well as to the world of nature. In a day he had grown far away from the parents, who were simple people, unaccustomed to the glare of publicity, and very much afraid of these religious magnates.
It is marvelous to note this man proving himself more than a match for his opponents, and answering them with a simplicity and a majesty that confounded them. Mat 10:19. He needed, however, a touch that no human wisdom could impart, and this was given by Christ, who always seeks those whom man casts out and those who dare to live up to the truth they know. Notice the steps: He is a prophet; He is not a sinner; He is from God; he worshiped Him. None come in contact with Christ without being blinded or enlightened. Our guilt is proportioned to our refusal of the light.
Joh 8:3-8, Joh 11:46, Joh 11:47, Joh 11:57, Joh 12:19, Joh 12:42
3
The text does not tell us why the man was brought to the Pharisees. We know, however, that they were the leading sect of the Jews, and were supposed to be interested in anything especially pertaining to miracles. The man said he was directed in his case by the one called Jesus, to go wash at the pool, with the result that he was made able to see. So it was logical that the case should be taken to these religious leaders since the very name Jesus brought up the subject for religious consideration.
They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
[They brought him to the Pharisees.] The Pharisees; in this evangelist, are generally to be understood the Sanhedrim; nor indeed do we find in St. John any mention of the Sadducees at all. Consult Joh 1:24; Joh 4:1; Joh 8:3; Joh 11:46; etc.
The Pharisees have such a sway amongst the people, that if they should say any thing against the king or high priest, they would be believed. And a little after,
“The Pharisees have given out many rules to the people from the traditions of the fathers which are not written in the laws of Moses: and for that very reason the Sadducees rejected them, saying, They ought to account nothing as law or obligatory but what is delivered by Moses; and what hath no other authority but tradition only ought not to be observed. And hence have arisen questions and mighty controversies; the Sadducees drawing after them the richer sort only; while the multitude followed and adhered to the Pharisees.”
Hence we may apprehend the reason why the whole Sanhedrim is sometimes comprehended under the name of the Pharisees; because the common people and the main body of that nation were wholly at the management of the Pharisees, governed by their decrees and laws. But there was once a Sanhedrim that consisted chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees, and what was done then? R. Eliezer Ben Zadok saith, There was a time when they burnt a priest’s daughter for whoredom, compassing her about with bundles of young twigs. But the answer is, There was not a Sanhedrim at that time that was well skilled. Rabh Joseph saith, “that Sanhedrim was made up of Sadducees.” It is worth our taking notice of this passage.
These verses show us how little the Jews of our Lord’s time understood the right use of the Sabbath day. We read that some of the Pharisees found fault because a blind man was miraculously healed on the Sabbath. They said, “This man is not of God, because He keepeth not the Sabbath day.” A good work had manifestly been done to a helpless fellow-creature. A heavy bodily infirmity had been removed. A mighty act of mercy had been performed. But the blind-hearted enemies of Christ could see no beauty in the act. They called it a breach of the Fourth Commandment!
These would-be wise men completely mistook the intention of the Sabbath. They did not see that it was “made for man,” and meant for the good of man’s body, mind, and soul. It was a day to be set apart from others, no doubt, and to be carefully sanctified and kept holy. But its sanctification was never intended to prevent works of necessity and acts of mercy. To heal a sick man was no breach of the Sabbath day. In finding fault with our Lord for so doing, the Jews only exposed their ignorance of their own law. They had forgotten that it is as great a sin to add to a commandment, as to take it away.
Here, as in other places, we must take care that we do not put a wrong meaning on our Lord’s conduct. We must not for a moment suppose that the Sabbath is no longer binding on Christians, and that they have nothing to do with the Fourth Commandment. This is a great mistake, and the root of great evil. Not one of the ten commandments has ever been repealed or put aside. Our Lord never meant the Sabbath to become a day of pleasure, or a day of business, or a day of traveling and idle dissipation. He meant it to be “kept holy” as long as the world stands. It is one thing to employ the Sabbath in works of mercy, in ministering to the sick, and doing good to the distressed. It is quite another thing to spend the day in visiting, feasting, and self-indulgence. Whatever men may please to say, the way in which we use the Sabbath a sure test of the state of our religion. By the Sabbath may be found out whether we love communion with God. By the Sabbath may be found out whether we are in tune for heaven. By the Sabbath, in short, the secrets of many hearts are revealed. There are only too many of whom we may say with sorrow, “These men are not of God, because they keep not the Sabbath day.”
These verses show us, secondly, the desperate lengths to which prejudice will sometimes carry wicked men. We read that the “Jews agreed that if any man did confess that Jesus was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” They were determined not to believe. They were resolved that no evidence should change their minds, and no proofs influence their will. They were like men who shut their eyes and tie a bandage over them, and refuse to have it untied. Just as in after times they stopped their ears when Stephen preached, and refused to listen when Paul made his defense, so they behaved at this period of our Lord’s ministry.
Of all states of mind into which unconverted men can fall, this is by far the most dangerous to the soul. So long as a person is candid, fair, and honest-minded, there is hope for him, however ignorant he may be. He may be much in the dark at present. But is he willing to follow the light, if set before him? He may be walking in the broad road with all his might. But is he ready to listen to any one who will show him a more excellent way? In a word, is he teachable, childlike, and unfettered by prejudice? If these questions can be answered satisfactorily, we never need despair about the man’s soul.
The state of mind we should always desire to possess, is that of the noble-minded Berans. When they first heard the Apostle Paul preach they listened with attention. They received the Word “with all readiness of mind.” They “searched the Scriptures,” and compared what they heard with God’s Word. “And therefore,” we are told, “many of them believed.” Happy are they that go and do likewise! (Act 17:11-12.)
These verses show us, lastly, that nothing convinces a man so thoroughly as his own senses and feelings. We read that the unbelieving Jews tried in vain to persuade the blind man whom Jesus healed, that nothing had been done for him. They only got from him one plain answer: “One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.” How the miracle had been worked, he did not pretend to explain. Whether the person who had healed him was a sinner, he did not profess to know. But that something had been done for him he stoutly maintained. He was not to be reasoned out of his senses. Whatever the Jews might think, there were two distinct facts of which he was conscious: “I was blind: now I see.”
There is no kind of evidence so satisfactory as this to the heart of a real Christian. His knowledge may be small. His faith may be feeble. His doctrinal views may be at present confused and indistinct. But if Christ has really wrought a work of grace in his heart by His Spirit, he feels within him something that you cannot overthrow. “I was dark, and now I have light. I was afraid of God, and now I love Him. I was fond of sin, and now I hate it. I was blind, and now I see.” Let us never rest till we know and feel within us some real work of the Holy Ghost. Let us not be content with the name and form of Christianity. Let us desire to have true experimental acquaintance with it. Feelings no doubt are deceitful, and are not everything in religion. But if we have no inward feelings about spiritual matters, it is a very bad sign. The hungry man eats, and feels strengthened; the thirsty man drinks, and feels refreshed. Surely the man who has within him the grace of God, ought to be able to say, “I feel its power.”
==================
Notes-
v13.-[They brought to the Pharisees…blind.] The prime movers in this matter, seem to have been the neighbors of the blind man. They thought that so marvelous an event as this sudden cure demanded investigation.
The “Pharisees” in this passage, if we may judge by the context, must have been the great council, or Sanhedrim, of the Jewish nation, the same body before whom our Lord made His defense, in the fifth chapter of this Gospel. At any rate, we can hardly imagine any other body at Jerusalem “excommunicating” a man. (See Joh 9:34.)
Whitby observes how wonderfully the providence of God ordered things, that the Pharisees should be put to silence and open shame by a poor blind man!
v14.-[And it was the Sabbath day, etc.] This seems specially mentioned by the Evangelist parenthetically for two reasons.
(a) It proved our Lord’s unvarying readiness to do works of mercy on the Sabbath Day.
(b) It explains the bitter enmity of the Jews against our Lord in this chapter. They regarded Him as a breaker of the Sabbath.
Assuming that there was no interval of time between the end of the last chapter and the beginning of this, it is remarkable how much our Lord did and said on this Sabbath day. From the beginning of the eighth chapter, down to the thirty-fifth verse of the ninth, the narrative at first sight seems to run on without a break. It certainly makes it rather doubtful whether there should not be a break or pause assumed at the end of the eighth chapter.
Burkitt remarks, that one object of our Lord in working so many miracles on the Sabbath, was “to instruct the Jews in the true doctrines and proper duties of the Sabbath, and to let them know that works of necessity and mercy are very consistent with the due sanctification of the Sabbath. It is hard to find any time wherein charity is unseasonable; for as it is the best of graces, so its works are fittest for the best of days.”
Whitby thinks that our Lord frequently did miracles on the Sabbath, to impress on believing Jews the folly of the superstitious observance of it, and to prevent the misery they would run into if they persisted in an extravagant scrupulosity about the Sabbath, when days of vengeance came on Jerusalem.
v15.-[Then again the Pharisees…sight.] The question asked of the healed man by the council of Pharisees, was precisely the same that had been asked by his neighbors: “Your eyes have been opened suddenly, though you were born blind: tell us how it was done.”
It is worthy of remark, that the Greek word which we render here and all through the chapter as “received sight,” means literally no more than “looked up,” or “saw again.” This of course could not be precisely true and correct in the case of this man, as he had never seen, or used his eyes at all, and could not therefore see a second time. But it is useful to notice how here and elsewhere in Scripture the Holy Ghost uses the language which is most familiar and easily understood, even when it is not precisely and scientifically correct. And it is what we all do every day. We talk of the sun “rising,” though we know well that strictly speaking it does not rise, and that what we see is the effect of the earth moving round the sun.
Barnes observes, “The proper question to have been asked, was whether he had in fact been cured, and not in what way. The question about a sinner’s conversion is, whether in fact it has been done, and not about the mode or manner in which it has been effected. Yet no small part of disputes among men are about the mode in which the Spirit renews the heart, and not about the fact that it is done.”
[He said unto them, etc.] The answer of the healed man is an honest, bold, plain repetition of the same story he had told already. The only difference is that he does not name “Jesus” here, but says “He” put clay, as if he knew his examiners would understand whom he meant. Or it may be that his mind was so full of his Benefactor that he omits to name Him, and takes for granted that all would know who He was.
The simple straightforward boldness of this man, standing before the most formidable court of the Jews, and telling out his story, is very noteworthy. It is, moreover, a complete statement of facts, and consequences. “He put clay: I washed: I see.”
v16.-[Therefore said some, etc.] This verse brings forward prominently the existence of two classes among the Pharisees. The one was the great majority, consisting of hundreds of bigoted enemies of our Lord, ready to catch at any pretext for injuring His reputation and damaging His character. They said, “This Man is not of God. He is a wicked man, because He keepeth not the Sabbath day. A Prophet sent from God would not have done any work on the Sabbath.”-This assertion, of course, was based on the false and groundless principle that works of mercy to the sick were a violation of the Fourth Commandment. According to Lightfoot, the Rabbins expressly forbid saliva to be applied to the eyelids on the Sabbath day.
The other class, consisting of a small minority, raised the grave question, “How could a man, not sent by God, a wicked man, work such an astonishing miracle as this? If He were not commissioned and enabled by God, He could not possibly give sight to the blind. Surely He must be from God.”-These must have been Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, and others. Their line of argument is precisely that of Nicodemus in the famous visit to our Lord by night, when he said, “No man can do these miracles except God be with him.” (Joh 3:2.)
Three times in John’s Gospel we find that expression, “There was a division among them.” (Here, and Joh 7:43, and Joh 10:19.)
The hesitating manner in which the better class of the council raise the question here, “How can a man,” etc., is strongly indicative of a timid minority, who felt that the stream of feeling was all against them. It strikingly resembles the question of Nicodemus (Joh 7:51), “Doth our law judge any man,” etc. One might almost think it was Nicodemus speaking here.
In large assemblies of men convened to consider ecclesiastical and religious questions, we may confidently assume that there are always some present whose hearts are right, and who are willing to support the truth, even though they sit in bad company, and are for the present silenced and overawed. Gamaliel’s conduct, in Act 5:34, is an illustration of this. There is no warrant for staying away from assemblies and councils merely because we happen to be in a minority.
Chrysostom remarks how “none of the assembly dared say what he wished openly, or in the way of assertion, but only in the way of doubt. One party wanted to kill our Lord, and the other to save Him. Neither spoke out.”
Bullinger observes, that “all divisions are not necessarily evil, nor all concord and unity necessarily good.”
v17.-[They say…blind man again.] This division among the members of the council had at least this good affect, that they found it necessary to go into the whole case more fully, and ask further questions. These very questions brought the reality of the miracle into fuller light than before.
[What sayest thou…opened eyes.] This question must evidently mean, “What dost thou think about this Person, who, thou sayest, has opened thine eyes? Whom dost thou believe Him to be, seeing that He has wrought this cure?” The question is an inquiry, not about the reality of the miracle, but about the Person who is said to have performed it. It looks, according to some, like an intention to entrap the poor man into saying something about Jesus for which they could condemn Him. On the other hand, Chrysostom, Ferus, and Toletus argue that those who made the inquiry of this text must have been the party which favored our Lord.
[He said…a prophet.] This expression was the beginning of faith in the healed man. It was a declaration of his own belief that the Person who had wrought such a great cure must be a Person specially raised by God to do great works, like Elijah or Elisha. We must not forget that in the present day we are apt to confine the word “prophet” to a man who foretells things to come. But the Bible use of the word is much wider. The “prophets” raised up in the Old Testament were by no means all foretellers of things to come. Preaching, warning, and miracle-working were the whole business of not a few. In this sense the man seems to have called our Lord “a Prophet.” It was for what He had done rather than for what He had said.
We should carefully note that the first idea about our Lord which the Jewish mind seemed ready to embrace, was that He was a “Prophet.” Thus the multitude which escorted Him into Jerusalem said, “This is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth” (Mat 21:11); and again, “The multitude took Him for a Prophet” (Mat 21:46); and again, “Others said it is a Prophet” (Mar 6:15); and again, “A great Prophet is risen up among us.” (Luk 7:16). Even the two disciples going to Emmaus were only positive on one point: that Jesus had been “a Prophet mighty in word and deed.” (Luk 24:19). But it was a higher step of faith to say that Jesus was “the Prophet” promised by Moses,-the Messiah. This the healed man did not yet say. As yet he only got so far as “a Prophet,” not “the Prophet.”
Chemnitius remarks on this poor man’s clear view of our Lord’s greatness, that “you will often find more solid theological piety among tailors and shoemakers than among cardinals, bishops, and abbots.”
Adam Clarke says it was “a Jewish maxim that a prophet might dispense with the observance of the Sabbath.” If the healed man referred to this, his answer was a silencing one, and put the Pharisees in a dilemma.
Lampe also remarks that many things were allowed to prophets sent by God on an extraordinary mission, even about the observance of the ceremonial law, as we see in the history of David and Elijah. This gives great weight to the man’s reply: “He is a Prophet.”
v18.-[But the Jews did not believe, etc.] Here, as elsewhere, we should mark the extraordinary unbelief of the Jewish people, and their obstinate determination to shut their eyes against light. It teaches the folly of supposing that mere evidence alone will ever make men Christians. It is the want of will to believe, and not the want of reasons for believing, that makes men infidels.
“The Jews” here, as in other places in John’s Gospel, mean the teachers of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, and specially the Pharisees.
The expression, “until they called,” deserves special notice. We should remark that it does not mean that “after they called the man’s parents, they believed,-that they were unbelieving up to the time that they called them, and then began to believe.” On the contrary, the context shows that even after they had called them they continued unbelieving. Parkhurst observes that it is a form of speaking, “signifying an interval, but not necessarily excluding the time following.” The expression throws light on Mat 1:25. That well-known text must not be pressed too far. It is no certain proof that Mary had other children after Jesus was born. Compare 1Sa 15:35; 2Sa 6:23; Job 27:5; Isa 22:14; Mat 5:26; Mat 18:34.
The word “called” probably implies the public call or summons of the man’s parents to appear before the council, just as witnesses are called aloud by name to appear in our courts of justice.
Gualter observes how close the resemblance was between the conduct of the Pharisees in this case, and that of the Romish Inquisition. The pertinacious, determined effort to condemn the innocent, and to deprive Christ of His glory, is painfully the same.
Besser quotes a saying of the infidel Voltaire: “If in the market of Paris, before the eyes of a thousand men and before my own eyes, a miracle should be performed, I would much rather disbelieve the two thousand eyes and my own two, than believe it!”
v19.-[They asked them, etc.] The enemies of our Lord over-reached themselves by their summoning the parents of the healed man. They brought publicly forward the two best possible witnesses as to the fact of the man’s identity, as to the fact that he was born blind, and as to the fact that he now had his sight. So true is the saying, “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1Co 3:19.)
Chrysostom thinks that the expression, “whom ye say,” insinuated that they supposed the parents to be impostors, and that “they were acting deceitfully, and plotting on behalf of Christ,” by spreading a report that their son was born blind.
The language of the verse seems to show that the healed man and his parents were at first confronted, and that the Pharisees pointed to him and asked, “Is this your son?”
v20.-[His parents answered, etc.] The father and mother of the blind man made a plain statement of facts, that could not be contradicted. They placed it beyond a doubt that the man now standing before the Sanhedrim was one who, from the best possible evidence, they knew had been born blind. The fact of having a blind child is one about which no parent could be mistaken.
v21.-[But by what means…who hath opened…we know not.] These words of the healed man’s parents were probably the simple truth. The time was so short since the cure was wrought, that they might well be ignorant of the manner of it. Hastily summoned before the Sanhedrim, they might well have had no opportunity of conversing with their son, and as yet may have known nothing of the miracle.
[He is of age, etc.] These words show the determination of the parents to have nothing more to do with their son’s case than they could possibly help. They evidently regarded the council with the same undefined dread with which men at one time regarded the Inquisition in Spain.
The word “age” is the same Greek word that in Mat 6:27 is translated “stature.” It is highly probable that in that text it would have been better rendered “age,” as here.
The words “he,” “him,” and “himself” in this clause are all emphatic, and all might be rendered “himself.”
A man was reckoned “of age” by the Jews when he was thirty.
v22.-[These words spake…feared…Jews.] This sentence must refer to the latter part of the preceding verse. Fear of the leading Jews in the council of Pharisees made the parents refer their inquirers to their son. Four times in John’s Gospel we have special mention made of the “fear of the Jews.” Here, and Joh 7:13; Joh 12:42; and Joh 19:38.
[The Jews had agreed, etc.] This is a striking example of the extreme littleness of unbelief, and the lengths to which hatred of Christ will go. To resolve on such a decision as this shows a settled determination not to be convinced.
The punishment of being “put out of the synagogue,” was a heavy one to the Jew. It was equivalent to being cut off from all communion with other Jews, and tantamount to excommunication.
Those only who do anything for evangelizing the Jews now, can form any adequate idea of the trials which conversion to Christianity entails on them, and the dread in which they stand of being cut off from Israel.
Trench says, “We must not understand that the Sanhedrim had formally declared Jesus to be an impostor and a false Christ, but only that so long as the truth or falsehood of His claim to be the Messiah was not clear, and they, the great tribunal, had not given a decision, none were to anticipate that decision, and the penalty of premature confession was to be excommunicated.”
v23.-[Therefore said, etc.] It was the fear of running the slightest risk of excommunication, or being even suspected of favoring the Healer of their son, that made the parents refer all inquiries to him, and refuse to offer any opinion about the means of his cure, whatever they may have felt.
v24.-[Then again…called…blind.] This was a second summons into court. Very possibly the healed man had been carefully removed out of court, while his parents were being examined. But when nothing could be got out of them, there was no alternative but to submit him to a second process of cross-examination and intimidation.
[And said…Give God…praise, etc.] This sentence admits of two interpretations.
(a) Some, as Calvin, Chemnitius, Gualter, Ecolampadius, Beza, Piscator, Diodati, Aretius, Ferus, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Rollock, Alford, and Trench, regard it as a solemn form of adjuration, and think it parallel to Joshua’s words to Achan (Jos 7:19): “You stand in God’s presence: give glory to Him by speaking the truth.” This, however, makes the clause that follows rather unmeaning, and renders it necessary to supply a good deal to fill up the sense.
(b) Others, as Chrysostom, Brentius, Musculus, Pellican, Vatablus, and Barradius, regard it as specially referring to the cure which had been performed. “Give God the honor and glory of your healing. He must have wrought the cure, and not this man who anointed your eyes with clay. He could not have wrought this cure, because he is a Sabbath-breaker, and therefore a sinner. A sinner like him could not have healed you.” I rather prefer this view.
Gualter and Musculus point out the odious affectation of zeal for God’s glory which characterizes the conduct of many wicked persons in every age. Even the Spanish Inquisition professed a zeal for God’s glory.
This “we” here is emphatical in the Greek: “We, who are learned men, and ought to know best.”
v25.-[He answered…Whether…sinner…know not, etc.] The healed man’s answer is a very simple, and yet very striking one. He tells his inquirers that the question whether Jesus is a sinner, is one he knows nothing about. But he does know the fact, that he himself was blind up to that very day, and that now he can see. He carefully avoids at present saying a word about the character of his Healer. The one point he sticks to is the reality of the miracle. He must believe his own senses. His senses told him that he was cured.
The expression in every age has been regarded as a happy illustration of a true Christian’s experience of the work of grace in his heart. There may be much about it that is mysterious and inexplicable to him, and of which he knows nothing. But the result of the Holy Ghost’s work he does know and feel. There is a change somewhere. He sees what he did not see before. He feels what he did not feel before. Of that he is quite certain. There is a common and true saying among true Christians of the lower orders: “You may silence me, and beat me out of what I know: but you cannot beat me out of what I feel.”
The English translation of the last clause rather misses the brevity and force of the Greek. It would be more literally rendered, “Being blind, now I see.”
Joh 9:13. They bring to the Pharisees him that once was blind. They bring him to the Pharisees as the especial guardians of the religious institutions of Israel. It is not at all likely that the man was brought before any formal court or assembly, but only before leading men amongst the Pharisees, who would at all times be ready to examine into such a charge as is implied in the next clause. The less formal and judicial their action was, the better does it illustrate the conflict of Jesus with the spirit of Judaism.
Observe here, 1. How the Jews, who should have been full of silent wonder, and inclined to believed in Jesus Christ, so omnipotent an agent, are prejudiced against him, and bring the late blind man before the Pharisees, our Saviour’s professed enemies,
Observe, 2. The time which our Saviour chose for working this cure, it was on the sabbath? Many, if not most of Christ’s famous miracles, were wrought upon the sabbath day. Upon that day he cured the withered hand, Mat 12:13 Upon that day he cured the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, Joh 5:9 Upon that day he cured the blind man here. This Christ did probably, for two reasons:
1. To confirm his doctrine which he preached on that day, by miracles: therefore his preaching and working miracles went together.
2. To instruct the Jews (had they been willing to receive instruction) in the true doctrine, and proper duties of their sabbath; and to let them know, that works of necessity and mercy are very consistent with the due sanctification of the sabbath. It is hard to find out any time wherein charity is unseasonable; for as it is the best of graces, so the works of it are fittest for the best of days.
Joh 9:13-14. They brought to the Pharisees him that was blind They brought him to the sanhedrim, which consisted chiefly of Pharisees, at least the Pharisees in the sanhedrim were most active against Christ. Some think they who brought this man to the Pharisees did it with a good design, to show them that this Jesus, whom they persecuted, was not the person they represented him to be, but really a great and good man, and one that gave considerable proofs of a divine mission. But it rather seems they did it with an ill design, to exasperate the Pharisees more against Christ, which certainly was not necessary, for they were bitter enough already. One would have expected that such a miracle as Christ had just wrought upon the blind man, would have settled his reputation, and silenced and shamed all opposition; but it had the contrary effect: instead of being embraced as a prophet for it, he is prosecuted as a criminal. They brought him to the Pharisees that he might be examined by them, in order that if there was any fraud in the matter, they might discover and expose it. The ground which was pretended for giving this information was, that it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened the blind mans eyes. That which was good was never maligned but under the imputation of something evil. The profanation of the sabbath day is certainly a bad thing, and reflects much evil on a mans character; but the traditions of the Jews had made that to be a violation of the law of the sabbath which was far from being so. And frequently was this matter contested between Christ and the Jews, that it might be settled for the benefit of the church in all ages; and that the difference between superstition and religion in the observance of this, as well as of various others of the divine precepts, might be clearly ascertained, and it might be fully known that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day. The hypocritical rulers, however, of the Jews, pretended to take great offence at our Lords doing this act of mercy on that day. And Dr. Lightfoot has shown, that anointing the eyes on the sabbath day, with any kind of medicine, was forbidden to the Jews by the tradition of the elders.
Vv. 13-17. They lead the man who was formerly blind to the Pharisees. 14. Now it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened the eyes of this Man 1:15. In their turn, the Pharisees also asked him how he had recovered his sight. He said to them, He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see. 16. Thereupon, some of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How can a wicked man do such miracles? And they were divided among themselves. 17. Addressing the blind man again, they say to him, What dost thou say of him, in that he opened thine eyes? He answered, He is a prophet.
Those who push for an investigation are the ill-disposed questioners of Joh 9:10; Joh 9:12. The term the Pharisees cannot designate the entire Sanhedrim (comp. Joh 7:45). Had the Pharisaic party a certain organization perchance, and is the question here of its leaders? It is more natural to suppose that the question here is of the more violent ones. It was undoubtedly the day after the one on which the miracle had taken place.
SABBATICAL FANATICISM
Joh 9:13-16. They lead him to the Pharisees, who was at one time blind. And it was the Sabbath, on which day Jesus made the mortar and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees asked him how he looked up. And he said to them, He placed the mortar on my eyes, and I washed, and see. Then certain ones of the Pharisees continued to say, This man is not with God, because He does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How is a man who is a sinner able to perform such miracles? And there was a division among them. Then they again speak to the blind man, What do you say concerning Him, because He opened thine eyes? And he said, That He is a prophet. Here we see the silly and disgusting fanaticism of the fallen Jewish Church on the Sabbath question, actually running it in, to nonsense by their rigid adherence to the mere outward form. I meet a similar fanaticism in my travels, and much like these Jews, because they require you to keep the old Jewish Sabbath, and so magnify it out of all legitimate proportions that you may be a vile sinner, ignorant of God, and at the same time they are ready to hail you as a paragon saint if you agree with them on their Sabbath dogma. It is really the same old, silly, crazy fanaticism over which they persecuted Jesus all His life, and hounded Him to the cross. Then the Jews did not believe concerning him that he was blind, and looked up until they called the parents of him looking up, and asked them, saying, Is this your son, whom you say that he was born blind? How then does he now see? Then his parents responded and said, We know that he is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees, we know not; and who has opened his eyes, we know not. Ask him, he is of age; he shall speak for himself.
Joh 9:13-34. The Incompetence and Anger of the Authorities.In what follows the actors are described first as Pharisees, then as Jews, the larger party of whom the Pharisees are one section. In Joh 9:13-17 the attempt is made to get evidence out of the man to disprove the fact of the healing, which they refuse to believe, on the ground that a Sabbath-breaker could not do so great a work. They only elicit the mans view that Jesus is a prophet. Interest in the matter spreads. The Jews now question the mans parents, in the hopes of being able to deny his identity. They assert that it is undoubtedly their son, and for the rest they are cautious, knowing the hostility of the authorities to the claims of Jesus. So the man himself is called again, in the hope that his admissions may be made to point to demoniac agency, as the fact of the healing can no longer be denied. He is solemnly adjured to confess the truth, in the words Give glory-to God, used by Joshua to Achan (Jos 7:19; cf. also Ezr 10:11). Jesus is a sinner, and if He has really cured the mans blindness, it must have been with the help of the Prince of the Devils (cf. Mar 3:22). The mans answer is ironical. They are better authorities than he on the question of sinners, but the facts about his own eyes cannot be disputed. Further inquiry fails to elicit adverse evidence, so Jesus is denounced. God spake to Moses, but who and whence is He? The man, with growing boldness, expresses his surprise that the religious leaders of the nation should be so ignorant about one to whom God has given such power. Even the unlearned know that God does not favour sinners, but only His true worshippers. At this retort they degenerate into mere abuse and drive the man out, an action which the author probably interprets as excommunication, in the light of later history.
Joh 9:35-41. The True Significance of the Event.Jesus, hearing what has happened, seeks out, or chances to meet (cf. Joh 1:41, Joh 12:14), the man. To draw out his faith, He asks, Dost thou believe on the Son of man? (mg.). Apparently the title is not familiar to the man. Jesus answers by claiming the name*, at which the man confesses himself His disciple. In what follows the author expresses, in his own language, the Lords judgment on the incident. His coming. though not for the purpose of setting up the Messianic Judgment (cf. Joh 3:17-21) has resulted in judgment, in separation. The mans recovery of sight is typical of what is going on in the sphere of spiritual enlightenment. The eyes of the unlearned are opened to see. Those who claim the light of education, by refusing to obey, have blinded themselves. The Pharisees, who claim to see, cannot escape responsibility for their failure to do what they claim to have the power of doing. Their guilt remains (cf. Mat 11:25).
The Pharisees’ first interrogation 9:13-23
"John evidently wants us to see that the activity of Jesus as the Light of the world inevitably results in judgment on those whose natural habitat is darkness. They oppose the Light and they bring down condemnation on themselves accordingly." [Note: Morris, p. 429.]
The man’s neighbors probably brought him to their religious leaders to hear their opinion of what had happened to him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)