Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:28
Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
28. Then they reviled him ] Omit ‘then.’ The word for ‘revile’ occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. Comp. 1Pe 2:23. Argument fails, so they resort to abuse.
Thou art his disciple ] Better, Thou art that man’s disciple. They use a pronoun which expresses that they have nothing to do with Him. Comp. Joh 5:12 and Joh 7:11.
The pronouns are emphatic in both Joh 9:28 and Joh 9:29: ‘ Thou art His disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God hath spoken to Moses; but as for this fellow, &c.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Thou art his disciple – This they cast at him as a reproach. His defense of Jesus they regarded as proof that he was his follower, and this they now attempted to show was inconsistent with being a friend of Moses and his law. Moses had given the law respecting the Sabbath; Jesus had healed a man contrary, in their view, to the law of Moses. They therefore held Jesus to be a violater and contemner of the law of Moses, and of course that his followers were also.
We are Moses disciples – We acknowledge the authority of the law of Moses, which they alleged Jesus has broken by healing on that day.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 28. Then they reviled him] . Eustathius derives from , a word, and , a spear:- they spoke cutting, piercing words. Solomon talks of some who spoke like the piercings of a sword, Pr 12:18. And the psalmist speaks of words that are like drawn swords, Ps 55:21, words which show that the person who speaks them has his heart full of murderous intentions; and that, if he had the same power with a sword as he has with his tongue, he would destroy him whom he thus reproaches.
We are Moses’ disciples.] By this they meant that they were genuine Pharisees; for they did not allow the Sadducees to be disciples of Moses.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If this were all their reviling, for them to tell this poor man that he was Christs disciple, it was a very tolerable imputation, and what the blind man had reason to glory in: their guilt in reviling is to be judged not so much from what they spake, for there was nothing of greater honour, as from what heart and spirit they spake it. A disciple signifies, one that followeth another, and learns of him. To be a disciple of Christ indeed, was the greatest thing that any could glory in; yet the imputation of it to this blind man is here called a reviling: whence we may observe, that the guilt of reviling is to be judged not so much from the words which a man speaketh, as from the frame of his spirit, and design of that in the speaking of them. If a man speaketh that of another which is good and true, yet if he doth it out of a design to expose him, to do him mischief, and make him odious unto others, God doth account this reviling, because it proceedeth from the hatred of our brother in our heart, and a design to do him harm. Again, though indeed it was no reproach to be called Christs disciple, yet they affixed this term upon this poor man out of a design to reproach him, and to expose him to the hatred of others. We are in the government of our tongues not only obliged to take heed what we say, but with what heart, and out of what design we speak it. A malicious design turns terms of the greatest honour into terms of reviling. Besides, they here oppose Christ and Moses: whereas, Moses was but the type, Christ the antitype; Moses prophesied of Christ, Christ was that Prophet which God had promised to raise up like unto him; Moses but the school master, who led them unto Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24-34. Give God the praise; we knowthat this man is a sinnernot wishing him to own, even to thepraise of God, that a miracle had been wrought upon him, but to showmore regard to the honor of God than ascribe any such act to one whowas a sinner.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then they reviled him,…. Called him an impertinent, saucy, impudent fellow, for talking in this pert manner to them, the great sanhedrim of the nation; or, as the Vulgate Latin version reads, they cursed him; they thundered out their anathemas against him, and pronounced him an execrable and an accursed fellow:
and said, thou art his disciple; for they looked upon it a reproach and scandal to be called a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth; though there is nothing more honourable than to be a follower of him the Lamb whithersoever he goes: wherefore these Jews threw off what they thought a term of reproach from themselves to the blind man; and perhaps they might say this to ensnare him, hoping that he would own himself to be a disciple of Jesus, and profess him to be the Christ, that they might, according to their own act, excommunicate him. The Vulgate Latin, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, “be thou his disciple”; if thou wilt, we despise the character; far be it from us that we should be followers of him:
but we are Moses’s disciples. Thus they preferred Moses to Christ, and chose to be the disciples of Moses the servant, rather than of Christ the Son; though indeed they were not the genuine disciples of Moses; for if they had, they would have been the disciples of Christ, and believers in him, since Moses wrote and testified of him: they might indeed be so far the disciples of Moses, or of his law, since they sought for righteousness and justification by obedience to his law. This was a phrase in use among the Jews: so the Targumist i on Nu 3:2 says,
“these are the names of they sons of Aaron the priests,
, “the disciples of Moses”, the master of the Israelites;”
particularly the Pharisees, as here, claimed this title to themselves: for it is said k,
“all the seven days (before the day of atonement) they delivered to him (the high priest) two of the disciples of the wise men, to instruct him in the service (of that day), who were, , “of the disciples of Moses”, in opposition to the Sadducees:”
from whence it appears, that these disciples of Moses were of the sect of the Pharisees, who assumed this character as peculiar to themselves; sometimes they call themselves the disciples of Abraham, though the description they give of such, by no means belongs to them; [See comments on Joh 8:39]. They say l,
“whoever has three things in him, is , “of the disciples of Abraham” our father, and who has three other things is of the disciples of Balaam the wicked: he that has a good eye, (beneficence, or temperance, or contentment,) a lowly spirit, and an humble soul, he is of “the disciples of Abraham” our father; but he that has evil eye, and a proud spirit, and a large soul (lustful or covetous), is of the disciples of Balaam.”
This last character best agrees with those very persons, who would be thought to be the disciples of Abraham and of Moses.
i Jonathan ben Uzziel in ib. k T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 4. 1. l Pirke Abot, c. 5. sect. 19.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They reviled him ( ). First aorist active indicative of , old verb from (reviler, 1Co 5:11), in N.T. only here, Acts 23:4; 1Cor 4:12; 1Pet 2:23.
Thou art his disciple ( ). Probably a fling in (of that fellow). He had called him a prophet (9:17) and became a joyful follower later (9:36-38).
But we are disciples of Moses ( ). This they said with proud scorn of the healed beggar. All orthodox rabbis so claimed.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Reviled [] . The verb means to reproach or scold in a loud and abusive manner. Calvin, on 1Co 4:12, “being reviled we bless,” remarks : “Loidoria is a harsher railing, which not only rebukes a man, but also sharply bites him, and stamps him with open contumely. Hence loidorein is to wound a man as with an accursed sting.”
His disciple [ ] . Literally, that man’s disciple. The pronoun has a contemptuous force which is not given by his.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then they reviled him, and said,” (kai eloidoresan auton kai eipan) “And they reviled him, and said,” Convicted and irritated by his question, the villany of their vile nature spewed forth, reviling, 1Pe 2:23.
2) ”Thou art his disciple,” (su mathetes ei ekeinou) ”You are a disciple of that man,” and he was, though not yet, but also soon to be, saved by Him, Joh 9:35-38. Yet his Pharisee inquirers had no evidence that he was a disciple of Jesus.
3) “But we are Moses’ disciples.” (hemeis de tou Mouseos esmen mathetai) “However we are disciples of Moses,” though Moses would not have claimed them, for their vile and obstinate rejection of “that prophet,” of whom Moses had written so expressly, Deu 18:15-18; Joh 5:45-47; Act 13:27-30.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
28. Then they upbraided him. It is probable that all the reproaches which were prompted by the violence of their rage and indignation were eagerly cast upon him; but there was this one reproach among men, that they called him an apostate from the Law. For, in their opinion, he could not be a disciple of Christ without revolting from the Law of Moses; and they expressly represent these two things as inconsistent with each other. It is a very plausible pretence, that they are afraid of revolting from the doctrine of Moses. For this is the true rule of piety, that we ought to listen to the prophets, by whom we certainly know that God has spoken; that our faith may not be carried about by any doctrines of men. From this principle they deduce their certainty as to the Law of Moses; but they lie when they say that they are the disciples of Moses, for they have turned aside from the end of the Law. Thus hypocrites are wont to tear God in pieces, (271) when they wish to shelter themselves under his name. If Christ be the soul of the Law, as Paul tells us, (Rom 10:4,) what will the Law be when separated from him, but a dead body? We are taught by this example, that no man truly hears God, unless he be an attentive hearer of his word, so as to understand what God means and says.
(271) “ De deschirer Dieu par pieces.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(28) Then they reviled him.The Greek word occurs only here in the Gospels. The other passages where it occurs in the New Testament are Act. 23:4, 1Co. 4:12, and 1Pe. 2:23. It expresses the passionate outburst of their anger, which was excited by his question, and finds vent in heaping reproaches upon him.
Thou art his disciple.They cast his own reproach back upon himself, but in stronger words than he had used they mark out the distinction between Jesus and themselves. Thou art that Mans disciple.
But we are Moses disciples.The emphasis of the words is important. We, as opposed to thou; Moses, as opposed to that Mans.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28. Moses’ disciples The court puts on its dignity. Disciples of this Jesus, forsooth! We are disciples of the ancient founder of our law and nation!
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And they reviled him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he has come from”.’
His reply angered the Judaisers. They had totally lost their patience and reviled him. ‘You are his disciple,’ they added, ‘but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he is from’. To the Jews Moses was a supreme figure. Thus they appealed to his authority against the obvious truth.
They now wanted to bring out their own superiority, and so they compared Jesus with Moses, to His detriment. But how did they know God had spoken to Moses? The answer is because of the wonderful things that he did. Why then could they not see that this was also true of Jesus? The answer is, because they were blind. They had failed to recognise that a greater than Moses was here.
‘We do not know where he is from.’ In their eyes He was an obscure Galilean with no background and, as far as they knew, He had not learned the Law from any recognised Teacher. He was a total unknown. Thus His word was unacceptable. He had no credentials. They totally ignored His miracles and His outstanding teaching. Interestingly the people had rejected Jesus for the very opposite reason, because they did know where He was from (Joh 7:27). The Judaisers wanted conformity to their requirements. The crowds wanted mystery, and spectacle. Jesus fitted in with neither.
This prevarication infuriated the man. Here he was, having been cured of permanent, lifelong blindness, and they did not know where His benefactor had come from? Surely anyone could see that He must be from God. He could no longer stay silent whatever the consequences. He had reached the end of his patience.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 9:28-29. But we are Moses’ disciples, &c. Hereby they craftily but most maliciously and falsely insinuated, that there was such an opposition between Moses and Jesus, that it was impossible for the same person to be the disciple of both. We know that God spake unto Moses, say they; but how did they know this?Was it from the tradition which they had received concerning him?Was it from the intrinsic proofs that might be drawn from his writings? Or was it from the miracles that he wrought in confirmation of his mission? Consider all these proofs with respect to Jesus: they all looked upon John as a person of integrity, and some indeed honoured him with the title of a prophet; but John testified that Jesus was the Lamb of God, the beloved Son of the Father, and that he had heard God himself declare as much, when Christ was baptized by him. The doctrines of Jesus were equally worthy of a divine messenger with those of Moses; they were more spiritual, and consequently more highly suitable to the nature of God, who is a Spirit. They were intended not for one particular nation, and therefore particularly suitable to the character of God, considered as the Father of mankind. The religion that he established was not local or temporal, like that of the Jews, nor, on that account, confined to a particular spot, or to be practised under particular circumstances; but to be professed every where, and to be extended throughout the habitable world. What still more confirms our Saviour’s divine mission is, that he was predicted in every link of the great chain of prophesies which runs through the Old Testament; and even Moses himself speaks of him as a lawgiver,who should supersede his constitution, and ought to be heard by the latter Jews, as he himself had been by their fathers; yet notwithstanding they say, they knew that God spake to Moses, but had received no credentials to convince them of the divine mission of Jesus. Again, if they believed the mission of Moses on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they werehere compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove. Their partiality herein was inexcusable; nor was the inconsistency of this perverse people less glaring: for, at one time, they make their knowing whence Jesus was, an objection to his being the Messiah; and here theyobject to his being the Messiah, from their not knowing whence he was. But it is the nature of malice and of error always to confute and contradict themselves. See ch. Joh 7:27-28.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 9:28-29 . .] as preliminary to the following words. Passionate outburst in an unrighteous cause.
.] They had been unable to get out of him any declaration against Jesus, and regarded his behaviour, therefore, as a taking part with Christ. Bengel aptly remarks on : “Hoc vocabulo removent Jesum a sese.” Comp. on Joh 7:11 .
Joh 9:29 . ] once again with proud emphasis.
] has the emphasis in opposition to , which thus receives the more contemptuous a meaning (Joh 6:42 , and often).
] i.e . by whom he is sent. Comp. Joh 8:14 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
Ver. 28. Then they reviled him ] As an apostate from the law, a noveller, a Nazarite, a disciple of Christ, Thou art his disciple, say they, and therefore a dolt, a dunce; as at this day in Italy and at Rome, the most honourable name of Christian is usually abused to signify. (D. Fulke.) The primitive persecutors painted Christ with an ass’s head and a book in his hand (as Tertullian saith), to signify that all his disciples, though they pretended learning, yet they were silly and ignorant people. Est enim Satanae pectus mendaciis faecundissimum, saith Luther. The basest can revile (as the abjects did David, Psa 35:15 ), and every black mouth cast dirt upon Christ’s disciples as the offscouring of all things, 1Co 4:13 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 9:28 . It serves its purpose of exasperating them and bringing them to the direct expression of their feelings. . “They reviled him.” On Bengel has: “Hoc vocabulo removent Jesum a sese”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
reviled = railed at. Not merely rebuked, but abused. Elsewhere only in Act 23:4. 1Co 4:12, 1Pe 2:23.
his = that Man’s. Spoken with contempt.
Moses’. See note on Joh 1:17.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 9:28. , they reviled) They thought that they were loading him with dishonour, whomsoever they called by the term, a disciple of Christ.-, of that man) By the use of this expression they put Jesus away to a distance from them.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 9:28
Joh 9:28
And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses.-They claimed to be disciples of Moses, while the man whose eyes were opened owned himself ready to accept the man who had opened his eyes as a prophet of God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
they: Joh 9:34, Joh 7:47-52, Isa 51:7, Mat 5:11, Mat 27:39, 1Co 4:12, 1Co 6:10, 1Pe 2:23
but: Joh 5:45-47, Joh 7:19, Act 6:11-14, Rom 2:17
Reciprocal: Isa 53:2 – he hath no Luk 6:47 – heareth Luk 18:9 – which Luk 22:67 – If Joh 10:20 – why Rom 2:23 – that makest 1Co 10:2 – General 1Pe 4:14 – reproached
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
The Jews realized they had committed themselves a little farther than was intended. They showed their bitterness by accusing the man of being a disciple of Jesus. That would not have been anything of which to be ashamed, but his remarks were purely logical and could have been properly uttered regardless of his personal feelings or intentions. The Jews showed their ignorance of the very document and writer they pretended to respect. Any true disciples of Moses -could be disciples of Jesus also, for Moses prophesied favorably of Him. (See Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
[We are Moses’ disciples.] The man, as it should seem, had in gentle and persuasive terms asked them, “Will ye also be his disciples?” as if he heartily wished they would. But they as ruggedly, “Be you so: we are Moses’ disciples.”
“They delivered two disciples of the wise men into the hands of the chief priest” [that they might instruct him about the rites and usages of the day of expiation]; they were of the disciples of Moses. And who are these disciples of Moses? it follows, the very phrase excludes the Sadducees.
The reader may observe, by the way, these disciples of Moses; with what reverence they treat him.
“Moses was angry about three things, and the tradition was accordingly hid from him: I. About the sabbath, Exo 16:20; while he was angry he forgot to recite to them the traditions about the sabbath. II. About the vessels of metal, Num 31:14; while he was angry, he forgot to recite to them the traditions about the vessels of metal. III. About the mourner, Lev 10:16; while he was wrath, the tradition was hid from him, which forbade the mourner to eat of the holy things.”
Did Moses think it unlawful for the mourner to have eaten of the holy things, when he spake to Eleazar and Ithamar, while they were in the very act of bewailing the death of their two brethren, “Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place?” Yes, but in his passion he forgot both the tradition and himself too. Excellent disciples indeed! that can thus chastise your great master at pleasure, as a man very hasty, apt to be angry, and of a slender memory! Let him henceforward learn from you to temperate his passions and quicken his memory. You have a memory indeed that have recovered the tradition which he himself had forgot.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 9:28. And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple, but we are Moses disciples. Whether the man distinctly intended such reference to himself or not, it is thus that they understood his words; and this moves them contemptuously to contrast that man with their greatest prophet, Moses.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
9:28 {6} Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.
(6) Eventually, proud wickedness must necessarily break forth, which lies vainly hidden under a zeal of godliness.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Pharisees saw nothing funny in the man’s reply, however. They were deadly serious in their attempt to execute Jesus. They undoubtedly realized that this former beggar had seen through their veiled attempt to condemn Jesus unjustly. They met his good-natured prod with insult. They turned his charge back on himself and presented following Jesus as irreconcilable with following Moses. Of course, the Pharisees were not the disciples of Moses that they claimed to be. Ironically, Jesus was. Failure to know where Jesus came from amounted to failing to know where He received His authority. Moses had come from God, but Jesus’ critics claimed not to know whether He came from God or from Satan (Joh 9:16). Most of them suspected the latter.
"The Pharisees were cautious men who would consider themselves conservatives, when in reality they were ’preservatives.’ . . . A ’preservative’ simply embalms the past and preserves it. He is against change and resists the new things that God is doing." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:326.]
We see here an essential difference between Judaism and Christianity (cf. Joh 1:17). The Jews continue to profess allegiance to Moses as the Pharisees did here while Christians claim to follow Jesus, which is what they charged the restored man with doing. Following Jesus involves accepting Moses’ revelation as authoritative since Jesus authenticated Moses’ writings.
Earlier Jesus’ enemies said they knew where He came from, namely, Galilee (Joh 7:27). They were wrong in their assessment of Jesus’ earthly origin as they were wrong about His heavenly origin. Here they were speaking of His authoritative origin, specifically who had sent Him.