Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:33

If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

33. of God ] Or, from God: comp. Joh 1:6.

he could do nothing ] The context limits the meaning nothing at all like this, no miracle.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Could do nothing – Could do no such work as this. This reasoning was conclusive. The fact that Jesus could perform miracles like this was full proof that he was commissioned by God – proof that never has been and never can be refuted. One such miracle proves that he was from God. But Jesus gave many similar proofs, and thus put his divine mission beyond the possibility of doubt.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 33. If this man were not of God, c.] A very just conclusion: God is the fountain of all good: all good must proceed from him, and no good can be done but through him if this person were not commissioned by the good God, he could not perform such beneficent miracles as these.

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

If therefore this man (for still he apprehended him no more) had not some special authority from God, and there were not some special presence of God with him, he could do nothing that is of this nature. It is a work beyond the power of man, and beyond that power first we read God did ever trust any man with.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

If this man were not of God,…. If he had not his mission, commission, and credentials from God; if he had not been sent by him, and had not authority from him, and was not assisted by him, as man, or God was not with him,

he could do nothing; or “not do these things”, as the Syriac version reads; that is, such miraculous works; or, as the Persic version, “he could not do this miracle”: open the eyes of a man born blind. His doing this is a full proof that he is of God, and comes from him.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

If this man were not from God ( ). Negative condition of second class with imperfect indicative. Assuming that Jesus is not “from God” ( ) as some argued in 9:16, “he could do nothing” ( ). Conclusion of the second-class condition with imperfect indicative (double augment in ) without as is usual in conditions of possibility, propriety, obligation (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 920,1014). The man has scored with terrific power in his use of Scripture and logic.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “If this man were not of God,” (ei me hen houtos para theou) “if this man was not from alongside of or in harmony with God,” and He was, the very Son of God, and the Father was with Him, in all that He did, Joh 5:19; Joh 5:30; Joh 15:5.

2) “He could do nothing.” (ouk eclunato poiein ouden) “He would not be able to do anything at all,” after the order of this miracle, nothing more than you Pharisees who have passed me by all your lives, giving me nothing more than paltry alms, see? This was a pretty strong argument from an unsaved honest man, against unsaved dishonest religious men, Joh 5:43.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(33) If this man were not of God.His argument meets each of their assertions. His general assumption, admitted as a universal truth (Joh. 9:31), had denied their assertion that this Man was a sinner. His conclusion now denies their assertion, This Man is not of God (Joh. 9:16).

He could do nothingi.e., nothing of this kind, no miracle such as this, much less this miracle itself.

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

33. Do nothing Nothing to sustain his mission from God.

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