John 9

Chap. IX. Ver. 1—21. Jesus gives sight to a man born blind.—Whether this event followed on the same day after Jesus left the temple, or on a subsequent one, is neither certain nor important, only we know that it was on the sabbath. The question of the disciples seems to have reference to some previous conversation which they had held with the Scribes and Pharisees, on the subject of the transmigration of souls, which some of their Rabbies had borrowed from the Pythagoreans; or, perhaps, as Dr. Lightfoot suggests, they might have imbibed the stranger notion, that an infant might commit sin even in his mother’s womb. Our Lord, however, always avoided such curious questions; and merely replies, that this blindness had happened to the man, neither for his own sins nor for those of his parents, but that an opportunity might be afforded sets us an example that well illustrates his own precept—to work while it is called to-day!

The day of our Saviour’s labours was hastening to a close, and so is ours. The night is coming, when we can no more work either for God’s glory, or our own salvation. ‘There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave,’ whither we all are hastening. ((Ecclesiastes 9:10).) This blind man was a beggar; on which circumstance Bp. Hall beautifully remarks:—“Those that have eyes, and hands, and feet of their own, may be able to help themselves; those that want these helps must be beholden to the eyes, hands, and feet of others. The impotent are cast upon our mercy. Happy are we, if we can lend limbs and senses to the needy. Affected beggary is odious: that which is of God’s making justly challengeth relief.”

The cause of this man’s affliction is uncharitably supposed to be some personal transgression of either the man himself or of his parents. Though sin was, indeed, primarily the cause of all the misery in the world; yet it is both uncharitable and unjust to refer the misfortunes of the afflicted to their personal transgressions. Afflictions are often sent for our benefit, and to exercise our patience under them, or to display the glory of God in our deliverance from them. We are not disposed to allegorize away the facts of Scripture history; yet we may often derive easy and important reflections from the analogy between natural and spiritual objects. There is a mental blindness, to which our whole race is subjected through sin; for we are born spiritually blind, and it is Christ alone, who is the light of the world, that is able to enlighten our minds in the knowledge of himself and of divine truth.

The means used in the recovery of spiritual sight, are often as strange and unpromising as the clay plaster on this poor man’s eyes. The efficacy is, in this case, in the physician, and not in the remedy employed. But to return to our history. The object in sending this poor man to Siloam was evidently to excite public attention to this miracle, and to spread the report of it in the temple, from which persons were continually coming and returning from Siloam; and this publicity was necessary to introduce the subsequent conversation, on the poor man’s case, between himself and the Pharisees, in which the former discovers uncommon shrewdness. They first inquire how the miracle was wrought, and affecting not to believe his own account, attempt to catechise his parents, who very prudently refer them back to him, as they do not appear to have been present at the time; and, besides, the Pharisees had threatened with exclusion from the synagogue, any person who should own Jesus to be the Christ.

Therefore they said, “He is of age, ask him.” But the great offence with which they charge our Lord, is that of working this miracle on the sabbath, as it appears to have been contrary to their traditions, to use eye-salves, &c. on that holy day; and it was for this reason, probably, that our Lord used the clay, as it would have been as easy for him to have wrought the cure by a word speaking only, but that he set his face steadfastly against those traditions by which they established their own paramount authority, and made void the law of God. Having ascertained the identity of the man, and the reality of the cure, the great point in dispute is, whether a good man and a prophet will work miracles on the sabbath day.

Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day;” not distinguishing between their own traditions and the divine commands. Others very naturally asked, “How can a man that is a sinner”—that is, a wicked man, or an impostor—“do such miracles?” Thus was there a division among the people, and as it should seem, (by ver. 16,) among the Pharisees themselves. On the difference between the Christian doctrine of the Sabbath, and that of the Rabbies, we have offered some remarks on (Matthew 12:1-21), which we shall not here repeat. It is remarkable, certainly, that our Lord so often chose this day for the performance of his miracles, and it may serve to teach us, that active benevolence to the souls and bodies of our fellow-creatures ought to be blended with our devotions.

As this is the day in which God blesses us, we cannot choose a better for blessing others. ‘I will bless thee, and make thee a blessing.’ ((Genesis 12:2).) Ver. 22—41. The Pharisees reproach Jesus, and excommunicate the blind man whom he had cured.—The man’s parents having declined to answer any questions about their son, he is again called before the Pharisees, who exhort him to ‘give God the praise;’ which Doddridge thus paraphrases: “Give glory to God, by a free confession of the fraud, if there be any collusion in this affair; or if the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of the Divine Being, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know that this man, Jesus of Nazareth, is a sinner.” The man wisely answered, “Whether he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see;”

an answer that may be employed to silence the cavils of others besides these Pharisees. In the course of our Christian experience, difficulties may often arise which we may not be able to explain: but if we can say, “Whereas I was once blind to my own state, and the excellence and necessity of Christ the Saviour, now I see; now is my mind enlightened duly to appreciate his salvation, it is well: let us not deny what he hath done, nor doubt his power and grace to complete the work.” But to return to the Pharisees: they cross-question the poor man, in hopes of detecting something inconsistent or contradictory in his answers, but in vain. He tartly replies—for he does not appear to be now before any public authorities who had a right there to question him—“I told you before, and ye did not (or would not) hear: will ye also be his disciples?” Upon this they revile both him and his deliverer:—“We are Moses’ disciples: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.”

The man again shrewdly retorts upon them, that it was very strange that they, the teachers and guides of the people, could not tell whence he was, when he had wrought so extraordinary a miracle, whereas a plain man like him was satisfied by the work itself, that he must be of God, for “if he were not of God, he could do nothing.” Upon this they lose their temper, reprove his supposed insolence, and excommunicate, or cast him out of their synagogue. “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?” by which expression we do not understand them as referring to the Scripture doctrine of original sin, but the Pythagorean figment of the transmigration of souls, already mentioned. As to the argument in favour of Christ’s mission, we do not found it on his miracles, separately considered; but as taken in connexion with the whole of his character—the purity of his doctrine and of his life.

At the same time, though bad men may have done “many wonderful works,” there is not in the records of history anything like the series of miracles recorded of our Lord, either in the power or benevolence which they displayed; neither the miracles of Moses or Elijah, much less those of their pretended prophets or impostors, can be brought into competition with his miracles. Our Lord hearing that the poor man was expelled the synagogue, which, of course, deprived him of all aid from Jewish charity, sought him out, as the first confessor who had suffered on his account, and instructs him privately, as it should seem, in the mysteries of his kingdom. “Dost thou believe in the name of the Son of God?” And he answered, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?” Jesus replied, “Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.” The man had been prepared for this discovery. He was convinced by the miracle of which he had been the subject, that Jesus was indeed a prophet, and has no hesitation in admitting this farther discovery of his glory—“Lord, I believe;” and as a proof thereof, he fell down and “worshipped him.” Some persons had now collected round them, and our Lord says in their hearing, “For judgment am I come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which boast that they do see, may be made blind,”—or have their blindness discovered and exposed.

This occasioned some of the standers by, who were Pharisees, to exclaim, What! and “are we blind also?” To whom our Lord calmly replied, “If ye were blind,” as this poor man was, or if you had no means of information, “ye should have,” comparatively, “no sin;” but since ye think yourselves wise, and boastingly “say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth” without excuse, and without remedy.

Ver. 22—42. Jesus disputes with the Jews in Solomon’s porch.—According to Josephus, this porch was the eastern part of a gallery erected on the inside of the outer court of the temple. It was the custom of the ancients to teach and converse walking; and it being now winter, it is probable that Jesus and the Jews resorted thither for protection from the wind and rain.

There has been some dispute, however, what could be intended by this Feast of Dedication. Doddridge concludes that it could not refer to the dedication of Solomon’s temple, for that was in autumn, ((1 Kings 8:2):) nor that of Nehemiah, which was in spring, ((Ezra 6:15-16);) but that of Judas Maccabeus, on his having purified the temple and altar from the profanations of Antiochus Epiphanes. This was kept annually for eight days, in the month of December. The conversation originated with the Jews themselves, who not clearly to understand the character under which our Lord wished to be considered, “If thou be the Christ,” (said they,) “tell us plainly.” Jesus replies, “I have told you, and ye believed not;”

referring, probably, to the preceding discourse, in which he had represented himself as the Good Shepherd, a character (as we have seen) specially appropriated by the prophets to Messiah. “But ye believe not,” (said he,) “because ye are not of my sheep; as I said unto you, [but just now,] My sheep hear my voice,” &c. It is to us fully evident, that by Christ’s sheep are meant his true disciples—who are humble, simple, and affectionate, as sheep are—and follow Christ as (in that country at least) sheep do their shepherd. Of these he says, “I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any (one) pluck (or wrest) them out of my Father’s hand.” This conversation leads directly to the subject of our Lord’s divinity, which doctrine was not only a stumbling-block to the Jews, but has been so to any in every succeeding age.

The argument seems somewhat obscure, but we shall attempt to illustrate it by a short analysis. The Jews very clearly understood, from the manner in which our Lord spake of his heavenly Father, that he claimed the character of Son of God in a sense in which it would be blasphemy for any mere man to do, (see on (John 5:17-30);) and if he had not meant to assume such equality, it would have been most easy to have silenced them by such an explanation: on the other hand, had he openly avowed such an equality, it would have required a miracle to have restrained them from stoning him, as they proposed. He therefore pursues a middle course. He remarks that the term God is, in an inferior sense, applied to magistrates and princes.

((Psalms 82:1, 6).) How, then, could it be blasphemy for Jesus to assume the character of God’s Son, especially when the works which he did contained the demonstration of a divine power, and fully justified the claim? “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not: but if I do, though ye believe me not” on my own assertion, “believe the works” which you behold done, and from them ye may be convinced “that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.” But these men, instead of being softened to attend either to reason or to fact, took up stones to throw at the divine speaker, and drove from their temple the Lord thereof, and who would have been its highest glory. “These (says the eloquent Massillon) were the returns of gratitude which Jesus Christ received of men: these the consolations with which heaven permitted him to be exercised in the painful course of his ministry.

At one time they treated him as a Samaritan, as one that had a devil; at another they ‘took up stones to stone him.’ And thus the Son of God passed the whole time of his life, always exposed to the most obstinate contradictions, meeting with almost none but such as were insensible of his benefits, and rebellious against his preaching; and all this without his letting fall the least sign of impatience, or the least complaint.” Our Lord retreated now beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; and the seed which he had then sown now appeared, for “many believed on Jesus there,” and resorted to him, saying, “John did no miracle: but all things which John spake of this man were true.”

Notes on the verses

Chap. IX. Ver. 1. And as Jesus passed by.—The omission of this name in the original, seems to intimate a connexion between this event and the preceding. The New Testament, (any more than the Old,) we must recollect, was not divided into verses, or even chapters, by the inspired writers. This chapter may therefore connect with the preceding, thus—Jesus, “going through the midst of them [the multitude,] passed by [them:] and as he passed by [or, in passing by] he saw,” &c.

Ver. 2. Who did sin?—If this question, as is most supposed, referred to the Pythagorean notions, it may be illustrated by the following note from Dean Prideaux:—‘As to lesser crimes, [i.e. those which might not require everlasting punishment,] their opinion was, that they were punished in the bodies, which the souls which committed them were next sent into.

According to this notion it was that the disciples asked Christ, in the case of the man who was born blind, who had sinned, that he should be born blind.” Bishop Pearce renders this, “Who sinned? This man that he is become blind? or his parents, that he was born blind?” But we doubt much if this can be justified.

Ver. 3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents—That is, so as to be the occasion of his misfortune: this seems necessarily implied.

Ver. 5. I am the light of the world.—Our Lord here claims one of the titles given by the Jews to the Divine Being. So in Bammidbar Rabba “The Israelites said to God, O Lord of the universe, thou commandest us to light lamps to thee, yet thou art the light of the world.”

It was also a title of the Messiah, (see (Isaiah 49:6); lx. 1;) and in a remarkable passage of Yalkut Rutbeni, fol. 6, it is said, on (Genesis 1:4), “From this we learn, that the Holy and Blessed God saw the light of the Messiah, and his works, before the world was created; and reserved it for the Messiah and his generation, under the throne of his glory. Satan said to the Holy and Blessed God, For whom dost thou reserve that light which is under the throne of thy glory? God answered, For him who shall subdue thee, and overwhelm thee with confusion. Satan rejoined, Lord of the universe, show that person to me. God said, Come, and see him. When he saw him, he was greatly agitated, and fell upon his face, saying, Truly this is the Messiah, who shall cast me and idolaters into hell.”) and made clay.—Several Eastern travellers, particularly Captain Light, speak of a superstitious notion of the use of saliva in curing bad eyes, and other disorders, but none of them speak of a clay salve for that purpose: this, indeed, seems more calculated to destroy sight than to restore it.

Ver. 7. Go, wash—i.e. “wash thine eyes” in the pool of Siloam.—This was supplied by a fountain of the same name, which arose in the south-west part of Jerusalem. Siloam is by interpretation sent—and therefore tallies with the circumstance of his being sent thither.—He washed and came seeing.—There is this remarkable difference between cures wrought naturally and miraculously; the former, effected by some surgical operation, always require great caution to prevent relapse: the eye by instance, must be guarded against too sudden a display of light, and, in general, very gradually exposed to it; but this man came seeing—i.e. in the full possession of his eyesight without either shade or delay.

Ver. 17. He hath opened.—Doddridge, “since he hath opened thine eyes.”

Ver. 27. And ye not hear.—Campbell, “And did ye not hear?”

Ver. 32. Since the day began, &c.—Campbell, “Never was it heard before, that any man gave sight to one born blind.” [That there are cases in which a person born blind may be restored to sight by surgical means, we know; but it is perfectly evident that no such means were used by our Lord. And it is worthy of remark, that, from the foundation of the world, no person born blind had been restored to sight, even by surgical operation, till about the year 1728; when the celebrated Dr.

Cheselden, by couching the eyes of a young man, 14 years of age, restored them to perfect vision. This was the first.]

Christ is the door, and the good shepherd. 19 Divers opinions of him. 24 He proveth by his works, that he is Christ the Son of God: 39 escapeth the Jews, 40 and went again beyond Jordan, where many believed on him, &c.: or the sheep. They understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. He, Lord, that I might believe on him?’ Jesus replied, “Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.” The man had been prepared for this discovery. He was convinced by the miracle of which he had been the subject, that Jesus was indeed a prophet, and has no hesitation in admitting this farther discovery of his glory—“Lord, I believe;” and as a proof thereof, he fell down and “worshipped him.” Some persons had now collected round them, and our Lord says in their hearing, “For judgment am I come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which boast that they do see, may be made blind,”—or have their blindness discovered and exposed.

This occasioned some of the standers by, who were Pharisees, to exclaim, What! and “are we blind also?” To whom our Lord calmly replied, “If ye were blind,” as this poor man was, or if you had no means of information, “ye should have,” comparatively, “no sin;” but since ye think yourselves wise, and boastingly “say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth” without excuse, and without remedy.