John 9

David Lipscomb Commentary On John Chapter Nine JESUS HEALS A MAN BORN BLINDJoh_9:1-12 1 And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.—One born blind would be supposed to be more difficult to heal than one who had gone blind after he was some years of age. He left the temple, where the Jews sought to stone him, and saw a man blind from birth. The presence of the afflicted and suffering seems at all times to have excited the interest and sympathy of Jesus. He was touched with a sense of our infirmities and sympathized with human suffering. So he showed that he was willing to help this blind man. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?—The Jews cherished the idea that since affliction came as the result of sin, every afflicted one, or his parents, had been guilty of sin. The idea seems to have prevailed among the Jews that all bodily afflictions came as the result of the sins of the person afflicted or of his parents. Often men were miraculously smitten with affliction on account of sins. Uzziah was smit¬ten with leprosy for assuming priestly functions. Zacharias was made dumb because he doubted the angel. Sins were visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations.

The Jews concluded that affliction is the result of the sin of the person afflicted or of his parents. The Jews had clear ideas of punishment for sin only in this world. In a very gen¬eral sense all affliction— all suffering— came as the result of sin. Without sin no suffering would have been known on earth. Yet sin once introduced, and mortality inflicted, dis-cord prevailing, disease and affliction have come upon man through his surroundings without moral guilt or sin upon his part. The disciples shared the common belief of the Jews on this subject and asked Jesus whether this blindness was for his own sin or that of the sins of his parents.

The Jews said to the blind man (34): “ Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?” This may mean that they thought he was blind because of the sins of his parents so he was alto¬gether born in sin. 3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents:—A little thought would have convinced them that he could not have been born blind for any sin he had committed. If such an affliction was the result of sin, it must have been the sin of his parents or his ancestors. All affliction conies as the result of sin. But there is such a long line of ancestors before us all guilty of sin, and the lines of transmission may have be¬come so complicated that infirmity and affliction may come upon us as the result of sins of others than our immediate par¬ents transmitted through the law of transmission from parent to child. The meaning is that neither he nor his parents have sinned that brought this blindness upon him. Jesus knew that when discord had been introduced into the world, and mortality had come upon man, as a result of weakness in the parents the child might be born blind without sin on the part of parents or child. So he says neither has sinned to bring this blindness. but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.—So this person had not been born blind for either his or for the sins of his parents, but the result would be to manifest the power and glory of God by Jesus healing him. He said he was blind to this end or purpose. We do not understand that he was afflicted just to afford an opportunity of Jesus healing him. Such for examples are given. There is a similar expres¬sion. Speaking of the death of Lazarus Jesus said, “ This sick¬ness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.” (11: 4.) I do not under¬stand that God directed that this man should be born blind to afford Jesus an opportunity to heal him, nor that Lazarus sickened and died only to give Jesus an opportunity to restore him to life, and so show his power; but in the providence of God these things had happened to these men through the workings of God’ s laws.

The weaknesses and infirmities of the parents, or the surroundings of the persons, had been such as resulted in blindness to the child. He having been born blind, Jesus used the opportunity presented to open his eyes to show forth the glory of God— his power and kindness— and the power of God made known to the world. This was not a denial of the truth that all suffering and disorder came as the result of sin and violation of the divine law. But this blind¬ness was not the direct result of sins in the parents or the child. 4 We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day:—Jesus declares that he must improve the opportunities of doing the work the Father sent him to do while he lived. God had sent Jesus that in him the works of God should be manifested. Miracles are intended to declare that God is with the man who works the miracle. He works the miracle that declares God is with and speaks through him, then men be¬lieve the message is from God. The miracle assures the world the message delivered is a message from God. The miracle is the attestation that the message the man speaks is from God. (4: 34; 5: 19, 26.) “ While it is day” means while life is granted, for death would come when he would cease to work. (11:9; 12: 35; 17: 4.) Jesus must be doing the work of God while life lasted. the night cometh, when no man can work.—He industriously, yet with no haste, did the work God sent him to do, conscious that his death would soon come when he would cease his work on earth, or the night of death would come when no man worketh. 5 When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.—His teaching by precept and example would enlighten the world while he was in it. He came as the light of the world. Jesus is the only light of the world to chase away the gloom and darkness of eternal night and lift up and enlighten the world. This has proved true in the history of the world. There has been no light of science, of religion, or morality save where the will of God is made known through Christ. The fundamental principle of all science is: there is one great first cause and overruling power that directs everything in accordance with fixed and unchangeable laws.

Without these as a starting point there can be no science. But this truth has never prevailed save where the Bible is known. Jesus Christ is the great central truth of the Bible, both in the Old and the New Testaments. Without him both are meaningless. Jesus brought the light of divine wisdom to the world. His teaching consisted in both precept and example.

The life of Jesus was his precepts put into practice. This much he said preparatory to opening the eyes of the blind that they might appreciate the lesson taught in the miracle. Jesus is called the Son of righteousness. As the sun gives light to the material world so Jesus gives light to the moral and spiritual world. His business was to dispense light while he lived. 6 When he had thus spoken,—What he spoke was explanatory of what he proceeded to do. He had so explained that they could see the miracle was evidence that God was work¬ing through him. Jesus desired no honor to himself. He desired them to understand the work was of God. he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay,—He spat on the ground, mixed dirt with the spittle, so as to make a paste, or clay, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with it. Jesus used means to accomplish this that had no virtue in them to open the blind eyes. This kind of means was used to show that the power and virtue came from God, and not from the means used. [The smaller and more insignificant the means used, the greater was the display of the power of God. Why use means at all when he could speak the word and it would be done? To show that God works through means and will be¬stow his favors when the means he orders are used or the con¬ditions complied with. Those conditions are often tests of faith.

There is nothing in them that reason would show fitted to produce the results, so must be accepted and used in faith. The use of them showed faith in God. The result showed the presence of God.] 7 and said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing.—The man was restored to sight. There was no healing power in the spittle, in the clay, in the water, nor in the application of the clay or the water. The healing was done by Jesus. In him was the power and virtue to heal. The reception of the clay, the going to the place, and washing were acts of the man, showing his willingness to obey Jesus, and in the obedience Jesus healed him of his blindness. 8 The neighbors therefore, and they that saw him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?—The man was well known, as he had all his life, now forty years old, sat in a public place and begged. The multitude saw him now a healed man, and it created wonder and talk among them. [The change in this man was so great that they could hardly believe their own eyes.] 9 Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he.—Some men are never certain of anything. They are vacillating in their minds and deficient in will power and are never positive as to anything; others reach positive and definite conclusions and can be relied on to be true to them. The healed man seems to have been of this character. Those who knew him best said, “ It is he.” Those not know¬ing him so well, or not willing to appear to be too bold, said, “ He is like him.” But the blind man said, “ I am he.” I am the same person who was born blind and sat and begged. 10 They said therefore unto him, How then were thine eyes opened?—This was the one question of interest to all. All those persons who knew him and had seen him, satisfied now that he was the same man born blind that had begged amongst them, asked, “ How then were thine eyes opened?” It was a wonderful and an unheard-of thing that one should open the eyes of the blind. The demons could exercise some miraculous powers. (10: 21.) When the question as to who Jesus was, and by what power he could work such a miracle, was asked, “ Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” The devil could do miracles of hurt and destruction to man, but not healing and blessedness. 11 He answered, The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam, and wash: so I went away and washed, and I received sight.—He seems not to have known much about Jesus, but tells plainly what was done and the effect. This implied that Jesus possessed miraculous power. [Note the growth in this man’ s apprehension of Jesus; here he is “ the man”— in verse 17 “ a prophet,” in verse 33 “ from God.” Thus he gropes toward the final truth.] 12 And they said unto him, Where is he? He saith, I know not.—During the excitement produced by finding that the blind man could see Jesus had quietly withdrawn, the blind man knew not whither. [This question probably was asked out of curiosity. Those asking the question were the neigh¬bors of the man born blind.] THE THE MIRACLEJoh_9:13-34 13 They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.—The Pharisees were the most active of the sects of Judaism. They were the most learned and pretentious, and so the blind man was brought by the executive command to them for further explanation of the occurrence. 14 Now it was the sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.—The Sabbath day was to be kept holy under the law of Moses. The keeping of this holy was the test of loyalty to God under the Mosaic law. Jesus had healed this man on this day, and they concluded that God would not be with a man that would heal on the Sabbath. 15 Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he re-ceived his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and I see.—Not satisfied, they again question the man. He quietly, but with positiveness, gave the conditions of the healing. 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 Testa¬ment there is not an expression imposing the Sabbath law. 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. 18 The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight,—Some in their doubt as to the man appealed to his parents. [They now begin scheming to get around Jesus working the miracle. They insisted that the man was not born blind. They under¬took to prove it by his parents.] 19 and asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?—They questioned them as to the identity of the man as their son and of his hav¬ing been born blind. 20 His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:—[“ We know” these two facts to be true. They were very positive in this.] 21 but how he now seeth, we know not; or who opened his eyes, we know not: ask him; he is of age; he shall speak fpr himself.—But as to or by whom he was made to see, his parents had only his word and they referred all parties to him. [He is of age and competent to testify in the case.] 22 These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.—While what the parents said was strictly true, they did not care to incur the persecution of the Pharisees. They clearly believed the statement of their son, but spoke evasively to avoid trouble. 23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.—[The parents did not wish to be excommunicated from the privi¬leges of the synagogue, so they were noncommittal concerning how their son received his sight. The decision of these rulers that if any confessed Jesus as the Christ they should be put out of the synagogue shows that the people were consid¬ering the question and that it was rapidly developing in their minds. They, therefore, hoped to nip the sentiment in the bud by their decree.] 24 So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner.—They were unable to explain the facts, and in the face of the probable miracle, to use wisdom on the man that was healed, they say this man that did the healing was a sinner be¬cause he had healed on the Sabbath. [Having failed to get any satisfaction from the parents they again call the son for a conference. This time they try to force an acknowledgment from him that there was some deception or mistake about Jesus restoring his sight. Their evidence of deception was “we know that this man is a sinner.” Their proof that he was a sinner was he healed on the Sabbath day.] 25 He therefore answered, Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.—The man refused to enter into the casuistry or the ethics of the case, but stood to the stern facts that I was blind and now I see. [He refused to be drawn into a dispute over the matter or to participate in their deceptive scheme. He was firm and held fast to the truth.] 26 They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?—To entangle him and justify themselves, they again ask him to recount what was done to heal him. [Hoping to find something with which to strengthen their scheme of deception, they now begin to cross-examine the man.] 27 He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples?—The blind man pressed the conclusion: would you recognize him as a prophet and become his disciples. He knew when men are determined to disbelieve the truth repeat¬ing the evidence will not convince, but rather infuriate them. [His “ also” implies that he was inclined to be a disciple.] 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 him¬self ready to accept the man who had opened his eyes as a prophet of God. 29 We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is.—They believed Moses was sent from God, but the origin of this man they did not know. [They felt that they were on safe ground in cling¬ing to Moses, but refused to be disciples of “ this man” on the ground that “ we know not whence he is.” ] 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes.—How singular that a man able to open the eyes of the blind in the name of God should be unknown to the defenders of the faith of God! [He declares it a “ marvelous thing” that these Jewish defenders of the scriptures did not know after this wonderful miracle that the one performing it was from God. He had a better knowledge of the scriptures than they.] 31 We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth.—It was a well-known truth among all the disciples of Moses and the servants of God that God heareth not those who rebel against him, and that he only enabled those who obey him to work miracles in his name. How then could this man who opened his eyes be a sinner? [Nicodemus said, “ No one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2.) Both he and the healed man affirm that God only heard true worshipers and those who did his will.] 32 Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind.—Such a case had never been known. [Certain kinds of blindness have been and may be cured, but this unheard-of cure— one born blind— he in¬sisted could be attributed only to the power of God.] 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.— No man could do this work except God was with him. 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether bom in sins, and dost thou teach us?—Chagrined and pro¬voked that this man withstood them, they taunt him with the idea that he was born blind in consequence of his own or his parents’ sins and now you presume to teach us regarding the teachers of God. And they cast him out.—They ordered him out of the syna¬gogue. [It may mean that they cast him out not only from their presence, but also from their sympathy and intercourse with them and their people. Note, that the avowed enemies of Jesus investigate a miracle of Jesus in repeated hearings and that they could find no flaw. Also observe that the people refer the case to a great religious order composed of ene-mies of Christ; that members of this order first examine the facts; then the case is referred to a higher tribunal, the official representatives of the nation, who cross-examine the parents, as well as the subject of the miracle. This judicial investiga¬tion shows by the testimony of both that the man was born blind, that he now saw, and his own testimony was given that he was healed by Jesus. The attempt to disprove the miracle was an utter failure and the court sought to discredit it by ex-communicating the chief witness.] JESUS MEETS THE MAN AGAINJoh_9:35-41 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?—Jesus was not unmindful of one so true to him, after he was driven out of the synagogue, sought him, and gave him further instruction and help. He wished to lead him up to believe that he (Jesus) was the Son of God. [The poor man, through faithfulness to the truth, lost the world, but Jesus is ready to give him heaven.] 36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?—He already believed that he was sent of God and that God was within him. But he did not know that he was the Son of God. So he was ready to believe whatever Jesus would tell him. 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee.—Jesus then assured the man that he himself was the Son of God. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.—The man at once accepted the truth of the statement and confessed his faith in Jesus by worshiping him as the divine Being. [The believer believes with his heart, confesses Christ with his mouth, and shows his faith by obedience.] 39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.—Those who are thought by others to be fools and claim no wisdom of their own may be made wise with the wisdom of God, and those who think they are wise after the world’ s wisdom may be made to realize that they are fools before God. [Jesus came into the world, not to condemn it, but to save it; but the effect of his coming is to reveal every man’ s true condition. The light reveals the stains of sin on the heart that would otherwise be unseen. Jesus is the touch¬stone. He not only gave sight to the blind, but opened the eyes of those who were in the darkness of ignorance. Publicans and sinners were enabled to see, while Jews and Pharisees, who claimed to be enlightened, were left in darkness, because they closed their eyes and would not hear.] 40 Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said unto him, Are we also blind?—The Pharisees saw that he classed them as blind and spoke to him of it. [Jesus had mentioned two classes— those who did not see who should see and those who saw or had the greatest spiritual opportunities— who should become blind by willfully closing their eyes.] 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.—If ye were really blind ye would not be guilty as you are now in claiming that you are not blind and so refuse to be taught. Because you refuse to acknowledge your blindness and turn to Jesus, you remain in your sins. [If they were blind, that is, entirely without knowledge and means of enlightenment, they would have no moral responsibility, but they claimed to see and had the greatest opportunities for knowing. Therefore, when they closed their eyes against the truth and thus willfully refused to see, they were guilty. Our responsibility is measured by our opportunities and will thus be judged at the last day.]

Verse 1 This whole chapter is devoted to the healing of a man born blind, the sixth of the seven signs, and to the discussions afterward which derived from the impact of so great a wonder upon the man himself, his parents, the neighbors, and the religious hierarchy. Presented with remarkable fullness of detail, this great sign, in addition to being a witness of Jesus’ deity, was also designed as a type of Jesus’ saving men from their sins. SIXTH OF THE SEVEN GREAT SIGNSAnd as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. (John 9:1) The length of the time-lapse between this and the preceding chapters is uncertain. John wrote long after the events narrated, and he did not always give the exact chronology of the events recorded. As he passed by … Many of life’s greatest opportunities occur unexpectedly and incidentally to life’s normal progression. He saw a man … Jesus saw the human tragedy beneath the beggar’s shirt. When men look upon each other they are inclined to see a doctor, a farmer, a rich man, or a beggar, etc.; but Jesus always looks upon the man himself. Blind from his birth … This was mentioned because healing of the congenitally blind has ever been impossible for men.

Verse 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?A strange mixture of truth and error prompted this question. The universal instinct that hails all sorrow and disease as the consequence of sin is correct, all of such things deriving, in the last analysis, from the debacle in Eden; but it is not true that every specific instance of handicap, disease, and sorrow should be invariably ascribed to the individual sin of the sufferer. As Paul stated it, “Death reigned … even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression” (Romans 5:14). Without regard to such truth, the apostles were quite ready to blame this man’s blindness upon himself, or if not upon him, then upon his parents. It seems ridiculous to us that prenatal sin could be committed; but, as Dummelow noted: The disciples thought that possibly the man had sinned, either in a previous state of existence (in accordance with the doctrine of transmigration of souls), or more probably as an infant before birth. To the Jews who attributed intelligence to unborn children (Genesis 25:22-26; Luke 1:41), this last was a natural idea.[1]According to Hendriksen, the Jewish Rabbis held that Esau had tried to kill Jacob in the womb, before either was born.[2] This writer rejects the idea that the apostles of Jesus believed either of those monstrous fantasies. Although even Calvin and Beza thought that they had transmigration of souls in view,[3] there is no evidence whatever of the apostles entertaining any such notions, the basic assumption throughout the entire Bible having always been that “the body” is the soul’s unique instrument (2 Corinthians 5:10). The possibility suggested by the apostles to the effect that the sin of the man’s parents might have caused his blindness was certainly not unreasonable; but, even so, if that had been the case, no moral blame would have fallen upon the blind son. The mistake of the apostles here was that of imputing blame where none existed. Both the man and his parents were declared by Jesus to have been guilty of nothing which might have caused the blindness. Therefore, one must hold those apostles guilty of a cruel and unfeeling question. They were like millions today who think that every sufferer and every victim of crime, disease, disaster, or calamity has in some mannerDESERVED the evil that came upon him. It was that same universal prejudice that armed the friends of Job against him with their bold accusations of sins foreign to the holy nature of Job, and inspired the accusations of murder against Paul by the citizens of Malta (Acts 28:4). The reasons underlying this disastrous human prejudice are apparently psychological outcroppings of man’s innate selfishness and pride. Ryle said of it: It has the advantage of rendering it needless to weep with them that weep. It saves a man of the obligation, when he sees heavy affliction, of smiting his breast and saying, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” It gives the natural man the comfortable feeling that he is so much better than the sufferer, as he is the more fortunate.[4]Christ taught here the fact of undeserved suffering. This is one of the great problems, and the Scriptures shed this light upon it. Jesus said that the rains and floods beat upon both houses, the one on the rock and the one on the sand (Matthew 7:25). God makes his sun to shine on the just and the unjust. Time and chance happen unto all men (Ecclesiastes 9:11).

Therefore, may those whose child was born handicapped, or only to die: and those unfortunates whose lives have been overwhelmed with disease and sufferings; and all whose lot has been to walk in weakness, pain, and humiliation - may all of them take heart. Christ sees and knows; and, for many of them, perhaps it is true that they suffer that “the works of God should be manifest in them”! [1] J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 790. [2] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 73. [3] Ibid. [4] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan), p. 583.

Verse 3 Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be manifest in him.Jesus’ reply did not mean that either the man or his parents were sinless but that they were guilty of no sin that had caused the blindness. The great problem of why some should be born handicapped, and others not, or why disasters should overwhelm some and not others, and why natural disasters like storms, floods, and earthquakes should destroy some and not others - all such things, affecting in their aggregate every life on earth, are not parceled out to men on a measure-for-measure basis related to the number and degree of their sins. All such elemental things are related to man’s constitution and to his environment by the all-wise God who created both man and the world where he lives; and they have the design of encouraging all men to take account of the power of God in their lives. The reason would seem to be that God intended that man should never get too cozy, as far as his hope of tomorrow is concerned. “Ye know not what shall be on the morrow” (James 4:14) is the sentence of God written over and above all human designs. That the works of God should be manifest in him … The truth that God has a plan for every person ever born shines in this. That child was born blind in anticipation of the wonder wrought in this episode. What a lifetime of agony the parents of the man born blind had endured! How often had they been the butt of scorn or open charge of sin; and yet how wrong they were who felt no pity and, in their smug self-righteousness, slandered and criticized them! God had a plan for the life of that blind man that led at last to light and glory and salvation at the pool of Siloam.

Verse 4 We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.The malignant opposition of his foes was in the Lord’s mind here. His day of life on earth was running to its close. The autumn had fallen upon the hills of Judaea, and the winter was coming on; and the times were hastening to that April morning when his quivering flesh would be nailed to the tree. Indeed “the night” was not far away. The urgency Jesus felt is here too. There was so much to do and so little time. Every man, like Jesus, should confront each new day in the consciousness that “on my day of life the night is falling.” Like him, may we all fill every fleeting hour with love and labor for mankind.

Verse 5 When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.This is the second of the great “I am’s” of John. For the list of these, see under John 8:12. When I am in the world … has the meaning of “as long as I am in the world” (KJV), an admission that there would come a time when Jesus would be no longer on earth; but that has reference only to his physical life. Such was the glory of Christ that, through the preaching of his apostles, the light would continue to shine unto all generations. I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLDThe world cannot do without Jesus. He is as vital and necessary as the sun itself is to the physical world. All energy and life derive from him. See further discussion of this under John 8:12. I. This metaphor reveals Jesus as God. Only of one identified with deity could it be said of him that he is the light of the world. The Old Testament made it clear that only God is light: “Jehovah is my light and my salvation” (Psalms 27:1); and an apostle identified God as “the Father of lights” (James 1:17). Therefore, when Jesus said, “I am the light of the world,” he forever lifted himself above the category of mere mortality. Only a lunatic, or the world’s true Saviour, could sincerely have said such a thing as this; and the receding centuries have left no doubt that the Redeemer said it and that he is indeed the world’s light. He was God come in the flesh. II. This metaphor teaches the sinless and undefiled nature of Christ, light being the only thing that may fall upon rottenness and corruption and itself remain uncontaminated. The Light of the world shines upon the wretched ugliness of our shameless world, saves it, changes it, and lifts it up, but is not himself contaminated. No matter how squalid the room in which the light shines, the light remains pure. Peter wrote: And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place (Greek: squalid room), until the day dawn and the Day-star arise in your hearts (2 Peter 1:19). III. This light obligates all who see it. Men may be pardoned for stumbling in darkness; but those who close their eyes against the light commit a sin against nature as well as against God. The obligation imposed by the presence of light may not be assumed or rejected by men, for the very existence of light carries the inherent requirement that men shall walk in it. Jesus summed it up thus: “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me may not abide in darkness” ( John 12:46). IV. Jesus is the light of the world eternally, for even in heaven, “the Lamb is the light” of the eternal city (Revelation 21:23). Bonar’s hymn catches the mystery of this thought perfectly: Light of the world, forever, ever shining, There is no change in thee. True light of life, all joy and health enshrining, Thou canst not fade nor flee. V. This metaphor is an apt figure of the universality of the gospel, there being no place on earth where light cannot reach. Similarly, the saving message of Christ shines throughout all the earth. The witness of the calendar, of Christendom, of history, of the progress of civilization, etc. - imperfect as the witness surely is, it is nevertheless undeniably universal. As John said of Jesus, he is “even the light which lighteth every man” (John 1:6-9). VI. Men are commanded to respond to the light. They should believe on the light and become sons of light (John 12:36); they should walk in the light (1 John 1:6-7); they should put on the whole armor of light (Romans 13:12); and they should arise and shine in the reflected glory of the light (Isaiah 60:1). The import of all this is that all men should exhibit an obedient faith in Christ.

Verse 6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay.Why did Jesus do this? We may never know, but it might have been to emphasize his humility. He did not affect any professional airs, mutter mysterious words, or pass his hands over the man’s eyes; and, by the use of a means so simple, he forever removed the idea that he might have used some powerful medicine. The anointing with clay also had the function of emphasizing the blind man’s condition. Even a casual glance at his mud-anointed eyes would eloquently reveal his handicap to any who chanced to see him. All so-called rationalization of this miracle based on the alleged efficacy of certain kinds of clay should be rejected. If there had been any curative powers in Jerusalem dirt, a market would have been established for it, and it would have been exported all over the world.

Verse 7 And said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing.The big thing in this verse, aside from the loving mercy of the Saviour’s awesome power, is the blind man’s obedience. Let it be supposed, for a moment, that this blind man exhibited the same attitude prevalent in our own times. Suppose he had said, “Now look, Jesus, this pool of Siloam business is not really necessary, you know. I believe in you and will just take my eyesight right here where I stand; and, after I am able to see clearly, then I will go and wash, like you said, just to show I trust you. Certainly, water cannot cure eyesight; so I’ll just take it here and now by faith only! Of course, I’ll go and wash later to show I trust you.” What would have resulted from such an attitude? Can anyone doubt that he would have died as blind as he was born, if he had responded with any such proposal? To his honor and exceedingly great reward, he did not claim a blessing while denying the condition upon which it was promised. “He went away, therefore, and washed, and came seeing.” The analogy in the foregoing will not be lost on a student of the word of God. Blindness, from the most ancient times, has been held as a type of sin. This does not mean that a blind man is a sinner but that the terrible handicap is a forceful illustration of sinful condition. Jesus said, “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Luke 6:39). See also 2 Peter 1:9 and Revelation 3:18. Thus, blindness is a Scriptural type of sin; and the detail of this sixth sign’s deployment upon the sacred page compels the conclusion that this blind man’s healing must be construed as typical of the far greater wonder of healing men of sin.

Most of John’s signs are thus to be understood in their dual significance in both the physical and spiritual sectors. Therefore, we shall note the bearing of this sign upon the forgiveness of sin. Salvation from sin is specifically promised by Christ, thus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). This is as simple and easily understood as “Go wash in the pool of Siloam.” Why then should Mark’s record of Jesus’ promise be hard to understand, and why all the quibble about whether water can wash away sins? Of course, it cannot; and, since the Dark Ages, no one has ever believed that it could, But, if a man can understand why the blind man received his sight after washing in the pool of Siloam, and wholly apart from any power of those waters, and without in the least supposing that the waters of the pool had anything to do with his healing, then such a person should have no difficulty with the analogy of the way one is saved in the washing of the waters of baptism, when he is baptized into Christ, and yet without supposing the water had any efficacy. The blind man was healed in the act of washing in Siloam. He did not go seeing and then wash; but he went and washed and came seeing. THE POOL OF SILOAMGo wash in the pool of Siloam … Peloubet identified the name Siloam with its earlier name Shiloah (Isaiah 8:6).[5] John’s interpretation of the name as “one sent” makes it a reference to the Messiah who was the “one sent” from God. Therefore, the word Shiloh (Genesis 49:10), which was the name Jacob gave the Messiah, appears to be the original form of the name Siloam. Thus, in Scripture, this name had three forms, Shiloh, Shiloah, and Siloam, all of them laden with an immense weight of symbolism pointing to the Saviour of the world. “Shiloh” was the poetic name of the Messiah; and Isaiah had made the soft waters of this humble water hole a metaphor of the peaceful government of the Lord as contrasted with the rapacious government of Assyria, the latter being compared to the rampage of Euphrates at flood stage. It was from this pool that the golden pitcher of water was brought to pour out in the temple court during the feast of tabernacles (John 7:37); and, in the presence of those waters from Siloam, Jesus invited all to “come unto me and drink!” The filling of Siloam came through an underground conduit that entered at the bottom, causing the waters to rise silently, hence Isaiah’s reference to “the waters that go softly.” Jesus’ choice of this pool as the scene of one of his mightiest deeds more than justified the Messianic expectations so long associated with the sacred word Shiloh and its derivatives. ENDNOTE: [5] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Co., 1925), p. 620.

Verse 8 The neighbors therefore, and they that saw him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that begged?For thirty years, or more, the blind person of that community had been observed by all; and suddenly he was whole, able to see as well as anyone! Such a wonder set the whole community in a ferment. Everybody knew the blind beggar with his cup in a conspicuous place every day; and the amazed neighbors’ question of his identity, probably resulted from the change in the man’s personality caused by the marvelous gift of sight. Despite the change his identity was absolutely certain.

Verse 9 Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he.Even those with any uncertainty confessed a positive likeness to the beggar they remembered. The man confirmed his identity, already made certain by the more perceptive who recognized him without any corroboration.

Verse 10 They said therefore unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered, The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam and wash: so I went away and washed, and I received my sight.This exchange with the neighbors probably occurred after the man had seen his parents but still only a short while after his healing. His explanation was simple and direct. Jesus had commanded; he obeyed and received his sight.

Verse 12 And they said unto him, Where is he? He saith, I know not.The blind man’s naming Jesus as his healer confronted the people with a dilemma. Many knew of the plot to kill Jesus and were certain that any acceptance of him would result in their excommunication. Perhaps many of them thought, therefore, that with such a sign as this to report, they might be able to persuade their leaders to accept him, thus resolving their own uncertainty.

Verse 13 They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.This event was before a gathering of the entire hierarchy: (1) because the neighbors’ action presupposes an assembly in a stated place known in advance by them, and (2) because “they cast him out” (of the synagogue) indicates a formal and official meeting (John 9:34). That such a full-dress meeting of the Sanhedrin occurred was a testimony of the priority which the religious leaders gave to the problem of Jesus’ growing power and influence among the people; and such an astounding miracle wrought under their very noses and supported by irrefutable evidence would have topped any agenda they might have had.

Verse 14 Now it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and I see.Now it was the sabbath … is written here in anticipation of the objection that would be stated in John 9:16. Of course, the Pharisees had already heard the full story, but they moved here to establish the facts through the testimony of the subject himself. Although the name of Jesus dominated that hearing, neither the healed man nor the examiners mentioned it, suggesting that they had forbidden any mention of the Lord’s name.

Verse 16 Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such things? And there was a division among them. The bitter schism in the Sanhedrin itself dominates this part of the narrative, a division mentioned in John 7:43, and John 10:19 also. The enemies of Jesus were the dominant majority; and it is clear that they were moving to silence the contrary elements in their own body as well as against any recognition of Jesus’ miracle. Because he keepeth not the sabbath … The fault of their reasoning here derived from their falsely equating their own traditions of keeping the sabbath with God’s true law of keeping it. As Hendriksen noted: The Pharisees identified their own trifling, hair-splitting sabbath regulations with the law of God. Hence … “All people who are from God keep our sabbath regulations.” … Because these premises were false, the conclusion was no longer dependable.[6]Once again in the New Testament is revealed the incredible damage of mingling human traditions with God’s word. All of those petty, and even silly, little rules and regulations which they had added to God’s true regulations, appear here, not as harmless little embellishments of sacred law, but as flagrant violations of it. The confusion of those men in identifying their own legislation as God’s law blinded their eyes to the Sun of righteousness when he arose with healing in his wings! It is alarming that, even today, the old Pharisaical falsehood that Jesus broke the sabbath is alleged in modern pulpits. Christ kept the law of God perfectly, all of it, not excepting even a jot or a tittle; and yet, in spite of this, such is the mystery of evil, that the old lie of the Pharisees still surfaces in the assemblies of the saints (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:2). ENDNOTE: [6] William Hendriksen, op. cit., II, p. 81.

Verse 17 They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a prophet.This was not an admission of the miracle but has the meaning, “Seeing that you say he opened your eyes, who do you say he is?” He is a prophet … Some progression in the man’s thinking appears in this. He referred to him first as “the man that is called Jesus,” and now as “a prophet,” reminding one of the progressive enlightenment of the woman of Samaria in John 4. This recognition of Jesus as a prophet carried a strong negative thrust against the Pharisees’ charge of sabbath-breaking. Dummelow pointed out that “prophets had authority over the sabbath."[7] Likewise Clarke stated that “According to a Jewish maxim, a prophet might dispense with the observance of the sabbath."[8] Thus, the blind man refuted the Pharisees’ charge; but they would not allow to Jesus even the status of a prophet. [7] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 791. [8] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (London: Mason and Lane, 1837), Vol. V, p. 586.

Verse 18 The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight, and asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?Such unbelief on the part of the majority of the Sanhedrin suggests the quotation ascribed to Voltaire: If in the market of Paris, before the eyes of a thousand men, a miracle should be performed, I would much rather disbelieve their two thousand eyes and my own two, than believe it.[9]Voltaire has many spiritual descendants, some of them being in pulpits, and this is the true explanation of what is called “modernism” in the religious community of our day. The attitude of the Pharisees here shows the folly of supposing that evidence of any kind can persuade men whose purpose is to disbelieve. Faith is a moral thing, as well as intellectual (John 3:19). They called his parents … They overreached themselves in this, for they promptly corroborated the son’s identity and the fact of his being born blind. The whole neighborhood could have done the same. It was another example of how the Lord “taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Corinthians 3:19). Ryle quoted Chrysostom who thought that: “Whom ye say” insinuated that they supposed the parents to be impostors, and that they were acting deceitfully, and plotting on behalf of Christ, by spreading a report that their son was born blind.[10]The very fact of calling the man’s parents shows the desperate nature of the Pharisees’ position. [9] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 600. [10] Ibid.

Verse 20 His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: but how he now seeth we know not; or who opened his eyes we know not; he is of age, he shall speak for himself.Thus perished the hope of the Pharisees that they might deny that the miracle had occurred. Their insinuation of fraud was totally demolished. He is of age … indicates a mature person; and according to Clarke, “Mature age, as fixed among the Jews, was thirty years."[11]The testimony of the parents that they did not know how or by whom the sign was wrought, although technically correct, was really and avoidance of testifying to what they did actually know. Their fear of the leaders prompted this reluctance on their part. ENDNOTE: [11] Adam Clarke, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 587.

Verse 22 These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.They feared the Jews … This means fear of the Sanhedrin, a fear mentioned four times in John: here, and in John 7:13; John 12:42, and in John 19:38. Excommunication was the dreaded penalty by which the unscrupulous leaders enforced their will upon the people. They had marshaled the entire apparatus of hierarchical power against any acceptance of Christ by the multitude. To be cut off from all social, religious, and even business communication with the whole nation was a severe and dreaded penalty, and far more than enough to strike terror and apprehension into the hearts of simple people like the parents of the man born blind. One may sympathize with their fears without condoning their timidity.

Verse 24 So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner.No device of denying the miracle being left to them, the leaders moved to rob Jesus of the credit for it, if possible; and having intimidated the parents into denying that they knew “WHO” did it, they tried here to enlist the son in a similar denial. Give glory to God … this man is a sinner … Thus they forbade him to give glory to Christ. Glory to God … ah yes, that was all right, only so long as God’s beloved Son was not mentioned. Thus, the Pharisees were compelled at last to authenticate the miracle itself. Being absolutely unable to deny it, they would still, if they could, deny Jesus any credit for it. Such blind and vicious prejudice was revolting; and nearly two millenniums have not softened the shock one feels in the presence of such perfidy.

Verse 25 Whether he is a sinner, I know not: but one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.This return of the healed man to the facts of the wonder was the last thing the Pharisees wanted; and his words are construed as an opposition to their designs. The miracle was proof that Jesus was no sinner; and the Sanhedrin knew this, as one of their own members had admitted (John 3:2).

Verse 26 They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?Drowning men catch at straws; and those evil leaders, confronted with a true miracle of Jesus, again questioned the blind man as to “how” it was done, hoping to find something they could condemn.

Verse 27 He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? Would ye also become his disciples?The blind man had hardened his attitude in the face of their unreasonable denials, tacitly admitting himself to be a disciple, and sarcastically demanding to know if they “also” would become his disciples! Disciples indeed! They were his sworn enemies, determined at any cost, moral or otherwise, to kill Jesus; and one can only marvel at the impact these words must have had upon that religious court.

Verse 28 And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses.This was a false boast on the part of the Pharisees. Jesus himself said that if they had believed Moses, they would have believed Christ. They were not the Israel of God in the spiritual sense (Romans 9:6-8). Thou art his disciple … Such an indirect admission (John 9:27) was all they needed; and they at once heaped upon him the full weight of their scorn, invective, and slander. They reviled him. Such was the justice and such was the pity of those sons of the devil who sat on Moses’ seat in the times of Christ. What had the blind man done to deserve their hatred and abuse? He had merely recognized in deepest humility and appreciation the mercy extended to him by the Lord. What a shock this encounter with the religious leaders must have been to him!

Verse 29 We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is.God hath spoken unto Moses … See article under John 5:39 with regard to knowing and yet not knowing the Scriptures. This man … we know not whence he is. Some have fancied that these words do not contradict what these hypocrites said earlier, “We know whence he is” (John 7:27); but of course they do contradict it. As a matter of fact, truth was no consideration to these sons of the devil who would have said anything that seemed, at the moment, to suit their purpose. It is a waste of time to try to “harmonize” this place with John 7:27, in regard to what these liars said.

Verse 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes. We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God and do his will, him he heareth. Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. The poor blind beggar suddenly emerged here as a thinker of remarkable and penetrating insight into God’s moral government of the universe. Herein is the marvel … Unerringly, he fingered the greatest marvel in the structure of the day’s events, that being the obstinate unbelief of the Pharisees. (See “The Marvel of Unbelief” under John 6:30). We know that God heareth not sinners … This great premise deserves further attention. ON GOD’S HEARING remarkable body of teaching in the Old Testament affirms the truth of what the blind man said here of God’s not hearing sinners. Note: Jehovah will not answer (the wicked) (1 Samuel 8:18). God will not hear the cry of the godless (Job 27:9). I will not answer the wicked (Proverbs 1:28). When ye make prayers, I will not hear (Isaiah 1:15). Your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear (Isaiah 59:2). Etc., etc. - It is astounding that the erstwhile beggar fully understood the truth of God’s not hearing sinners, whereas the learned leaders of the people had not the slightest regard of such a fact. Marvel indeed it was. Of deep significance is the implication of the words here to the effect that the miracle had been wrought in answer to Jesus’ prayer, a thing not stated, but implied by the mention of God’s “hearing” him. If any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will … The actual doing of God’s will, as distinguished from merely believing, was properly understood by the healed man as the basis of God’s hearing any person whomsoever; and, in such a perception, he was superior not only to the Pharisees but to the majority of the divines in Protestantism. Since the world began … appeals to the absolutely unique quality of the miracle Jesus wrought. How preposterous was the thought that God would have allowed some impostor to work a miracle like that! If this man were not from God, he could do nothing … In these three verses, the healed man propounded a syllogism of his own, thus turning a favorite weapon of the Pharisees upon themselves and defeating them with it, thus: Major Premise: God does not hear sinners, but he hears those who worship him and do his will. Minor Premise: God heard Jesus in the working of the great miracle before us. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is of God; and, if he were not of God, he could do nothing. Since the time when David, the shepherd of Israel, cut off the head of Goliath of Gath with the giant’s own sword, there had occurred nothing any more remarkable than this erstwhile beggar’s punishing defeat of the Pharisees through his skillful use of the syllogism, a device claimed by them as their own. Their anger and resentment overflowed against him. It should be observed that God’s not hearing sinners had reference to his not hearing them in the sense of not empowering them to perform a miracle. God heard the prayers of Cornelius (Acts 10:4) at a time when he was technically a sinner; and Jesus heard the petition of the demons (Matthew 8:31-32), granting their request. From these and other New Testament teachings comes the conclusion that God may answer any prayer, provided it fits into the will of God. Nevertheless, there are classes of prayers in which God will never answer sinners, the example cited by the blind man being an example. It should also be noted that Cornelius’ prayers, to the extent they requested salvation from sin, were not answered except in the secondary sense of God’s sending him a preacher of the gospel who told him what to do to be saved. Thus, the pioneer preachers who cited John 9:31 as proof that sinners might not procure salvation merely by praying for it, but that they should arise and be baptized and wash away their sins (Acts 22:16), were profoundly correct.

Verse 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.The rage of the Pharisees is understandable. A publicly known beggar had defeated them with a syllogism which they could not answer and which was strongly believed by some of their own number (John 3:2). Far from defeating the blind man, they had only aroused him to a vigorous and skillful advocacy of his growing faith in Christ. He no longer said, “Whether he is a sinner, I know not,” but now hurled the challenge in their faces, “If this man were not of God, he could do nothing? But, as is ever true, when error is defeated on the intellectual level, its proponents have recourse to slander, invective, and violence, never failing to employ any engine of coercion that might be available. Born in sins … This slander had already been refuted by Jesus (John 9:3), but they employed it anyway. And they cast him out … that is, out of the synagogue. Upon what grounds? If it must be spoken, upon grounds of spite. It was not upon the grounds of his confessing Christ, for he had not yet done that; but, as they saw his thinking moving in that direction, they cast him out for what they supposed that he would do, and not for what he had already done. His witness proved that Jesus was indeed the Messiah; and their drastic action against him was actually directed against the proof.

Verse 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?Jesus had no doubt heard with joy of the man’s triumphant defense of the truth before the Sanhedrin, and he moved at once to lead him to higher and higher levels of faith and obedience.

Verse 36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?The man evidently had an extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, as indicated by his boldness before the Pharisees; but he had not received any testimony except his own deductions from the miracle, to the effect that Jesus was the Son of God. Such testimony, therefore, from the Master himself he sought and received.

Verse 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.Lightfoot said this was the first worshipper and confessor of Christ to suffer for the Lord’s sake, as John the Baptist was the first martyr. Trench pointed out that the Pharisees in their rage made contradictory allegations against the formerly blind man, first denying that he had been born blind (John 9:18) and later declaring that he had been born blind due to sins (John 9:34). This foreshadowed the type of charges that group would bring against the Lord in the trials, of which it is written, “And not even so did their witness agree together” (Mark 14:59). The healed man confessed Christ at once and worshipped him. The Lord’s acceptance of his worship thus adds his own sacred testimony to that of the healed man that Jesus is indeed God come in the flesh. This narrative, coupled with that of the Samaritan woman in John 4, reveals a pattern in the type of events John selected for his gospel. Both here and there Christ declared in the most emphatic manner possible that he was indeed the Christ; and, in both instances, the persons to whom such declarations were made could not have been allowed as the basis for any charges the Sanhedrin might have brought against Jesus before secular authorities, this being due to the fact of the woman’s being a Samaritan, and the previously blind man an excommunicated person.

Verse 39 And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.Two kinds of “seeing” are in view here, “they that see not” in the first instance referring to the physically blind, and “they that see” in the second instance being a reference to the normal eyesight of the Pharisees, who were, nevertheless, spiritually blind. Thus he came to make the blind see and the seeing blind! In these words, Christ indicated his fulfillment of two classes of prophecies, those stating that the Messiah would bring “recovering of sight to the blind” (Isaiah 61:1 f), and those stating that certain of the Israelites would be blinded spiritually, “And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive” (Isaiah 6:9-10). See more on judicial hardening in my Commentary on Romans, p. 376. For judgment … In one sense Christ did not come for judgment, but in another sense he did. See under John 3:17; John 5:22 f, and John 12:47. In this reference, his actions were producing the hardening of Israel which had been prophesied, that hardening being indeed an act of divine judgment against Israel. Evidently, the Pharisees heard the conversation and witnessed the man’s worshipping Jesus, as the next verse shows.

Verse 40 Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things and said unto him, Are we also blind? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.Are we also blind … was a sneering, insincere question, such as Pilate’s “What is truth?” If ye were blind … cannot mean “if ye were physically blind”; and there can be no doubt that Jesus considered them to be spiritual blind; then why the “if”? It means “if” they had only admitted their arrogance, pride, and ignorance, they might have found salvation. The verse is addressed to their conceit. They were the ones who shouted “We know!” (John 9:29); and they were typical examples of the men described by Paul (Romans 2:17-20), who boasted of themselves that they were a guide to the blind, etc. Jesus’ statement, “If ye were blind” contrasts with their conceited self-glorification outlined by Paul. Blindness was the last thing on earth the proud Pharisee would have attributed to himself; yet how blind he was! Now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth … This is a reference to the conceit mentioned above. Those who would receive life and salvation of Christ must come in meekness and humility, confessing their sins, denying themselves, and crying, “Lord be merciful to me a sinner.” The entrenched pride and conceit of the religious leaders were utterly repugnant to the Lord; and, as long as men were wrapped up in such a cloak of self-righteousness, there was absolutely no hope for them. As long as they cried, “We see!” their sin remained. We see … And yet, despite the sixth sign, they could not even see the Son of God!

Questions by E.M. Zerr For John 91. What unfortunate case did Jesus see? 2. To what general cause did the disciples ascribe it 3. What special information did they ask Jesus? 4. Instead, what did Jesus inform them ? 5. State the proper period to work. 6. What constitutes the night? 7. How long was the light of Jesus to shine ? 8. What did he do for the blind man ? 9. State what he told him to do. 10. And what were the results? 11. Whose attention was drawn to the circumstance 12. State their question. 13. What did others say? 14. Who settled the question? 15. Tell what was asked him. 16. Was his answer correct? 17. What question could he not answer? 18. To whom was this man presented? 19. On what day had the miracle been done ? 20. What was repeated to the man? 21. Did he answer correctly ? 22. What accusation did some make against Jesus? 23. How did others reason in reply? 24. What took place among them ? 25. For what did they call upon the blind man ? 26. Repeat his answer. 27. What did the Jews profess to doubt? 28. Whom did they call to settle it? 29. How far were they willing to testify? 30. What did they profess not to know? 31. State their suggestion. 32. Give the reason for their attitude. 33. Calling the blind man, what was he told to do ? 34. On what was the suggestion based ? 35. What did the man profess not to know ? 36. Tell what he did know. 37. What further inquiry did they pretend to make 38. Of what did the blind man accuse them ? 39. At this, what did they say to Tevile him ? 40. What ignorance did they profess? 41. How did they credit Moses? 42. What seemed marvelous thing to the blind man 43. State his reasoning about hearing sinners. 44. Was the blind man inspired ? 45. What had happened for the first time ? 46. Tell what he accredited to Jesus. 47. Of what did the Jews accuse the blind man? 48. This disqualified him for what? 49. What did they do for him ? 50. Who next found him ? 51. State his question. 52. How did he reply? 53. What did Jesus then say? 54. How did this conversation result? 55. For what had Jesus come into the world? 56. How was it to affect sight and blindness? 57. Who overheard Jesus? 58. What denial did they put in question form? 59. Tell how they might have been innocent. 60. On what ground was their sin to remain?

John 9:1

1 The appearance of a man would not indicate how long he had been blind, hence they had other information concerning this case.

John 9:2

2 The question the disciples asked Jesus could only have been on the theory known as the “transmigration of souls.” This notion is explained at Matthew 14:2. Jesus did not endorse the theory, because it was untrue and foolish, but he did not take time to deal with every kind of error he met. However, both he and the apostles sometimes used the popular notions to illustrate a point or expose some inconsistency among the people. The present instance is one of them, which was used by Paul when he spoke of “eternal judgment” in Hebrews 6:2. And being “baptized for [in place of] the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, is another instance where the apostle used an erroneous practice without endorsing it, but to expose the inconsistency of those who did it.

John 9:3

3 No special act of God had been done to cause this man to be born blind. However, the misfortune will furnish the Lord an opportunity of manifesting divine power. Jesus was always able to turn unfavorable conditions into good account.

John 9:4

4 Day and night are used figuratively as we will see in the next verse.

John 9:5

5 As long as I am in the world. This phrase is directly connected with the words while it is day in the preceding verse. This would mean that night as used in the present instance refers to death. It was never intended that man should work day and night to make a living. Therefore, when language is used figuratively, day (the proper time for work) is likened to a life on earth, because that is the only period in which a man can work for the Lord. It is appropriate that we often sing, “Work, for the night is coming.” But Jesus did not mean to teach that after he left this world all spiritual light would cease. He was considering only that light which he personally could shed upon the human beings with whom he came into contact.

John 9:6

6 Sometimes Jesus used certain things in connection with his miracles that could have no logical effect in the case. There was an important point in such performances. Had something been used that might have a physical relation to the result desired and obtained, it might have been claimed that such was the cause. But since these things could have nothing to do with the actual problem, the conclusion is clear that the result was obtained through divine power.

John 9:7

7 Jesus never needed the help of any man in accomplishing his work, but it was well to teach the lesson of cooperation between man and God. Hence Jesus required the people to feed the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:43), and directed others to remove the cover from the tomb of Lazarus (John 11:39). Had this blind man not washed the clay from his eyes he would not have been healed of his blindness.

John 9:8

8 In the mean time, Jesus had moved on out of the throng, and when the man was returning from the pool with his sight given to him, the people were surprised at his appearance. The absence of eyesight often makes more difference in a man’s general appearance than may be thought. Yet in spite of the change wrought by the restoring of that function, some thought they recognized the former blind man.

John 9:9

9 Some of the people seemed to be very certain of the man’s identity, while others professed only to see a resemblance. But the man settled the discussion by informing them that he was the man who had been blind.

John 9:10

0 This question was asked for the simple purpose of information, as they were not present at the time Jesus talked with the man.

John 9:11

1 A. man that is called Jesus. All this blind man knew was what he heard, for he was blind and had to get his information by hearing only. Hence this verse is a statement of facts, without any reasoning or conclusions upon those facts.

John 9:12

2 While the man was going to the pool, Jesus passed on, so that up to the time of this questioning he had never seen his benefactor. The method Jesus took in this case served a purpose other than requiring the man to go wash in the pool and thus cooperate in his favor of being healed. It left him free to reason on the case without being prejudiced favorably by the appearance and personal presence of the one who had healed him. Under the circumstances, it was all the man could do to say he did not know where the person was then. We should bear in mind that all this conversation was between the man and the people who had no prejudice especially in the case, it not having been called to the attention of the Pharisees.

John 9:13

3 The text does not tell us why the man was brought to the Pharisees. We know, however, that they were the leading sect of the Jews, and were supposed to be interested in anything especially pertaining to miracles. The man said he was directed in his case by the one called Jesus, to go wash at the pool, with the result that he was made able to see. So it was logical that the case should be taken to these religious leaders since the very name Jesus brought up the subject for religious consideration.

John 9:14

4 There is no evidence in the life of Christ that he made any distinction between days, when he had opportunity for working a beneficial miracle. But John knew what was coming up over this case, and made the statement of this verse as an explanation beforehand, of the disturbance soon to be thrust into the work of Jesus. Made the clay was a manual act, and that was sufficient to give the Pharisees an excuse for their quarrel with the man for whom the work had been done.

John 9:15

5 The Pharisees asked this man how he received his sight, and were given the same answer that the people had received. We should note that the man said I washed, which was as much of a manual act as what Jesus had done. But in all of the controversy over this case, not one word will be said against the man for what he did on the sabbath day. This shows the Pharisees were not caring anything about the holy day, but were showing their hatred of Jesus and took this circumstance as a means of repeating their old hypocritically-inspired complaints.

John 9:16

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.

John 9:17

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.

John 9:18

8 The Jews failed to get any satisfaction from the man who had been blind. Their next move was to show that the whole thing was a fraud; that the man had never really been blind. Perhaps the parents can help them in their wicked design.

John 9:19

9 They asked the parents two questions concerning their sort. One of them pertained to fact and the other to theory.

John 9:20

0 They answered the first question very positively, saying we know, etc. It would have been useless for them to deny the facts, for such as the birth of a child without eyesight, and suffering that handicap for all the years up to manhood, would be too well known to be denied.

John 9:21

1 The parents could literally say we know not on the question of how their son was healed as far as personal knowledge was concerned. But if they had been willing to show friendliness for Jesus, they would at least have referred to the case as it was reported by eyewitnesses. They therefore evaded that point for the reason mentioned in the next verse and told them to ask the son himself. Of age is from a Greek term defined by Thayer, “Adult age, maturity.”

John 9:22-23

3 Put out of the synagogue is all from , and Thayer defines it, “Excluded from the sacred assemblies of the Israelites; excommunicated.” The privilege of assembling with the Jews in their religious gatherings was indeed a valuable one. For that reason it was a strong means of punishing a man who became objectionable to the Pharisees, to cast him out of the synagogue and withdraw the fellowship from him. (See chapter 16:2.) The parents of this man chose rather to deny to Jesus the credit due him, than lose their privilege of entering the synagogue. They took the cowardly way out of the embarrassment by referring the question to their son.

John 9:24

4 The Jews did not accomplish what they expected from the parents, so they thought they would make another effort with the son. But this time they did not trust the case to an unbiased question, but tried to prejudice him beforehand by framing the answer for him. It was similar to a case of our day where a judge will deliver a “directed verdict” instruction to a jury, when that jury had been sworn to decide the case themselves according to the evidence as they understood it.

John 9:25

5 But this blind man was not one to betray his conscience as a jury sometimes does. He did not pretend to decide for the present whether his benefactor belonged in the class known as “sinners,” but he was not afraid to affirm what he did know. That statement was the simple truth that he was blind but now was able to see.

John 9:26

6 This question was entirely unnecessary if the Jews were honestly seeking information. The blind man had already stated all the facts in the case as he understood them, and had nothing more in that line that he could say.

John 9:27

7 The useless question caused the blind man to realize that his questioners were not sincere in their inquiries. Or if they were, it was just their way of pressing the investigation further in order to learn what they could of. Jesus. As a means of testing whether that caused their persistence, he asked them if they were interested in becoming the disciples of Jesus.

John 9:28

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 Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18.)

John 9:29

9 Jesus had shown fully as much evidence of having been inspired of God as did Moses. Therefore the statements made by these Jews were unfair and amounted to a false accusation against the doer of this good deed to the blind man.

John 9:30

0 The man thought it was strange they did not know from where or whom Jesus had come. He thought they ought to have known the kind of source that produced him, judging by the works he was doing. It is a law of cause and effect that is recognized by everybody, that a tree is known by its fruit. Here is a man who has given sight to a man born blind, a feat equal in principle to a creative act, and the Jews pretended not to have any evidence by which they could figure out the background of his operations and general work among mankind.

John 9:31

1 This verse has been misused by many well-meaning disciples. They may be discussing the question of “who has the right to pray,” and they will quote this passage to show that only the children of God have that right. That sinners are outside the family of God and hence are not on “praying ground” before God. All such statements are true and are abundantly taught in the New Testament, but this passage cannot be used as a proof text. This man was uninspired and could not speak with authority, therefore his words cannot be used to prove the idea stated above. But the man could make the statement as an argument, just as one of us could do, knowing that the Word of God teaches it in various places.

John 9:32

2 This verse is a statement of truth that is backed up by the history of mankind, but it did not require inspiration to say it, for any person could say the same thing on the strength of history.

John 9:33

3 Since these were all statements of truth that could not be denied, the blind man could freely make them in his argument against the Jews. And on such a basis, he reasoned that this man (Jesus) must have come from God, else he could not do the wonderful things accredited to him and which were known to the public in general.

John 9:34

4 The truth of history agreed with the statements of this man, or the Pharisees would have confronted him with some case of healing that had been done. They knew they could not do that, so they tried to dodge the issue and call in question his right even to reason on the truth. Born in sins was a phrase that the Jews used to show their contempt for a truth which they could not otherwise meet. Referring to the theory of “Transmigration of souls” (see at verse 2), they wanted to weaken the force of the man’s teaching by implying he was of a low origin among men. On the pretense that such a person was unworthy of their fellowship, they cast him, out. This phrase means they excommunicated him as explained in the comments at verse 22.

John 9:35

5 This verse gives the first meeting of Jesus and the man after receiving the use of his eyes. The man had been insisting with the Jews that his benefactor must have been a man of God, but that was as definite as he professed to understand it. The question Jesus asked him was for the purpose of advancing him in his spiritual growth. His reasoning with the Jews before they cast him out, was evidence that he would appreciate a fuller insight pertaining to Jesus.

John 9:36

6 This question asked by the man is clear when we remember that he had not seen Jesus, and hence did not recognize his person. In other words, he evidently had learned that the one talking to him was a good and great man, but did not know of his Sonship with God.

John 9:37

7 The conversation had continued far enough for Jesus to make his claim. Thou bast both seen!him must have been a thrilling reminder for one who had been blind all of his life until that day. How gracious it was in Jesus to seek for the man on whom he had bestowed the blessing of sight, and make it a point that among the first, if not the first, real friend he was enabled to see, was the very One who had healed him and who was his Lord in the form of man.

John 9:38

8 The man who had been blind made the good confession. The miracle of opening his eyes convinced him that his benefactor was a man of God, and that would mean that any claim he would make would be true. Now that they have met personally and Jesus claims to be the Son of God, the man sincerely confessed his faith. We are not told in what manner he worshipped Jesus, and since that word has such a wide range of meaning, it, will be well to see the note in connection with Matthew 2:2.

John 9:39

9 A man who has been blind physically all his life and then been given sight, would certainly be a good subject to address concerning spiritual light. In this verse Jesus speaks of both kinds. After the man had been enabled to see physically, he gladly accepted the opportunity to see spiritually, which he manifested when he professed his faith in Christ. The last sentence of the verse refers to the Jews who had normal sight physically, but their stubbornness against the spiritual light made them as blind spiritually as the man had been physically.

John 9:40

0 The Pharisees felt the force of the teaching of Jesus and knew it applied to them. Are we blind also? This is in the form of a question, but Jesus knew it was their way of denying being blind. It could have been indicated either by the tone of their voice, or it was what they were thinking in their heart. Whichever it was, Jesus was able to read their motives and so expressed it in the next verse.

John 9:41

1 If ye were blind . . . no sin. Jesus is not teaching that ignorance of one’s duty will justify him in sin; the general teaching of the New Testament is against that. (See Acts 17:30.) But if a person is actually uninformed on the matter of his duty, he would not be guilty of “sinning against light and knowledge,” which is the sin Jesus meant these Jews might not have been guilty of. Ye say, we see. These Jews were really blind to the truths they so much needed, but their pride of self-importance kept them from giving the spiritual light a chance to shine into their heart. That caused them to be just as responsible for the obligations imposed by the spiritual enlightenment as if they actually possessed the knowledge of it.