Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:16
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.
16. This man is not of God ] Comp. ‘He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils’ (Mat 9:34); like this, an argument of the Pharisees. The fact of a miracle is not denied: but it cannot have been done with God’s help; therefore it was done with the devil’s help.
How can a man that is a sinner, &c.] The less bigoted, men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, shew that the argument cuts both ways. They also start from the ‘sign,’ but arrive at an opposite conclusion. Comp. Nicodemus’ question, Joh 7:51. Perhaps Christ’s teaching about the Sabbath (Joh 5:17-23) has had some effect.
there was a division ] See on Joh 7:43.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This man is not of God – Is not sent by God, or cannot be a friend of God.
Because he keepeth not the sabbath-day – They assumed that their views of the Sabbath were correct, and by those views they judged others. It did not occur to them to inquire whether the interpretation which they put on the law might not be erroneous. Men often assume their own interpretations of the Scriptures to be infallible, and then judge and condemn all others by those interpretations.
A sinner – A deceiver; an impostor. They reasoned conclusively that God would not give the power of working such miracles to an impostor. The miracles were such as could not be denied, nor did even the enemies of Jesus attempt to deny them or to explain them away. They were open, public, frequent. And this shows that they could not deny their reality. Had it been possible, they would have done it; but the reality and power of those miracles had already made a party in favor of Jesus, even in the Sanhedrin Joh 7:50; Joh 12:42, and those opposed to them could not deny their reality. It may be added that the early opponents of Christianity never denied the reality of the miracles performed by the Savior and his apostles. Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian – as acute foes of the gospel as perhaps have ever lived – never call this in question. They attempted to show that it was by some evil influence, or to account for the miracles in some other way than by admitting the divine origin of the Christian religion, but about the facts they had no question. Were they not as well qualified to judge about those facts as men are now? They lived near the time; had every opportunity to examine the evidence; were skilful and talented disputants; and if they could have denied the reality of the miracles they would have done it. It is scarcely possible to conceive of more conclusive proof that those miracles were really performed, and, if so, then the Lord Jesus was sent by God.
A division – Greek, A schism. A separation into two parties.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 9:16
This Man is not of God because He keepeth not the Sabbath day.
It is interesting to note that one of the things which is specially forbidden in the Talmudic law of the Sabbath is the application of saliva to the eyes on that day. It was not permissible to anoint the eye itself with wine on the Sabbath; but one might, without guilt, wash his eyebrows in wine. In the case of saliva, however, it was not permissible to anoint even the outside of the eyes on the Sabbath. Jesus, in the mode of cure which He adopted, infringed one of the rules of the Talmud; probably with the very purpose of showing his contempt for the traditions of man by which the word of God was made void. (S. S. Times.)
Uncharitable judgments
There is no word or action but may be taken with two hands; either with the right hand of charitable construction, or the sinister interpretation of malice and suspicion; and all things do succeed as they are taken. To construe an evil action well is but a pleasing and profitable deceit to myself; but to misconstrue a good thing is a treble wrong to myself, the action, and the author (Rom 14:10). (Bp. Hall.)
There is an odious spirit in many men, who are better pleased to detect a fault than commend a virtue. (Lord Capel.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. This man is not of God] He can neither be the Messiah, nor a prophet, for he has broken the Sabbath. The Jews always argued falsely on this principle. The law relative to the observation of the Sabbath never forbade any work but what was of the servile and unnecessary kind. Works of necessity and mercy never could be forbidden on that day by him whose name is mercy, and whose nature is love; for the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; were it otherwise, the Sabbath would be rather a curse than a blessing.
How can a man that is a sinner, &c.] They knew very well that though magicians and impostors might do things apparently miraculous, yet nothing really good could be performed by them. We might have safely defied all the magicians in Egypt, who are said to have been so successful in imitating some of the miracles of Moses, to have opened the eyes of one blind man, or to have done any essential good either to the body or to the soul.
And there was a division among them.] , a schism, a decided difference of opinion, which caused a separation of the assembly.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They are so far from owning Christ as God, the eternal Son of God, and equal with his Father, that they will not allow him to have any relation to God, as one sent of him. It is true, the sanctification of the sabbath is so great a piece of religion, (the whole of which is sometimes expressed by it, Isa 56:4,6), that whoso maketh no conscience of it, may reasonably be concluded to have little or nothing of God in him: but we must rightly understand what the will of God is as to that sanctification, and not think that it lieth in a performance of some ritual services, while in the mean time we neglect moral duties. Christ had kept the sabbath, though not in that superstitious sense they thought it was to be observed, keeping to all their traditions about it. Others of the Pharisees had a something better opinion of Christ by reason of the miracles he had wrought; concluding, that if he had been so bad a man, as some of their brethren would have him taken to be. God would not have assisted him to the doing of such miraculous works as he had done. Thus the wise God made a division amongst the counsels of Christs enemies, his work being not yet finished, nor the time come when he was to die for the redemption of man.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16, 17. This man is not of God,c.(See on Joh 5:9 Joh5:16).
Others said, &c.suchas Nicodemus and Joseph.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Wherefore said some of the Pharisees,…. Or sanhedrim, for they were not all of one mind, as appears by what follows:
this man is not of God; meaning not the blind man, but Jesus; and their sense is, he is not sent of God, he does not come from him to do his will and work, nor does he seek his glory, nor is he on his side, or for his interest;
because he keepeth not the sabbath day: this they concluded from his making clay of spittle, and spreading it on the blind man’s eyes, which was contrary to the traditions of their elders: one of whose rules and canons is n, that
“it is forbidden to put fasting spittle even on the eyelid on a sabbath day.”
An eye salve, or a plaster for the eye, if it was put on for pleasure, was lawful, but not for healing o: but if it was put on, on the evening of the sabbath, it might continue on the sabbath day p.
Others said, how can a man that is a sinner, or a sabbath breaker,
do such miracles? as curing a man born blind, the like of which was never heard: those that reasoned after this manner may be supposed to be Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.
And there was a division among them; even in the sanhedrim, they could not agree about the character of the person that had done this miracle.
n T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 14. 4. & Avoda Zara, fol. 40. 4. & T. Bab. Sabbat, fol 108. 2. & Maimon. Hilchot Sabbat, c. 21. sect. 25. o Piske Tosephot Sabbat, art. 67. p T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 3, 4. Maimon. ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Because he keepeth not the sabbath ( ). This is reason (causal ) enough. He violates our rules about the Sabbath and therefore is a Sabbath-breaker as charged when here before (John 5:10; John 5:16; John 5:18). Hence he is not “from God” ( ). So some.
How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? ( ;). This was the argument of Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee and one of the Sanhedrin, long ago (3:2). It was a conundrum for the Pharisees. No wonder there was “a division” (, schism, split, from ) as in John 7:43; John 10:19.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Keepeth not the Sabbath. A Rabbinical precept declares, “It is forbidden to apply even fasting – spittle to the eyes on the Sabbath.” The words in ver. 14, made the clay, also mark a specific point of offense.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Therefore said some of the Pharisees,” (elegon ek ton Pharisaion tines) “Then some (certain ones) of the Pharisees said,” asserted with judgmental condemnation and scorn, though all did not agree on the issue, as in Joh 7:43.
2) “This man is not of God.” (ouk estin houtos para theou ho anthropos) “This one (Jesus) does not exist from God;”- Their self-righteous, ceremonialism, bigotry, and malice prevented them from recognizing that the miraculous cure rather proved that He was from God, Joh 2:10-11; Joh 3:1; Joh 20:30-31.
3) “Because he keepeth not the sabbath day.” (hoti to sabbaton ou terei) “Because he does not keep or guard the sabbath,” a thing they had formerly accused Him of, when He had healed the long (38 years) crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, Joh 5:9-18.
4) ”Others said,” (alloi de elegon) “Yet others questioned them,” the Pharisees, a thing that incited them even more, because they did not have a plausible answer. These had more honesty, Joh 9:31.
5) “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” (pos dunatai anthropos hamartolos toiauta semeia poiein) “How is such a lawless man (as you say he is) able to work such miracles repeatedly,” or to do such miracles, again and again, Joh 9:33; Joh 3:2; Joh 10:33.
6) “And there was a division among them.” (kai schisma hen en autois) “And there was a faction, schism, or breach among them.” They themselves just could not agree who and what kind of person Jesus was. And the world is still divided over who Jesus is, not through lack of testamentary evidence, but by reason of evil, covert, devious motives of evil men, Joh 3:19-21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. How can a man who is a sinner do these things? The word sinner is employed here, as in many other passages, to denote a person of immoral conduct and a despiser of God.
Why doth your Master eat with publicans and sinners? (Mar 2:16.)
That is, “Why doth your Master eat with men of ungodly and wicked lives, whose baseness is stamped with universal infamy?” For from the violation of the Sabbath the enemies of Christ inferred that he was a profane person, and destitute of all religion. Those who stand neutral and judge more candidly, on the other hand, conclude that he is a good and religious man, because God has endued him with remarkable power to work miracles. And yet the argument does not appear to be quite conclusive; for God sometimes permits false prophets to perform some miracles, and we know that Satan, like an ape, counterfeits the works of God so as to deceive the incautious.
Suetonius relates that, when Vespasian was in Alexandria, and was seated on his tribunal to dispense justice in the open court, a blind man requested him to anoint his eyes with spittle, and said that one Serapis (259) had pointed out to him that cure in a dream; that Vespasian, being unwilling to expose himself to contempt without any good reason, was slow and reluctant to comply; but that, when his friends urged him on all sides, he granted to the blind man what he asked, and that in this way his eyes were instantly opened. Who would reckon Vespasian among the servants of God on that account, or adorn him with the applause of piety? I reply, among good men and those who fear God, miracles are undoubted pledges of the power of the Holy Spirit; but it happens by a just judgment of God, that Satan deceives unbelievers by false miracles, as by enchantments. What I have just now quoted from Suetonius I do not reckon to be fabulous; but I rather ascribe it to the righteous vengeance of God, that the Jews, having despised so many and so illustrious miracles of Christ, were at length — as they deserved to be — sent away to Satan. For they ought to have profited in the pure worship of God by the miracles of Christ; they ought to have been confirmed by them in the doctrine of the Law, and to have risen to the Messiah himself, who was the end of the Law. And undoubtedly Christ, by giving sight to the blind man, had clearly proved that he was the Messiah.
They who refuse to acknowledge God in his works make this refusal, not only through indifference, but through malicious contempt; and do they not deserve that God should give them up to the delusions of Satan? Let us then remember that we ought to seek God with a sincere disposition of heart, that he may reveal himself to us by the power of his Spirit; and that we ought to lend our ears submissively to his word, that he may clearly point out true prophets by miracles that are not delusive. Thus shall we profit, as we ought to do, by miracles, and not be exposed to the frauds of Satan.
As to the men themselves, though they act commendably in this respect, that they speak with reverence about the miracles in which the power of God is displayed, still they do not bring forward a sufficiently strong argument, to prove that Christ ought to be reckoned a Prophet of God. And even the Evangelist did not intend that their answer should be regarded as an oracle. He only exhibits the wicked obstinacy of the enemies of Christ, who maliciously pick a quarrel with what they cannot but acknowledge to be the works of God, and, when warned, do not even attend to them for a short time.
And there was a division among them. A schism is a highly pernicious and destructive evil in the Church of God; and how comes it then that Christ sows the occasion of discord among the very teachers of the Church? The answer is easy. Christ had no other object in view than to bring all men to God the Father, by stretching out his hand to them. The division arose from the obstinate malice (260) of those who had no disposition to go to God. All who do not yield obedience to the truth of God, therefore, rend the Church by schism. Yet it is better that men should differ among themselves, than that they should all, with one consent, revolt from the true religion. (261) Wherefore, whenever differences arise, we ought always to consider their source.
(259) “ Un certain Serapis.”
(260) “ De la malice obstinee.”
(261) “ De la vraye religion.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.See Note on Joh. 9:14, and reference there. Here the truth of the miracle is granted, but it is urged that the power by which it is wrought cannot be of God, because it was exercised on the Sabbath day. The inference is, that it was done by the influence of the power of evil.
Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?This question is asked by the better party among the Pharisees, represented, as we know, by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimatha, and perhaps by Gamaliel. They see the inference implied in the earlier question, and appeal to the nature of the miracles wrought. Works of mercy, and love, and power, were not the product of a life of sin, or of communion with the powers of darkness. We find evidence of this better spirit among the Pharisees before, in the question of Nicodemus (Joh. 7:51). It has now extended to others. The teaching on the earlier work on the Sabbath (John 5) has led some among them, at least, to look with allowance upon this.
And there was a division among them.Comp. Note on Joh. 7:43.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Therefore That is, in consequence of the man’s unflinching statement. They had hoped that he would invalidate the miracle by his testimony; but, failing of this, they proceed to invalidate it against testimony, by reasonings of their own.
Others said One party said, He is a sinner, and this cannot be a miracle. The other party said, This is a miracle; so he cannot be a sinner. Had the deed truly been a sin, the reasoning of the first party would have been correct. The premise of the second party proved not only that Jesus was no sinner, but that he was a messenger of God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Some therefore of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for He does not keep the Sabbath’. But others said, ‘How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?’ And there was division among them.’
The result of their questioning was that many of them concluded that Jesus was not ‘of God’. They said confidently, ‘This man is not from God.’ (Contrast Nicodemus’ words, ‘we know that you are a teacher come from God’). And why did they do this? Because in their view He did not properly observe the Sabbath. It reveals that none are as blind as those who will not see. Here was this great miracle of healing by what could only be the power of God and yet they could assert that He was not from God merely because He had broken their interpretation of the Sabbath laws. What should, of course, have happened was that they recognised that perhaps their laws needed a slight revision. But the real reason for their judgment was in fact that they resented Jesus Who was taking glory away from them. That overrode all their common sense.
Strangely if the blind man had come to them before he had allowed Jesus to touch him he would have known that he could not be healed, and then this would not have happened. He would still have been in darkness and they would have been satisfied. What upset them was that a miracle had been wrought outside their own strict conditions. But clearly they could not blame God, and so illogically they blamed Jesus.
But not all were the same. Surely, said some, someone who could do such things must be pleasing to God? He could not be ‘a sinner’.
‘Who is a sinner.’ By a sinner they did not mean someone who committed grave sins but someone who did not keep himself in a state of acceptability to God through obedience to Moses as regulated by the teaching of the Rabbis.
This argument was conclusive and irrefutable by application of their own teaching. But that was a question the others would not face. They were so bound and blinded by their religious tradition and by their hatred of Jesus that they ignored the wonderful work of God and concentrated their mind on His failure to keep the Sabbath in accordance with their rules.
‘There was division among them.’ The division brings out that there were a number of Pharisees who were honestly prepared at least to consider the evidence. This was on top of those who had actually believed in Him.
So as they could obtain no unanimity they called the man in again. This would now be an official examination of the case. It was an official preliminary tribunal which would examine the case and determine any penalties.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘Therefore he then delivered Jesus to them to be crucified.’
The trial was over, the verdict had been given, and Pilate probably thought he would escape with a few days of bad conscience, while the Chief Priests no doubt believed that another problem was satisfactorily out of the way. Jesus was handed over to the crucifying party. They could now go back and finish off their Passover meal in peace, still ‘undefiled’, or so they foolishly believed. And the future would go on as normal.
But from the eternal point of view this was the moment when the Lamb was handed over to be sacrificed. He had been examined and found to be without fault. Now He would be offered up to God as a whole offering, as a Passover sacrifice, as a guilt offering (Isa 53:10).
‘To them’. To His accusers in principle, to the Roman soldiers in fact. Then He would be scourged again as a matter of course (Mar 15:15) before being led off to crucifixion. Everyone was satisfied. Things could now go on as normal.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 9:16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, On hearing the man’s account of the miracle, the Pharisees declared that the author of it must certainly be an impostor, because he had violated the sabbath in performing it. Nevertheless, others of them, more just and candid in their way of thinking, gave it as their opinion that no impostor could possibly do a miracle of that kind, because it was too great and beneficial, for any evil being to have either the inclination or the power to perform it. If Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both members of the sanhedrim, were now present, they would of course distinguish themselves on this occasion. Indeed, the observation seems perfectly in their manner. Gamaliel too must have been on their side, on the principles which he afterwards avowed. See Act 5:38-39.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
Ver. 16. This man is not of God ] True, if he had indeed made no conscience of keeping the sabbath. Sanctifying the Lord’s day in the primitive times was a badge of Christianity. When the question was propounded, Servasti Dominicum? Protect the Sabbath? Hast thou kept the sabbath? the answer was returned, I am a Christian, and may not do otherwise. Christianus sum, intermittere non possum. The enemies and hinderers of sanctifying the sabbath are called unbelievers, vagabonds, and wicked fellows,Act 17:2Act 17:2 ; Act 17:5 . That late great Antisabbatarian prelate (Bp White), so much cast off by the rest after he had served their turns, might well have cried out with Cardinal Wolsey, Surely, if I had been as careful to serve God as I was to please men, I had not been at this pass. Semetipsum detestatus est, quod Regi potius quam Deo studuisset placere. (Scultet.)
How can a man that is a sinner ] Yes, that he may, by divine permission, or at least he may do something like a miracle; as the false prophets and Antichrist. Suetonius tells us that Vespasian cured a blind man by spitting upon his eyes. And Dio testifieth that he healed another that had a weak and withered hand, by treading upon it. And yet Vespasian lived and died a pagan. This therefore was no convincing argument that the Jews here used.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] Among the latter party would be such as Nicodemus, Joseph, (Gamaliel?); who probably (Joseph certainly, Luk 23:51 ) at last withdrew, and left the majority to carry out their hate against Jesus.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 9:16 . And then the Pharisees introduce their charge and its implication, . The miracle is not denied, rather affirmed, but it cannot be a work of God, for it has been done on Sabbath. Cf. Joh 3:2 and Joh 5:16 . Some of their party, however, inclined to a different conclusion, ; How can such a work be done at all, whether on Sabbath or any other day, by a sinner? This breach of the Sabbath law must admit of explanation. It cannot arise from opposition to God. , as before among the people, Joh 7:43 , so now among the authorities a pronounced and permanent cleft was apparent.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
of = from (beside). Greek. para. App-104.
sinner. Greek. hamartolos. Compare App-128.
miracles = signs. See App-176and note on Joh 2:11.
there was, &c. The second of three. See note on Joh 7:43
among. Greek. en. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16. ] Among the latter party would be such as Nicodemus, Joseph, (Gamaliel?); who probably (Joseph certainly, Luk 23:51) at last withdrew, and left the majority to carry out their hate against Jesus.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 9:16. , from God) The words opposed are, to be from God, and to be a sinner, [An antithesis worthy of observation. Either the former, or else the latter, exactly applies as the description of every man.-V. g.-, because) In Theology applied to estimating characters, nothing is to be done in a hurry.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 9:16
Joh 9:16
Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath.-Some thought it a violation of the Sabbath law to heal a man on the Sabbath and that a good man could not violate that law.
But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them.-The fact of the healing stared them in the face, and could a sinner heal the blind? The Sabbath law was strict among the Jews. Jesus from the beginning of his ministry began to rebuke the severity of the requirements of this law. In the New Testament there is not an expression imposing the Sabbath law.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
sinner
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
This man: Joh 9:24, Joh 9:30-33, Joh 3:2, Joh 5:36, Joh 14:11, Joh 15:24
And there: Joh 7:12, Joh 7:43, Joh 10:19, Luk 13:31-33, Act 14:4
Reciprocal: Mat 12:10 – Is it Mar 2:28 – General Mar 3:2 – General Luk 6:6 – he Luk 6:7 – watched Luk 12:52 – General Joh 5:11 – General Joh 6:52 – strove Joh 7:31 – When Joh 9:29 – as for Joh 9:33 – were 1Co 1:10 – divisions
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
This division was between the friends and enemies of Jesus. The former reasoned rightly, that if Jesus were a “sinner,” (which means one of that particular class as listed in those days), he would be unable to work miracles, for God would not grant miraculous power to such a character. The others were merely using the question of the sabbath as an excuse for their hatred of Jesus.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 9:16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them. The mans answer had been short and simple, but it had substantiated the two charges (see Joh 9:14) that had been brought. The testimony produced the effect which usually followed whenever Jesus manifested Himself,some were attracted, some repelled. Godet remarks here, with peculiar force and propriety, The one party, taking as their starting-point the inviolability of the sabbatic law, deny to Jesus as a transgressor of this law any divine mission whatever; and from this logically follows the denial of the miracle. The others, setting out from the fact of the miracle, infer the holy character of Jesus, and implicitly deny the breaking of the sabbath. The choice of premiss depends in this case, as in all cases, upon the moral freedom; it is at this point of departure that the friends of light and the friends of darkness separate; the rest is simply a matter of logic.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 16
A sinner; an impostor.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:16 {5} 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.
(5) Religion is assaulted most by the pretence of religion: but the more it is pressed down, the more it rises up.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ produced a division among the people again (cf. Joh 7:40-43). Some of them, impressed with Jesus’ violation of traditional Sabbath laws, concluded that He could not represent God who had given the Sabbath laws. Their argument was a priori, beginning with the law and working forward to Jesus’ action. Others found the evidence of a supernatural cure more impressive and decided that Jesus must not be a common sinner but someone special who could do divine acts. Their argument was a posteriori, beginning with the facts and working back to Jesus’ action. Ironically the second group had the weaker argument since miracles do not necessarily prove that the miracle-worker is from God. Still their conclusion was true whereas the conclusion of the first group with the stronger argument was false. At least some of the Pharisees considered the possibility that Jesus had come from God (cf. Joh 3:2).