Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:17
They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
17. There being a division among them they appeal to the man himself, each side wishing to gain him. ‘They’ includes both sides, the whole body of Pharisees present. Their question is not twofold, but single; not, ‘What sayest thou of Him? that He hath opened thine eyes?’ but What sayest thou of Him, because He opened thine eyes? ‘Thou’ is emphatic; ‘ thou shouldest know something of Him.’ They do not raise the question of fact; the miracle as yet is not in dispute. His answer shews that only one question is asked, and that it is not the question of fact.
He is a prophet ] i.e. one sent by God to declare His will; a man with a special and Divine mission; not necessarily predicting the future. Comp. Joh 4:19, Joh 3:2.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
What sayest thou of him? … – The translation here expresses the sense obscurely. The meaning is, What sayest thou of him for giving thee sight? (Campbell); or, What opinion of him hath this work of power and mercy to thee wrought in thee? (Hammond).
He is a prophet – That is I think that the power to work such a miracle proves that he is sent from God. And though this has been done on the Sabbath, yet it proves that he must have been sent by God, for such a power could never have proceeded from man. We see here:
- A noble confession made by the man who was healed, in the face of the rulers of the people, and when he doubtless knew that they were opposed to Jesus. We should never be ashamed, before any class of men, to acknowledge the favors which we have received from Christ, and to express our belief of his power and of the truth of his doctrine.
- The works of Jesus were such as to prove that he came from God, however much he may have appeared to oppose the previous notions of men, the interpretation of the law by the Pharisees, or the deductions of reason. People should yield their own views of religion to the teachings of God, and believe that he that could open the eyes of the blind and raise the dead was fitted to declare his will.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 17. He is a prophet.] They had intended to lay snares for the poor man, that, getting him to acknowledge Christ for the Messiah, they might put him out of the synagogue, Joh 9:22, or put him to death, that such a witness to the Divine power of Christ might not appear against them. But, as the mercy of God had given him his sight, so the wisdom of God taught him how to escape the snares laid for his ruin. On all thy glory there shall be a defense, says the prophet, Isa 4:5. When God gives any particular mercy or grace, he sends power to preserve it, and wisdom to improve it. The man said, He is a prophet. Now, according to a Jewish maxim, a prophet might dispense with the observation of the Sabbath. See Grotius. If they allow that Jesus was a prophet, then, even in their sense, he might break the law of the Sabbath, and be guiltless: or, if they did not allow him to be a prophet, they must account for the miracle some other way than by the power of God; as from Satan or his agents no good can proceed – to do this it was impossible. So the wisdom of God taught the poor man to give them such an answer as put them into a complete dilemma, from which they could not possibly extricate themselves.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? What opinion hast thou of this man, who hath opened thine eyes? To make the question perfect, interpreters think, there ought to be this supplement, on the sabbath day. What dost thou think of such a man as this, who would make clay, and apply it to thy cure upon the sabbath day? How can such a act be defended?
The blind man answered,
He is a prophet. It was taken for granted by the Jews, according to their traditions, that at the command of a prophet it was lawful to violate the sabbath; which indeed is no more than, that God hath not, in giving us a law, bound up himself, but he may dispense with his own law. Their prophets had an extraordinary mission from God, and immediately revealed the will of God; so as they looked upon what they said as spoken by God himself. The blind man declareth, that he believed that Christ was a prophet; and being so, his words and actions had an extraordinary warrant, and therefore were not to be judged by ordinary rules.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17. the blind man . . . said, He isa prophetrightly viewing the miracle as but a “sign”of His prophetic commission.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
They say unto the blind man again,…. After they had discoursed among themselves, and could not agree about the author of the miracle, they turn to him that had been blind, who is called the blind man, because he had been so, and ask him his sentiments of him:
what sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? the question seems, at first sight, as if it was, whether Jesus had opened his eyes or not; but by the answer it appears, that it required his thoughts of him, “who hath opened thine eyes”, as the Vulgate Latin and Persic versions read; or “seeing”, or “because he hath opened thine eyes”, as the Arabic and Ethiopic versions:
he said, he is a prophet; the Syriac and Persic versions read, “I say he is a prophet”; or, “he is certainly a prophet”, as the Arabic version. The Jews were wont to conclude a man’s being a prophet from miracles wrought by him; see Joh 6:14; though it does not appear that he believed him, as yet, to be that prophet, or the Messiah, that was to come; see Joh 9:36.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Unto the blind man again ( ). The doctors disagree and they ask the patient whose story they had already heard (verse 15).
In that he opened thine eyes ( ). Causal use of and triple augment in the first aorist active indicative of . They offer the excuse that the man’s experience particularly qualified him to explain the “how,” overlooking the fact he had already told his story and also trying to conceal their own hopeless division of opinion.
He is a prophet ( ). The man will go that far anyhow.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “They say unto the blind man again,” (legousin oun to tuphlo palin) “Then they said to the blind man again,” a third time he had been quizzed about the matter, and a second time by them, Joh 9:10; Joh 9:15.
2) “What sayest thou of him,” (ti su legeis peri autou) “What do you say concerning him?” What is your judgement? This gave him an occasion to confirm the Divine work of Jesus, with gratitude, Mat 5:16.
3) “That he hath opened thine eyes?” (hoti eneoksen sou tous ophthalmous) “Because he opened your eyes?” as you repeatedly tell us, Joh 9:11; Joh 9:15, or since He opened your eyes.
4) “He said, He is a prophet.” (ho de eipen hoti prophetes estin) “Then he said, he is (exists as) a prophet,” as such has a Divine mission, Joh 4:19; Joh 6:14, as others upon seeing His works, His miracles, had expressed their faith that He was ”that prophet” who was to come, Deu 18:15-19.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
17. They say to him who had been blind. The more diligently they inquire, the more impressively does the truth of God appear; for they act as if one were endeavoring to extinguish a strong flame (262) by his breath. Thus, when we see wicked men contrive all that they can to crush the truth of God, we have no reason to be afraid, or to be excessively anxious about the result, for all that they can gain in this way will be to cause its light to burn with greater brightness.
What sayest thou of him? When they ask the blind man what is his opinion, they do so, not because they wish to abide by his judgment, or set any value on it, but because they hope that the man, struck with fear, will reply according to their wish. In this respect the Lord disappoints them; for when a poor man disregards their threatenings, and boldly maintains that Christ is a Prophet, we ought justly to ascribe it to the grace of God; so that this boldness is another miracle. And if he so boldly and freely acknowledged Christ to be a Prophet, though he did not as yet know that the Lord Jesus (263) was the Son of God, how shameful is the treachery of those who, subdued by fear, either deny him, or are silent respecting him, though they know that he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and that he will come thence to be the Judge of the whole world! Since this blind man did not quench a small spark of knowledge, we ought to endeavor that an open and full confession may blaze forth from the full brightness which has shone into our hearts.
(262) “ Une grande flamme.”
(263) “ Le Seigneur Jesus.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) They say unto the blind man again.The question is not asked by either of the parties, for this must have been noted, but by the assembly generally. They who questioned him in Joh. 9:15, question him again now. They have differed among themselves, and they ask what impression the fact of the miracle had left upon him who was the object of it, with regard to the person of Him who had performed it.
What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes?Stress is laid on the pronoun. What sayest thou? He ought to know better than any one, seeing that his eyes had been opened and this they admit, while the nature of his witness is uncertain; but immediately that is given they disbelieve the fact of the miracle, and soon reject with scorn him they question now (Joh. 9:34).
The English reader should observe the punctuation here, which rightly makes the question one. It is sometimes read as though it were, What sayest thou of Him? that He hath opened thine eyes? It is not, however, the fact which is here questioned, but the opinion of the man, based upon the fact, for the present assumed as true, which is called for.
He is a prophet.The education of the man has been doing its work, and he is convinced that the power which has healed him is direct from God, and that the person who has exercised it is a messenger from God. His words are uttered in the brevity and calmness of clear conviction, and they are the direct negative to the statement of the Pharisees, This man is not from God. (Comp Joh. 3:2; Joh. 4:19; Joh. 6:14.) It is important to note, that even in the language of the ordinary people, the word prophet did not mean simply a predictor of events in the future, but one who was as the representative of God. He was not only or chiefly a fore-teller, but a forth-teller, declaring Gods truth, revealing His will and character, bearing the witness of divine works; but as the future is ever present to the divine counsels, prophecy, in the narrower sense, may be part of the work of the true prophet.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. What sayest thou of him, [in view of the matter,] that he hath opened This shows that there is but one question. And the crooked question brings a straight answer.
A prophet The man had heard from the readings of the Old Testament (though his own eyes had never seen a letter) that there were prophets of old, who did works by the power of God, and whose words, as from God, were thus divinely authenticated. Nothing less than such a one, even before this spiritual court, he avers, could this restorer of his sight have been. And this firm confessor shows himself prepared for that humble reception of Jesus’s words which he exhibited in Joh 9:36-38. He is a predestined sheep of Christ; predestined, that is, by predisposition and free volitional purpose before he is by full regeneration. And this confession disconcerts these lords spiritual for the moment. But they fall back upon a pretext; perhaps his parents will admit that he was not born blind.
‘They say therefore to the blind man again, “What do you say about him in view of the fact that he opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet”.’
They asked the man what he thought about this person who had opened his eyes. His reply was simple, ‘He is a prophet’, a God sent and God empowered man. He knew that his eyes had been opened as he stood before these ‘blind’ men and he revealed at least part of the truth. Ironically the man born blind was seeking to open the eyes of those who claimed to see.
Joh 9:17. They say unto the blind man He is so named after having received his sight, agreeable to the scripture phraseology. Thus Mat 10:3. Matthew is called the publican, after he had left off that employment; and Mat 26:6. Simon is called the leper, after he was cured. The next clause should be rendered, What sayest thou of him, since he hath opened, or for having opened thine eyes? This question was proposed to the man, not so much to know his opinion, as to divert the members of the sanhedrim from carrying on their altercation any further. The man’s answer, that Christ was a prophet, contained not only a testimony of his being endued with a power of working miracles, but likewise that he had a right to dispense with the strict observation of the sabbath; because a prophet, according to their own traditions, was supposed to be invested with such a power.
Joh 9:17 . As there was such a difference of views among those who were assembled, they feel it to be of importance to ascertain the opinion of the man who had been healed. It might lead to further light being thrown on the affair. The subject of is ., neither the hostile among them merely (Apollinarius and many others), nor the well-wishers alone (Chrysostom and his followers).
] a repetition of the question after Joh 9:15 .
] , ; see on Joh 2:18 . Theodore of Mopsuestia well remarks: .
] who had shown Himself to be such by this miracle. Comp. Joh 3:2 , Joh 4:19 , Joh 6:14 , al . Thus the faith of the man became clear and confirmed by the controversy of the Pharisees. And he makes confession of what he up to this time believes.
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.
Ver. 17. He is a prophet ] The more the Pharisees opposed the truth, the more it appeared. Veritas abscondi erubeseit, saith Tertullian. The Reformation was much furthered in Germany by the Papists’ opposition. Among many others two kings wrote against Luther, viz. Henry VIII of England and Ludovicus of Hungary. This kingly title being entered into the controversy, made men more curious. And as it happeneth in combats that the onlookers are ready to favour the weaker and to extol his actions, though they be but mean; so here it stirred up a general inclination toward Luther, saith the author of the Hist. of the Council of Trent. Luther also in an epistle to the Elector of Saxony, triumpheth and derideth the foolish wisdom of the Papists in causing him and the other Protestant princes to rehearse the confession of their faith in a public assembly of the States of Germany, and in sending copies thereof to all the courts of Christendom for advice; whereby the Gospel was more propagated, and the cause of Christ more advanced, than if many preachers had been sent out and licensed.
17. ] The question is but one , as in E. V., What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened (i.e. for having opened) thine eyes? The stress is on ‘What hast thou to say to it, seeing we are divided on the matter?’ Both parties are anxious to have the man’s own view to corroborate theirs.
., and therefore .
Joh 9:17 . Differing among themselves, they refer the question to the man, “You, what do you say about Him, on account of His opening your eyes?” The question is not one of fact, but of inference from the fact; the means “in that,” “inasmuch as,” and the Vulgate simply renders “Tu quid dicis de illo, qui aperuit oculos tuos?” Promptly the man replies, .
of = concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
hath opened = opened.
prophet. Compare Joh 4:18.
17.] The question is but one, as in E. V., What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened (i.e. for having opened) thine eyes? The stress is on -What hast thou to say to it, seeing we are divided on the matter? Both parties are anxious to have the mans own view to corroborate theirs.
., and therefore .
Joh 9:17. , a prophet) i.e. from God, Joh 9:16, This man is not from God, 33; ch. Joh 1:6, There was a man sent from God, etc.; Joh 3:2, We know that Thou art a teacher come from God [Jesus had prayed in undertaking the cure, Joh 9:31 : and from that circumstance the blind man had come to know the close intimacy subsisting between Jesus and God.-V. g.] It is delightful to observe how faith gradually arises in this man, whilst the Pharisees are contradicting [Teased with the repeated questionings of the men, at last he unlearned the lesson of being bound by mere authority. Thus advantage may be derived even from the perverse ways and humours of others.-V. g.]
Joh 9:17
Joh 9:17
They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes?-In the dispute they again appeal to the man who was healed to know what he thought of Jesus who had healed him.
And he said, He is a prophet.-His response was prompt; he is inspired of God a prophet, a divine teacher.
He is: Joh 4:19, Joh 6:14, Luk 24:19, Act 2:22, Act 3:22-26, Act 10:38
Reciprocal: Mat 16:14 – Elias Mat 21:11 – This Mar 6:15 – a prophet Luk 7:16 – a great Luk 9:19 – old
7
The blind man did not have any more positive knowledge in the case than did the others, for he had not even seen Jesus up to this time. But the crowd wished to get him to commit himself on the subject; es pecially that part of the group which was Jews. Had the man expressed an unfavorable opinion of Jesus, it would have been used by the Jews as a significant circumstance. If the very man who had been benefitted by the performance was unfavorably impressed with Jesus, then surely there must have been a reason for it. But he replied with a direct and favorable verdict, He is a prophet. That meant not only that Jesus was a good man, but one endowed with supernatural talents to be able to do such a miracle as the one at hand.
Joh 9:17. They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, because he opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a prophet. The fact is admitted, perhaps honestly, for it will be observed that, when we come to the next verse, we have a new set of questioners, and not simply persons who, having made a concession in the words before us, immediately withdraw it. The word thou is emphatic: unable to decide the matter themselves, they seek to draw from the blind man some statement which may enable them more effectually to condemn Jesus. But his answer only deals an unexpected blow.
Observe here, 1. How desirous the Pharisees were to obscure the glory of this famous miracle which Christ had wrought: in order to which,
1. They re-examine the man, to know what his thoughts were of the person who had done this for him: they judged him to be an impostor and a great sinner: the man declares freely, That he believed him to be a great prophet.
Hence we learn, That there may be, and sometimes is, more true knowledge of Jesus Christ in one poor man, than in a general counsel of learned rabbies. This blind man saw Christ to be a prophet, when the Jewish sanhedrin saw nothing in him but imposture. This man is not of God, says the council: Verily, he is a prophet, says the blind man.
2. They next examine his parents (being unwilling to believe the man himself) Whether he was their son, or not? If so, whether he were born blind? Lord! what obstinate and willful blindness was found in these Pharisees! How do they close their eyes and say, We will not see; What endeavours are here used to smother a miracle, which undeniably proved Christ to be the expected Messias! They examine first the man, then his parents, then the man again; hoping, that being over-awed with fear, they would either deny, or at least conceal, the truth; but the more they strove to darken and obscure the truth; the more conspicuous and evident they made it. Great is truth, and will prevail, how many soever oppose it, and set themselves against it.
Observe next, The wisdom and cautiousness of his parents answer: they expressly own, the blind man was their son; that he was born blind; but for the way of his cure they wave that, possibly because they did not see this cure wrought, and fearing the sentence of excommunication, a decree being passed among the rulers, That whoso confesseth Christ, shall be put out of the synagogue.
Hence learn, 1. That excommunication or separation from the society of the people of God, is an ancient and honourable ordinance in the church of God, and as such to be revered and esteemed.
2. That this ordinance of God has been, and may be, abused by wicked men, and the edge of it turned against Christ himself, and his sincerest members.
3. That the fear of unjust excommunication must not discourage persons from confessing the truth, when called to it. The parents of the blind man durst not confess Christ, for fear that they should be put out of the synagogue.
Joh 9:17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see Joh 9:28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (Joh 9:11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him. For the Jews had agreed already That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezr 10:7; Neh 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, , they cast him out, (Joh 9:34-35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (Joh 16:2,) , they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance. See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.
Faced with having to decide if Jesus was from God or not, the healed man concluded that He was a prophet similar to other miracle-working Old Testament prophets (e.g., 2Ki 2:19-22; 2Ki 4:18-44; 2Ki 5:1-14). This was an advance over his previous description of Jesus as simply "the man called Jesus" (Joh 9:11). His faith was growing.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
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: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)