John · Chapter 9

Verse 1. And as Jesus passed by] This chapter is a continuation of the preceding, and therefore the word Jesus is not in the Greek text: it begins simply thus-And passing along, kai paragwn, &c. Having left the temple, where the Jews were going to stone him, (John 8:59,) it is probable our Lord went, according to his custom, to the mount of Olives. The next day, which was the Sabbath, John 9:14, he met a man who had been born blind, sitting in some public place, and asking alms from those who passed by, John 9:8.

Verses 1-3. And as Jesus passed by — The word Jesus is not in the Greek, which is paragwn eiden anqrwpon tuflon, and passing on; he found a man blind from his birth — This chapter, therefore, seems to be a continuation of the preceding. As Jesus and his disciples (having left the temple, where the Jews were going to stone him) were passing through one of the streets of the city, they found a blind beggar, who, to move the people’s compassion, told them he was born in that miserable condition. The disciples, on hearing this, asked their Master whether it was the man’s own sin, or the sin of his parents, which had occasioned his blindness from the womb. It seems the Jews, having derived from the Egyptians the doctrines of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, supposed that men were punished in this world for the sins they had committed in their pre-existent state. The purport of that doctrine was, that, if a man behaved himself amiss, his soul was afterward sent into another body, where he met with great calamities, and lived in a more miserable condition than before; whereas a more advantageous situation, and happier condition than the former, were supposed to be the rewards of distinguished virtue; a notion which they borrowed from the Pythagoreans, and which seems to be hinted at by Josephus, (Bell., lib. 2. cap. 12,) and is plainly referred to, Wisd. 8:19, 20; compare Matthew 14:2; 16:14. “From the account which Josephus gives, however, of this matter, it appears, the Pharisees believed that the souls of good men only went into other bodies; whereas the souls of the wicked, they thought, went immediately into eternal punishment: an opinion somewhat different from that which the disciples expressed on this occasion. For, if they spake accurately, they must have thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had been a sinner, and was now punished for his sins then committed, by having his soul thrust into a blind body. Nevertheless, from what they say, we cannot certainly determine whether they thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had lived on earth as a man, which is the notion Josephus describes, or whether they fancied he had pre-existed in some higher order of being, which was the Platonic notion.” Now the disciples might possibly have been acquainted with these opinions, and might put the question in the text, on purpose to know their Master’s decision on so curious a subject. It seems more probable, however, as Theophylact has observed, after Chrysostom, that, as they were plain, illiterate fishermen, they had not heard of any such notions. Another opinion imbibed by the Jews during their captivity was, that all their sufferings descended upon them from the crimes of their forefathers, and were wholly unmerited on their part. It was this opinion which drew from the pen of Ezekiel that severe remonstrance and animated vindication of the ways of Providence, in his eighteenth chapter. Some remains of this opinion might have possessed the minds of the apostles: and they might have supposed they saw in the man born blind a case which could not be accounted for, but by supposing him to suffer for his parents’ guilt. But our Lord showed them that the case admitted of a very different solution; Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents — So as to bring this suffering upon him; nor was the punishment of either the chief design of this dispensation of Providence; but that the works of God — Namely, his miraculous works; should be made manifest in him — Particularly his sovereignty, in bringing him into the world blind; his power, in conferring the faculty of sight upon him; and his goodness, in bearing witness to the doctrine by which men are to be saved.

1. As Jesus passed by—Did this take place as Jesus passed from the excited scene at the close of the last chapter? Or is there an interval of some days, and the opening of a new event? In favour of the former view is the obvious sense of the language implying no break, and the fact that the temple where that scene took place was an ordinary place for the beggar to post himself for alms. On the contrary, however unexcited Jesus may have been, the disciples could scarce at such a moment have been in a mood for proposing a dry speculative question upon the first object they meet. Nor is it natural to understand the Sabbath-day of verse 14 as any other than the weekly Sabbath. We hold, therefore, that John here gives a separate narrative, of a very illustrative kind, of an event which occurred probably the Sabbath after the scene which closes the last chapter. From his birth— And therefore the cure was beyond human power, and so supernatural and miraculous.

V. 2. Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?-That is, was it for his own sins, or the sins of his parents? They suppose (as many of the Jews did, though without any ground from Scripture) that he might have sinned in a pre-existent state, before he came into the world.

Verse 2. Who did sin, this man, or his parents] The doctrine of the transmigration of souls appears to have been an article in the creed of the Pharisees, and it was pretty general both among the Greeks and the Asiatics. The Pythagoreans believed the souls of men were sent into other bodies for the punishment of some sin which they had committed in a pre-existent state. This seems to have been the foundation of the disciples question to our Lord. Did this man sin in a pre-existent state, that he is punished in this body with blindness? Or, did his parents commit some sin, for which they are thus plagued in their offspring?

Most of the Asiatic nations have believed in the doctrine of transmigration. The Hindoos still hold it; and profess to tell precisely the sin which the person committed in another body, by the afflictions which he endures in this: they profess also to tell the cures for these. For instance, they say the headache is a punishment for having, in a former state, spoken irrevently to father or mother. Madness is a punishment for having been disobedient to father or mother, or to one’s spiritual guide. The epilepsy is a punishment for having, in a former state, administered poison to any one at the command of his master. Pain in the eyes is a punishment for having, in another body, coveted another man’s wife. Blindness is a punishment for having killed his mother: but this person they say, before his new birth, will suffer many years’ torment in hell. See many curious particulars relative to this in the AYEEN AKBERY, vol. iii. p. 168-175; and in the Institutes of Menu, chap. xi. Inst. 48-53.

The Jewish rabbins have had the same belief from the very remotest antiquity. Origen cites an apocryphal book of the Hebrews, in which the patriarch Jacob is made to speak thus: I am an angel of God; one of the first order of spirits. Men call me Jacob, but my true name, which God has given me, is Israel: Orat. Joseph. apud ORIG. Many of the Jewish doctors have believed that the souls of Adam, Abraham, and Phineas, have successively animated the great men of their nation. Philo says that the air is full of spirits, and that some, through their natural propensity, join themselves to bodies; and that others have an aversion from such a union. See several other things relative to this point in his treatises, Deuteronomy Plant. Nœ-Deuteronomy Gigantibus-Deuteronomy Confus.

Ling.-Deuteronomy Somniis, &c.; and see Calmet, where he is pretty largely quoted.

The Hindoos believe that the most of their misfortunes arise out of the sins of a former birth; and, in moments of grief not unfrequently break out into exclamations like the following:-“Ah! in a former birth how many sins must I have committed, that I am thus afflicted!” “I am now suffering for the sins of a former birth; and the sins that I am now committing are to fill me with misery in a following birth. There is no end to my sufferings!” Josephus, Ant. b. xvii. c. 1, s. 3, and War, b. ii. c. 8, s. 14, gives an account of the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject. He intimates that the souls of those only who were pious were permitted to reanimate human bodies, and this was rather by way of reward than punishment; and that the souls of the vicious are put into eternal prisons, where they are continually tormented, and out of which they can never escape. But it is very likely that Josephus has not told the whole truth here; and that the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject was nearly the same with that of the Papists on purgatory. Those who are very wicked go irrecoverably to hell; but those who are not so have the privilege of expiating their venial sins in purgatory. Thus, probably, is the Pharisean doctrine of the transmigration to be understood. Those who were comparatively pious went into other bodies, for the expiation of any remaining guilt which had not been removed previously to a sudden or premature death, after which they were fully prepared for paradise; but others who had been incorrigibly wicked were sent at once into hell, without ever being offered the privilege of amendment, or escape. For the reasons which may be collected above, much as I reverence Bishop Pearce, I cannot agree with his note on this passage, where he says that the words of the disciples should be thus understood:-Who did sin? This man, that he is blind? or his parents, that he was born so? He thinks it probable that the disciples did not know that the man was born blind: if he was, then it was for some sin of his parents-if he was not born so, then this blindness came unto him as a punishment for some crime of his own. It may be just necessary to say, that some of the rabbins believed that it was possible for an infant to sin in the womb, and to be punished with some bodily infirmity in consequence. See several examples in Lightfoot on this place.

Verses 1-3. And as Jesus passed by — The word Jesus is not in the Greek, which is paragwn eiden anqrwpon tuflon, and passing on; he found a man blind from his birth — This chapter, therefore, seems to be a continuation of the preceding. As Jesus and his disciples (having left the temple, where the Jews were going to stone him) were passing through one of the streets of the city, they found a blind beggar, who, to move the people’s compassion, told them he was born in that miserable condition. The disciples, on hearing this, asked their Master whether it was the man’s own sin, or the sin of his parents, which had occasioned his blindness from the womb. It seems the Jews, having derived from the Egyptians the doctrines of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, supposed that men were punished in this world for the sins they had committed in their pre-existent state. The purport of that doctrine was, that, if a man behaved himself amiss, his soul was afterward sent into another body, where he met with great calamities, and lived in a more miserable condition than before; whereas a more advantageous situation, and happier condition than the former, were supposed to be the rewards of distinguished virtue; a notion which they borrowed from the Pythagoreans, and which seems to be hinted at by Josephus, (Bell., lib. 2. cap. 12,) and is plainly referred to, Wisd. 8:19, 20; compare Matthew 14:2; 16:14. “From the account which Josephus gives, however, of this matter, it appears, the Pharisees believed that the souls of good men only went into other bodies; whereas the souls of the wicked, they thought, went immediately into eternal punishment: an opinion somewhat different from that which the disciples expressed on this occasion. For, if they spake accurately, they must have thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had been a sinner, and was now punished for his sins then committed, by having his soul thrust into a blind body. Nevertheless, from what they say, we cannot certainly determine whether they thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had lived on earth as a man, which is the notion Josephus describes, or whether they fancied he had pre-existed in some higher order of being, which was the Platonic notion.” Now the disciples might possibly have been acquainted with these opinions, and might put the question in the text, on purpose to know their Master’s decision on so curious a subject. It seems more probable, however, as Theophylact has observed, after Chrysostom, that, as they were plain, illiterate fishermen, they had not heard of any such notions. Another opinion imbibed by the Jews during their captivity was, that all their sufferings descended upon them from the crimes of their forefathers, and were wholly unmerited on their part. It was this opinion which drew from the pen of Ezekiel that severe remonstrance and animated vindication of the ways of Providence, in his eighteenth chapter. Some remains of this opinion might have possessed the minds of the apostles: and they might have supposed they saw in the man born blind a case which could not be accounted for, but by supposing him to suffer for his parents’ guilt. But our Lord showed them that the case admitted of a very different solution; Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents — So as to bring this suffering upon him; nor was the punishment of either the chief design of this dispensation of Providence; but that the works of God — Namely, his miraculous works; should be made manifest in him — Particularly his sovereignty, in bringing him into the world blind; his power, in conferring the faculty of sight upon him; and his goodness, in bearing witness to the doctrine by which men are to be saved.

2. Who did sin?—We have here a bit of speculative theology. The disciples assume the prevalent doctrine as true, that special calamities are the result of special sinfulness. If they had assumed that the race is liable to miseries because the race is depraved, there would have been no error. It is also true that many sins entail particular sufferings upon posterity, physical, moral, and political. Nevertheless, special sufferings are not absolute proof of special guilt. This man, or his parents—But how could the apostles conceive that this man had sinned before his birth? Some commentators have held that they imagined that the man’s soul may have sinned in a previous body. That would imply the doctrine of metempsychosis or transmigration, by which the same soul is supposed to inhabit different bodies; and so the soul may have sinned in a former body and be punished in this. There is no clear proof that this doctrine was prevalent among these Jews. Others hold that they believed that the child in the womb, before its birth, could be guilty of wicked impulses and motions. Others, that the disciples asked a confused question without distinctly perceiving the implications it contained. But, note, this may have been the very difficulty they desired the Lord ultimately to explain; namely, how this man’s birth-blindness could have been the result of his own sin. On the popular supposition that suffering was the result of a sin, they desire to know of whose sin this man’s suffering is the consequence. Was it his parents’ sin or his own? And if Jesus had replied his own the next question would have been, If his own, how?

V. 3. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents-It was not the manner of our Lord to answer any questions that were of no use, but to gratify an idle curiosity. Therefore he determines nothing concerning this. The scope of his answer is, It was neither for any sins of his own, nor yet of his parents; but that the power of God might be displayed.

Verse 3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents] That is, the blindness of this person is not occasioned by any sin of his own, nor of his parents, but has happened in the ordinary course of Divine providence, and shall now become the instrument of salvation to his soul, edification to others, and glory to GOD. Many of the Jews thought that marks on the body were proofs of sin in the soul. From a like persuasion, probably arose that proverb among our northern neighbours-Mark him whom God marks.

Verses 1-3. And as Jesus passed by — The word Jesus is not in the Greek, which is paragwn eiden anqrwpon tuflon, and passing on; he found a man blind from his birth — This chapter, therefore, seems to be a continuation of the preceding. As Jesus and his disciples (having left the temple, where the Jews were going to stone him) were passing through one of the streets of the city, they found a blind beggar, who, to move the people’s compassion, told them he was born in that miserable condition. The disciples, on hearing this, asked their Master whether it was the man’s own sin, or the sin of his parents, which had occasioned his blindness from the womb. It seems the Jews, having derived from the Egyptians the doctrines of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, supposed that men were punished in this world for the sins they had committed in their pre-existent state. The purport of that doctrine was, that, if a man behaved himself amiss, his soul was afterward sent into another body, where he met with great calamities, and lived in a more miserable condition than before; whereas a more advantageous situation, and happier condition than the former, were supposed to be the rewards of distinguished virtue; a notion which they borrowed from the Pythagoreans, and which seems to be hinted at by Josephus, (Bell., lib. 2. cap. 12,) and is plainly referred to, Wisd. 8:19, 20; compare Matthew 14:2; 16:14. “From the account which Josephus gives, however, of this matter, it appears, the Pharisees believed that the souls of good men only went into other bodies; whereas the souls of the wicked, they thought, went immediately into eternal punishment: an opinion somewhat different from that which the disciples expressed on this occasion. For, if they spake accurately, they must have thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had been a sinner, and was now punished for his sins then committed, by having his soul thrust into a blind body. Nevertheless, from what they say, we cannot certainly determine whether they thought that, in his pre-existent state, this person had lived on earth as a man, which is the notion Josephus describes, or whether they fancied he had pre-existed in some higher order of being, which was the Platonic notion.” Now the disciples might possibly have been acquainted with these opinions, and might put the question in the text, on purpose to know their Master’s decision on so curious a subject. It seems more probable, however, as Theophylact has observed, after Chrysostom, that, as they were plain, illiterate fishermen, they had not heard of any such notions. Another opinion imbibed by the Jews during their captivity was, that all their sufferings descended upon them from the crimes of their forefathers, and were wholly unmerited on their part. It was this opinion which drew from the pen of Ezekiel that severe remonstrance and animated vindication of the ways of Providence, in his eighteenth chapter. Some remains of this opinion might have possessed the minds of the apostles: and they might have supposed they saw in the man born blind a case which could not be accounted for, but by supposing him to suffer for his parents’ guilt. But our Lord showed them that the case admitted of a very different solution; Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents — So as to bring this suffering upon him; nor was the punishment of either the chief design of this dispensation of Providence; but that the works of God — Namely, his miraculous works; should be made manifest in him — Particularly his sovereignty, in bringing him into the world blind; his power, in conferring the faculty of sight upon him; and his goodness, in bearing witness to the doctrine by which men are to be saved.

3. Neither… this man… nor his parents—Our Lord does not deny that they had sinned, but that they had sinned as the cause of his being born blind. Works of God—We do not understand our Lord to say that the single object for which this man was born blind was, that Jesus might work a miracle upon him. God is a divine teacher; awakening, instructing, and developing the minds of men, by the phenomena around them, to a full knowledge, both scientific and spiritual, of his works in nature and in history. Both the excellencies and defects of nature, the ordinary and the extraordinary providences, furnish subjects of study as illustrations of God’s works and his dealings with a sinful race.

V. 4. The night is coming-Christ is the light. When the light is withdrawn night comes,

when no man can work-No man can do any thing toward working out his salvation after this life is ended. Yet Christ can work always. But he was not to work upon earth, only during the day, or season which was appointed for him.

Verse 4. While it is day] Though I plainly perceive that the cure of this man will draw down upon me the malice of the Jewish rulers, yet I must accomplish the work for which I came into the world whole it is day-while the term of this life of mine shall last. It was about six months after this that our Lord was crucified. It is very likely that the day was now declining, and night coming on; and he took occasion from this circumstance to introduce the elegant metaphor immediately following. By this we are taught that no opportunity for doing good should be omitted-DAY representing the opportunity: NIGHT, the loss of that opportunity.

Verse 4. I must work the works of him that sent me — Called in the preceding verse the works of God; that is, I must not cease doing this, however the malice of the Jews may be irritated thereby; I must not desist from doing the will of my heavenly Father, in order to please them; while it is day — While I have an opportunity; while the time lasts, which is appointed to work in, and while the light lasts, which is given to work by. Observe, reader, Christ himself had his day; 1st, All the business of the mediatorial kingdom was to be done within the limits of time, and in this world; for at the end of the world, when time shall be no more, the kingdom shall be delivered up to God: even the Father, and the mystery of God shall be finished. 2d, All the work he had to do in his own person, here on earth, to set us an example of holy living, was to be done before his death. The time of his abode in this world was the day here spoken of. And the time of our life is our day, in which it concerns us to do the work of the day. During the day of life we must be busy, and that in doing the work appointed us: it will be time enough to rest when our day is ended. Our Lord adds, The night cometh, when no man can work — As if he had said, I see death approaching, which, as it puts a period in general to human labours, so will close the scene of such labours as these, and remove me from the converse and society of men. The period of his opportunity for doing the will of his Father, and glorifying him on earth, was at hand, and therefore he would lose no time, but be active and laborious. Thus, the consideration of our death approaching, should quicken us to a diligent improvement of all the opportunities of life, both for doing and gaining good. The night cometh — It will come certainly, and may come soon and suddenly: and when it comes we cannot work, because the light afforded us to work by will be extinguished, and the time allotted us to work in will then be expired. When the night comes, the labourers must be called. They must then show their work, and receive according to the deeds done in the body: for then the time of probation will be ended, and the time of retribution begun.

4. I must work the works—The apparent defect in this work of nature, so called, gave room for the manifestation of a work of grace. But the work, whether of nature, as in the case of the man’s being born blind, or of grace, as of his being restored to sight, is in either case the work of him that sent me—God. While it is day—In the terms day, night, light, of verses 4 and

V. 5. I am the light of the world-I teach men inwardly by my Spirit, and outwardly by my preaching, what is the will of God; and I show them, by my example, how they must do it.

Verse 5. I am the light of the world.] Like the sun, it is my business to dispense light and heat every where; and to neglect no opportunity that may offer to enlighten and save the bodies and souls of men. See John 8:12.

Verse 5. As long as I am in the world — These words show what our Lord meant by the day mentioned in the preceding verse, namely, the time he should be in the world. So long, says he, I am the light of the world — Teaching men inwardly by my Spirit, and outwardly by my preaching, what is the will of God; and showing them by my example how to perform it. “While he continued on earth he was the light of the world by his personal ministry and miracles; and he would be the same by his doctrine and his Spirit to the end of time.” — Scott. And to teach us how able and willing he is to communicate divine illumination to the souls of men, he often restored sight to such as were corporally blind; and he was about to do it now. For, as Dr. Macknight justly observes, “our Lord’s miracles were designed, not only as proofs of his mission, but to be specimens of the power which he possessed as Messiah. For example, by feeding the multitude with meat that perisheth, he signified that he was come to quicken and nourish mankind with the bread of life, that sovereign cordial and salutary nutriment of the soul. His giving sight to the blind was a lively emblem of the efficacy of his doctrine [when accompanied by his grace] to illuminate the blinded understandings of men. His healing their bodies represented his power to heal their souls, and was a specimen of his authority to forgive sins, as it was a real, though but a partial removal of its punishment. His casting out devils was an earnest of his final victory over Satan and all his associates. His raising particular persons from the dead was the beginning of his triumph over death, and a demonstration of his ability to accomplish a general resurrection. And, to give no more examples, his curing all promiscuously, who applied to him, showed that he was come, not to condemn the world, but to save even the chief of sinners. Accordingly, at performing these miracles, or soon after, when the memory of them was fresh in the minds of his hearers, we often find him turning his discourse to spiritual things that were signified by them, as in the case before us.”

5, we recognize some allusion to the night of the blind man’s eyes on which he was to pour the light of day. The work to which the Lord alludes is his earthly work, to be performed during his dwelling in the flesh. Relative to this, his death, although it should be the opening of a new and still greater scene of work, would be a close, a cessation, a night. The must implies that Jesus felt, as it were, a sort of obligation, from the very nature of his mission, to repair by grace this defect of nature. No man can work— Though men may partially work by the literal night, yet the spiritual night of death is the perfect termination of all living operations.

5. As long as—The objects of labour are, like this blind man, perpetually turning up; there must be no tiring during the brief day of his earthly life.

V. 6. He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay-This might almost have blinded a man that had sight. But what could it do toward curing the blind? It reminds us that God is no farther from the event, when he works either with, or without means, and that all the creatures are only that which his almighty operation makes them.

Verse 6. Anointed the eyes of the blind man] It would be difficult to find out the reason which induced our Lord to act thus. It is certain, this procedure can never be supposed to have been any likely medical means to restore sight to a man who was born blind; this action, therefore, had no tendency to assist the miracle. If his eye-lids had been only so gummed together that they needed nothing but to be suppled and well washed, it is not likely that this could possibly have been omitted from his birth until now. The Jews believed that there was some virtue in spittle to cure the diseases of the eye; but then they always accompanied this with some charm. Our Lord might make clay with the spittle to show that no charms or spells were used, and to draw their attention more particularly to the miracle which he was about to work. Perhaps the best lesson we can learn from this is: That God will do his own work in his own way; and, to hide pride from man, will often accomplish the most beneficial ends by means not only simple or despicable in themselves, but by such also as appear entirely contrary, in their nature and operation, to the end proposed to be effected by them.

Verses 6, 7. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, &c. — He did the things here mentioned, that he might exercise the faith and obedience of the patient, and show that he could command efficacy from whatever means he should please to use; could work without means, or even by such as seemed evidently calculated to produce an effect contrary to that intended. The clay, here put on the eyes of the blind man, might almost have blinded a person that had sight. But what could it do toward curing the blind? It reminds us that God is no farther from the event designed, whether he uses any means to accomplish it or not; and that all the creatures are only that which his almighty operation makes them. To try still further the faith and submission of the blind man, Jesus said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam — Perhaps, by giving this command, our Lord intended to make the miracle more taken notice of. For a crowd of people would naturally gather round the man, to observe the event of so strange a prescription. And it is exceeding probable that the guide who must have led him, in traversing a great part of the city, would mention the errand he was going upon, and so call those who saw him to a greater attention. Which is by interpretation, Sent — And so was a type of the Messiah, who was sent of God. This remark, Grotius and Dr. S. Clarke think was designed to intimate, that Christ’s command to the blind man was symbolical, teaching him that he owed his cure to the Messiah, one of whose names was Shiloh, the sent of God.

The waters here mentioned came from a spring that was in the rocks of mount Zion, and were gathered into two great basins, the lower called the Pool of Fleeces, and the upper, Shiloah, because the waters that filled it were sent to them by the goodness of God, from the bowels of the earth; for in Judea springs of water, being very rare, were esteemed peculiar blessings. Hence the waters of Shiloah were made by the prophet a type of David’s descendants, and among the rest, of the Messiah, Isaiah 8:5: whose benefits are fitly represented by the image of water, for his blood purifies the soul from the foulest stains of sin, just as water cleanses the body from its defilements. Moreover, his doctrine imparts wisdom, and affords refreshment to the spirit, like that which cool draughts of water impart to one who is ready to faint away with thirst and heat. He went, therefore, and washed, and came seeing — He believed, and obeyed, and obtained the blessing he desired. Had he been wise in his own eyes, and reasoned like Naaman, on the impropriety of the means, he would justly have been left in darkness. Lord, may our proud hearts be subdued to the methods of thy recovering grace! May we leave thee to choose how thou wilt bestow favours which it is our highest interest to receive on any terms. This amazing miracle was, doubtless, wrought in the presence of great numbers of people, partly accompanying the man as he passed along the streets, and partly of such as he found at the pool, which was a place much frequented. All these, seeing him led thither blind, with his eyes bedaubed with clay, must have gathered about him, eager to know the cause of so strange an appearance. And “having examined and found that he was stone blind, they could not but be prodigiously struck with his relation, when, after washing in the pool, they saw the new faculty instantly imparted to him; especially if his relation was confirmed by the person who led him, as in all probability it would be. For it is reasonable to suppose, that his conductor was one of them who stood by when Jesus anointed his eyes, and ordered him to wash them in Siloam. Accordingly, when he went away, and washed, and came seeing, that is, walked by the assistance of his own eyes, without being led, the miracle was earnestly and accurately inquired into by all his acquaintance, and was so universally known, that it became the general topic of conversation at Jerusalem, as the evangelist informs us, verses 8, 9; nay, it was accurately examined by the literati there. For the man was brought before them; they looked at his eyes; they inquired what had been done to them; they sent for his parents, to know from them if he had been really born blind; and they excommunicated the man, because he would not join them in saying that Jesus, who had cured him, was an impostor.”

6. He spat on the ground—The Lord uses instrumentalities for the end, to show that the end was the purposed end, and not mere coincidence or chance. He uses instrumentalities plainly inadequate, to show that the power was miraculous. Both spittle and clay were often used by the ancients as an ointment for the cure of weak eyes; and this again indicates that our Lord purposes, by their use, to show that the cure is the result of his purpose. Yet no one could ever believe that the cure of one born blind could ever be effected naturally by such means. The cure was, therefore, an intended result and a miraculous one. Made clay—Made a clay mortar or mixture.

V. 7. Go, wash at the pool of Siloam-Perhaps our Lord intended to make the miracle more taken notice of. For a crowd of people would naturally gather round him to observe the event of so strange a prescription, and it is exceeding probable, the guide who must have led him in traversing a great part of the city, would mention the errand he was going upon, and so call all those who saw him to a greater attention.

From the fountain of Siloam, which was without the walls of Jerusalem, a little stream flowed into the city, and was received in a kind of basin, near the temple, and called the pool of Siloam.

Which is, by interpretation, Sent-And so was a type of the Messiah, who was sent of God.

He went and washed, and came seeing-He believed, and obeyed, and found a blessing. Had he been wise in his own eyes, and reasoned, like Naaman, on the impropriety of the means, he had justly been left in darkness. Lord, may our proud hearts be subdued to the methods of thy recovering grace! May we leave thee to choose how thou wilt bestow favours, which it is our highest interest to receive on any terms.

Verse 7. Siloam] Called also Shiloah, Silos, or Siloa, was a fountain under the walls of Jerusalem, towards the east, between the city and the brook Kidron. Calmet thinks that this was the same with En-rogel, or the fuller’s fountain, which is mentioned in Joshua 15:7; 18:16; in 2 Samuel 17:17; and in 1 Kings 1:9. Its waters were collected in a great reservoir for the use of the city; and a stream from it supplied the pool of Bethesda.

By interpretation, SENT.] From the Hebrew jlv shalach, he sent: either because it was looked upon as a gift sent from God, for the use of the city; or because its waters were directed or sent by canals or pipes, into different quarters, for the same purpose. Some think there is an allusion here to Genesis 49:10; that this fountain was a type of Shiloh, the Christ, the SENT of God; and that it was to direct the man’s mind to the accomplishment of the above prophecy that our Lord sent him to this fountain. This supposition does not appear very solid. The Turks have this fountain still in great veneration, and think the waters of it are good for diseases of the eyes. Lightfoot says that the spring of Siloam discharged itself by a double stream into a twofold pool-the upper was called jwlyv shiloach-the lower, jlv shelach; the one signifying apestalmenov, sent, the latter, kwdiwn fleeces; and that our Lord marked this point so particularly, to inform the blind man that it was not to Shelach, but to Shiloach, that he must go to wash his eyes. These two pools seem to be referred to in Isaiah 7:23; 22:9.

Verses 6, 7. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, &c. — He did the things here mentioned, that he might exercise the faith and obedience of the patient, and show that he could command efficacy from whatever means he should please to use; could work without means, or even by such as seemed evidently calculated to produce an effect contrary to that intended. The clay, here put on the eyes of the blind man, might almost have blinded a person that had sight. But what could it do toward curing the blind? It reminds us that God is no farther from the event designed, whether he uses any means to accomplish it or not; and that all the creatures are only that which his almighty operation makes them. To try still further the faith and submission of the blind man, Jesus said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam — Perhaps, by giving this command, our Lord intended to make the miracle more taken notice of. For a crowd of people would naturally gather round the man, to observe the event of so strange a prescription. And it is exceeding probable that the guide who must have led him, in traversing a great part of the city, would mention the errand he was going upon, and so call those who saw him to a greater attention. Which is by interpretation, Sent — And so was a type of the Messiah, who was sent of God. This remark, Grotius and Dr. S. Clarke think was designed to intimate, that Christ’s command to the blind man was symbolical, teaching him that he owed his cure to the Messiah, one of whose names was Shiloh, the sent of God.

The waters here mentioned came from a spring that was in the rocks of mount Zion, and were gathered into two great basins, the lower called the Pool of Fleeces, and the upper, Shiloah, because the waters that filled it were sent to them by the goodness of God, from the bowels of the earth; for in Judea springs of water, being very rare, were esteemed peculiar blessings. Hence the waters of Shiloah were made by the prophet a type of David’s descendants, and among the rest, of the Messiah, Isaiah 8:5: whose benefits are fitly represented by the image of water, for his blood purifies the soul from the foulest stains of sin, just as water cleanses the body from its defilements. Moreover, his doctrine imparts wisdom, and affords refreshment to the spirit, like that which cool draughts of water impart to one who is ready to faint away with thirst and heat. He went, therefore, and washed, and came seeing — He believed, and obeyed, and obtained the blessing he desired. Had he been wise in his own eyes, and reasoned like Naaman, on the impropriety of the means, he would justly have been left in darkness. Lord, may our proud hearts be subdued to the methods of thy recovering grace! May we leave thee to choose how thou wilt bestow favours which it is our highest interest to receive on any terms. This amazing miracle was, doubtless, wrought in the presence of great numbers of people, partly accompanying the man as he passed along the streets, and partly of such as he found at the pool, which was a place much frequented. All these, seeing him led thither blind, with his eyes bedaubed with clay, must have gathered about him, eager to know the cause of so strange an appearance. And “having examined and found that he was stone blind, they could not but be prodigiously struck with his relation, when, after washing in the pool, they saw the new faculty instantly imparted to him; especially if his relation was confirmed by the person who led him, as in all probability it would be. For it is reasonable to suppose, that his conductor was one of them who stood by when Jesus anointed his eyes, and ordered him to wash them in Siloam. Accordingly, when he went away, and washed, and came seeing, that is, walked by the assistance of his own eyes, without being led, the miracle was earnestly and accurately inquired into by all his acquaintance, and was so universally known, that it became the general topic of conversation at Jerusalem, as the evangelist informs us, verses 8, 9; nay, it was accurately examined by the literati there. For the man was brought before them; they looked at his eyes; they inquired what had been done to them; they sent for his parents, to know from them if he had been really born blind; and they excommunicated the man, because he would not join them in saying that Jesus, who had cured him, was an impostor.”

Verse 7. Go, wash in the pool of Siloam. Some travellers say that this fountain is supplied by conduits from the Gihon, and that the water has a sweet taste. Mr. Biddulph, quoted on John 4:5, says the same of Jacob’s well. The pool of Siloam was situated near the temple; and they drew water from it in a golden pitcher to pour on the sacrifices, during the feast of tabernacles. See Isaiah 12:3. 2 Chronicles 32:30. It was once so spacious that the people could swim in it.

7. Go, wash—An act of faith is the condition to his salvation. Had he refused, he might have been doomed to perpetual darkness. Pool of Siloam—This is a pool or a small pond, in an oblong form, at the lower end of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, overlooked by the wall of Mount Zion. Its sides are built up with stones, and a column stands in its middle, indicating that a chapel was once built over it. It is in length fifty-four feet, by eighteen in breadth. It is fed, probably, by water from the temple mount. By interpretation, Sent—By this explanation of the meaning of the word, we understand the Evangelist to indicate that Jesus selected this pool because its name was significant. As Christ himself is the fountain, sent from God, by which our nature is purified, so Siloam is the fountain, sent from the mount of God’s temple, by which the man is washed from both his blindness and his clay. The man was sent by the Sent to the Sent. The word Siloam here is in the Hebrew Shiloah, hwlv; the h being changed to m for Greek euphony. But Kuinoel, like many other critics, affirms that Shiloah is not truly the Hebrew for Sent, but Shaluah; and so claims that this parenthesis is not John’s, but an interpolation. Tholuck, however, maintains “that the yod in Shiloah is to be regarded as daghesh forte resolved, and that the word is, consequently, to be regarded either as abstract, or equivalent to hlv effusion, that is, aqueduct; or may even be like the form dylw bwya passively equivalent to ‘the one sent.’“ Excitement among neighbours, 8-12.

So great a cure upon so well-known a case could not fail to startle the immediate residents of the locality. The scenes and dialogues that follow are so natural that they cannot but be true. The character of the restored man is developed in the most exquisite manner by his own words. His native shrewdness and firmness of convictions against captious cavils, his rational faith in, and confiding fidelity to, his restorer, appear in beautiful succession. He had, or at least attained, that position, purpose, and spirit of faith which only need Christ to be truly presented, to result in his full acceptance of Christ. Even before he knew the Good Shepherd he was, by anticipation, one of the true sheep, showing his Christward predisposition, and obedience to the Father’s drawings, by hearing the Shepherd’s voice and following his steps. See notes on verses 17, 25, 35, and John 10:4. The neighbours prosecute a threefold inquiry. Is this the very man who was blind? How were his eyes opened? Where is his restorer? The first two questions were amply answered by the man himself. The third remained as yet unanswered.

Verse 8. That he was blind] oJti tuflov hn: but, instead of this, prosaithv, when he begged, or was a beggar, is the reading of ABC*DKL, seven others, both the Syriac, both the Arabic, later Persic, Coptic, Æthiopic, Armenian, Sahidic, Gothic, Slavonic, Vulgate, eight copies of the Itala, and some of the primitive fathers. This is in all probability the true reading, and is received by Griesbach into the text. Beggars in all countries have a language peculiar to themselves. The language of the Jewish beggars was the following: yk ybz Deserve something by me-Give me something that God may reward you. Ëm rg ykz yn ykr O ye tender-hearted, do yourselves good by me. Another form, which seems to have been used by such as had formerly been in better circumstances, was this: aga hm yb lktsa agywh hm yk yks Look back and see what I have been; look upon me now, and see what I am. See Lightfoot.

Verses 8, 9. The neighbours, therefore — Those who lived in the beggar’s neighbourhood, and those who had frequently passed by where he used to beg, being well acquainted with his form and visage, were astonished at the alteration which they observed in his countenance, by reason of the new faculty that was bestowed upon him. Wherefore they expressed their surprise by asking one another, if this was not the blind man to whom they used to give alms. Some said, This is he; others, He is like him — “The circumstance of having received his sight would give him an air of spirit and cheerfulness, which would render him something unlike what he was before, and might occasion a little doubt to those who were not well acquainted with him.” — Doddridge. But he said, I am he — The very man that so lately sat and begged; I am he that was blind, and was an object of the charity of men, but now see, and am a monument of the mercy and grace of God. We do not find that the neighbours appealed to him in this matter; but he, hearing the debate, interposed, and put an end to it. It is a piece of justice we owe to our neighbours, to rectify their mistakes, and to set things before them, as far as we are able, in a true light. Applying it spiritually, it teaches us that those who are savingly enlightened by the grace of God, should be ready to own what they were before that blessed change was wrought. See 1 Timothy 1:23, 24.

8. He that sat and begged—The notoriety of his case explains how it was that the apostles knew him to be born blind. Verse 2.

Verse 9. Some said, This is he] This miracle was not wrought in private-nor before a few persons-nor was it lightly credited. Those who knew him before were divided in their opinion concerning him: not whether the man who sat there begging was blind before-for this was known to all; nor, whether the person now before them saw clearly-for this was now notorious; but whether this was the person who was born blind, and who used in a particular place to sit begging.

Others said, He is like him] This was very natural: for certainly the restoration of his sight must have given him a very different appearance to what he had before.

Verses 8, 9. The neighbours, therefore — Those who lived in the beggar’s neighbourhood, and those who had frequently passed by where he used to beg, being well acquainted with his form and visage, were astonished at the alteration which they observed in his countenance, by reason of the new faculty that was bestowed upon him. Wherefore they expressed their surprise by asking one another, if this was not the blind man to whom they used to give alms. Some said, This is he; others, He is like him — “The circumstance of having received his sight would give him an air of spirit and cheerfulness, which would render him something unlike what he was before, and might occasion a little doubt to those who were not well acquainted with him.” — Doddridge. But he said, I am he — The very man that so lately sat and begged; I am he that was blind, and was an object of the charity of men, but now see, and am a monument of the mercy and grace of God. We do not find that the neighbours appealed to him in this matter; but he, hearing the debate, interposed, and put an end to it. It is a piece of justice we owe to our neighbours, to rectify their mistakes, and to set things before them, as far as we are able, in a true light. Applying it spiritually, it teaches us that those who are savingly enlightened by the grace of God, should be ready to own what they were before that blessed change was wrought. See 1 Timothy 1:23, 24.

9. Like him—This was doubtless the desperate solution of some who, like certain modern would-be philosophers, adopt any supposition rather than admit a miracle. He said, I am he—A man is generally the best judge of his own identity.

Verses 10, 12. How were thine eyes opened? — The fact being ascertained that a man, born blind, had received his sight, they are disposed to inquire how so extraordinary an event was brought about. Observe, reader, the works of the Lord, being great, ought to be sought out: and they will appear more wonderful the more we examine them, and are made acquainted with the way in which they are effected. He answered, A man called Jesus made clay, &c. — He seems to have been before totally ignorant of Jesus; and I went and washed — As he directed me; and immediately I received sight — And this, in a few words, is a true and exact account of this wonderful fact. Thus, those who have experienced special instances of God’s power and goodness, in temporal or spiritual things, should be ready, upon all occasions, to declare what they have thus known, for the glory of God, and for the instruction and encouragement of others. Then said they, Where is he? — Where can we find the man that performed this miracle? Some, doubtless, asked this question out of curiosity: Where is he, that we may see him? A man that did such cures as these deserved to be seen: one would go a good way for the sight of such a person. But some, we may hope, asked it out of a good design: Where is he, that we may be acquainted with him? Where is he, that we may come to him, and share in the favours he is so free to impart? He said, I know not — I have never seen him, or conversed with him, otherwise than as I have now told you. As soon as Christ had sent him to the pool of Siloam, it seems he withdrew immediately, as he did chap. 5:1; and did not stay till the man returned, as if he either doubted of the effect, or waited for the man’s thanks. Humble persons take more pleasure in doing good than in hearing of it again; it will be time enough to hear of it at the resurrection of the just. The man had never seen Jesus; for, by the time he had gained his sight he had lost his physician: and he, as well as the people, probably asked, Where is he? None of all the new and surprising objects that presented themselves to his view could be so grateful to him as one sight of Christ; but as yet he knew no more of him than that he was called, and rightly called, Jesus, a Saviour. Thus, in the work of grace wrought upon the soul, we see the change, but see not the hand that makes it; for the way of the Spirit is like that of the wind, of which thou hearest the sound, but canst not tell whence it comes or whither it goes.

V. 11. A man called Jesus-He seems to have been before totally ignorant of him.

Verse 11. A man that is called Jesus] The whole of this relation is simple and artless in the highest degree. The blind man had never seen Jesus, but he had heard of his name-he felt that he had put something on his eyes, which he afterwards found to be clay-but how this was made he could not tell, because he could not see Jesus when he did it; therefore he does not say, he made clay of spittle-but simply, he made clay, and spread it upon my eyes. Where a multitude of incidents must necessarily come into review, imposture and falsehood generally commit themselves, as it is termed; but, however numerous the circumstances may be in a relation of fact, simple truth is never embarrassed.

Verses 10, 12. How were thine eyes opened? — The fact being ascertained that a man, born blind, had received his sight, they are disposed to inquire how so extraordinary an event was brought about. Observe, reader, the works of the Lord, being great, ought to be sought out: and they will appear more wonderful the more we examine them, and are made acquainted with the way in which they are effected. He answered, A man called Jesus made clay, &c. — He seems to have been before totally ignorant of Jesus; and I went and washed — As he directed me; and immediately I received sight — And this, in a few words, is a true and exact account of this wonderful fact. Thus, those who have experienced special instances of God’s power and goodness, in temporal or spiritual things, should be ready, upon all occasions, to declare what they have thus known, for the glory of God, and for the instruction and encouragement of others. Then said they, Where is he? — Where can we find the man that performed this miracle? Some, doubtless, asked this question out of curiosity: Where is he, that we may see him? A man that did such cures as these deserved to be seen: one would go a good way for the sight of such a person. But some, we may hope, asked it out of a good design: Where is he, that we may be acquainted with him? Where is he, that we may come to him, and share in the favours he is so free to impart? He said, I know not — I have never seen him, or conversed with him, otherwise than as I have now told you. As soon as Christ had sent him to the pool of Siloam, it seems he withdrew immediately, as he did chap. 5:1; and did not stay till the man returned, as if he either doubted of the effect, or waited for the man’s thanks. Humble persons take more pleasure in doing good than in hearing of it again; it will be time enough to hear of it at the resurrection of the just. The man had never seen Jesus; for, by the time he had gained his sight he had lost his physician: and he, as well as the people, probably asked, Where is he? None of all the new and surprising objects that presented themselves to his view could be so grateful to him as one sight of Christ; but as yet he knew no more of him than that he was called, and rightly called, Jesus, a Saviour. Thus, in the work of grace wrought upon the soul, we see the change, but see not the hand that makes it; for the way of the Spirit is like that of the wind, of which thou hearest the sound, but canst not tell whence it comes or whither it goes.

Ver. 11. Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes. It may readily be inferred that some things are omitted in this brief narration, as is observed by Grotius. Our Lord had no doubt given the blind man a promise, that by washing he should receive his sight. The symbols of faith vary; but God and his promises are always the object of faith.

11. A man… called Jesus—The excitement produced by the miracles and preaching had not reached, as yet, the blind beggar. He knew his benefactor only by name. Made clay—The man’s recital of the instrumentalities clearly indicates the impression they were intended to produce, (see our note on verse 6,) and their obvious inadequacy demonstrated the miracle.

Verse 12. Where is he?] They had designed to seize and deliver him up to the Sanhedrin, as a violater of the law, because he had done this on the Sabbath day.

Verses 10, 12. How were thine eyes opened? — The fact being ascertained that a man, born blind, had received his sight, they are disposed to inquire how so extraordinary an event was brought about. Observe, reader, the works of the Lord, being great, ought to be sought out: and they will appear more wonderful the more we examine them, and are made acquainted with the way in which they are effected. He answered, A man called Jesus made clay, &c. — He seems to have been before totally ignorant of Jesus; and I went and washed — As he directed me; and immediately I received sight — And this, in a few words, is a true and exact account of this wonderful fact. Thus, those who have experienced special instances of God’s power and goodness, in temporal or spiritual things, should be ready, upon all occasions, to declare what they have thus known, for the glory of God, and for the instruction and encouragement of others. Then said they, Where is he? — Where can we find the man that performed this miracle? Some, doubtless, asked this question out of curiosity: Where is he, that we may see him? A man that did such cures as these deserved to be seen: one would go a good way for the sight of such a person. But some, we may hope, asked it out of a good design: Where is he, that we may be acquainted with him? Where is he, that we may come to him, and share in the favours he is so free to impart? He said, I know not — I have never seen him, or conversed with him, otherwise than as I have now told you. As soon as Christ had sent him to the pool of Siloam, it seems he withdrew immediately, as he did chap. 5:1; and did not stay till the man returned, as if he either doubted of the effect, or waited for the man’s thanks. Humble persons take more pleasure in doing good than in hearing of it again; it will be time enough to hear of it at the resurrection of the just. The man had never seen Jesus; for, by the time he had gained his sight he had lost his physician: and he, as well as the people, probably asked, Where is he? None of all the new and surprising objects that presented themselves to his view could be so grateful to him as one sight of Christ; but as yet he knew no more of him than that he was called, and rightly called, Jesus, a Saviour. Thus, in the work of grace wrought upon the soul, we see the change, but see not the hand that makes it; for the way of the Spirit is like that of the wind, of which thou hearest the sound, but canst not tell whence it comes or whither it goes.

12. Where is he?—The motive for asking was not hostility, but a natural interest to see and know the author of such a work. I know not—The man had heard the voice but had never seen the person of his benefactor, until revealed. Verse 37. So we have not seen our Saviour; nor will, until his final coming.

The man’s first examination before the court, 13-17.

That this was an authoritative body appears from their power to send for the different parties, (verses 18, 24,) and from their expelling from the synagogue, 34. It was probably the lesser Sanhedrim, called the Pharisees, as being mainly composed of that sect.

Verse 13. They brought to the Pharisees] These had the chief rule, and determined all controversies among the people; in every case of religion, their judgment was final: the people, now fully convinced that the man had been cured, brought him to the Pharisees, that they might determine how this was done, and whether it had been done legally.

Verses 13, 14. They brought to the Pharisees him that was blind — They brought him to the sanhedrim, which consisted chiefly of Pharisees, at least the Pharisees in the sanhedrim were most active against Christ. Some think they who brought this man to the Pharisees did it with a good design, to show them that this Jesus, whom they persecuted, was not the person they represented him to be, but really a great and good man, and one that gave considerable proofs of a divine mission. But it rather seems they did it with an ill design, to exasperate the Pharisees more against Christ, which certainly was not necessary, for they were bitter enough already. One would have expected that such a miracle as Christ had just wrought upon the blind man, would have settled his reputation, and silenced and shamed all opposition; but it had the contrary effect: instead of being embraced as a prophet for it, he is prosecuted as a criminal. They brought him to the Pharisees that he might be examined by them, in order that if there was any fraud in the matter, they might discover and expose it. The ground which was pretended for giving this information was, that it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened the blind man’s eyes. That which was good was never maligned but under the imputation of something evil. The profanation of the sabbath day is certainly a bad thing, and reflects much evil on a man’s character; but the traditions of the Jews had made that to be a violation of the law of the sabbath which was far from being so. And frequently was this matter contested between Christ and the Jews, that it might be settled for the benefit of the church in all ages; and that the difference between superstition and religion in the observance of this, as well as of various others of the divine precepts, might be clearly ascertained, and it might be fully known that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day. The hypocritical rulers, however, of the Jews, pretended to take great offence at our Lord’s doing this act of mercy on that day. And Dr. Lightfoot has shown, that anointing the eyes on the sabbath day, with any kind of medicine, was forbidden to the Jews by the tradition of the elders.

Ver. 13. They brought to the pharisees him that aforetime was blind, who were then at the usual hour sitting in the temple, it being the sabbath day.

13. They brought to the Pharisees—We see no proof of hostility to Jesus (attributed by some commentators) in their thus referring to the proper examiners so extraordinary a fact. The humble neighbours were perfectly willing that its author should be pronounced a prophet.

V. 14. Anointing the eyes-With any kind of medicine on the Sabbath, was particularly forbidden by the tradition of the elders.

Verse 14. It was the Sabbath] Some of the ancient rabbins taught, and they have been followed by some moderns, not much better skilled in physic than themselves, that the saliva is a cure for several disorders of the eyes; but the former held this to be contrary to the law, if applied on the Sabbath. See LIGHTFOOT’S Hor. Talm.

Verses 13, 14. They brought to the Pharisees him that was blind — They brought him to the sanhedrim, which consisted chiefly of Pharisees, at least the Pharisees in the sanhedrim were most active against Christ. Some think they who brought this man to the Pharisees did it with a good design, to show them that this Jesus, whom they persecuted, was not the person they represented him to be, but really a great and good man, and one that gave considerable proofs of a divine mission. But it rather seems they did it with an ill design, to exasperate the Pharisees more against Christ, which certainly was not necessary, for they were bitter enough already. One would have expected that such a miracle as Christ had just wrought upon the blind man, would have settled his reputation, and silenced and shamed all opposition; but it had the contrary effect: instead of being embraced as a prophet for it, he is prosecuted as a criminal. They brought him to the Pharisees that he might be examined by them, in order that if there was any fraud in the matter, they might discover and expose it. The ground which was pretended for giving this information was, that it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened the blind man’s eyes. That which was good was never maligned but under the imputation of something evil. The profanation of the sabbath day is certainly a bad thing, and reflects much evil on a man’s character; but the traditions of the Jews had made that to be a violation of the law of the sabbath which was far from being so. And frequently was this matter contested between Christ and the Jews, that it might be settled for the benefit of the church in all ages; and that the difference between superstition and religion in the observance of this, as well as of various others of the divine precepts, might be clearly ascertained, and it might be fully known that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day. The hypocritical rulers, however, of the Jews, pretended to take great offence at our Lord’s doing this act of mercy on that day. And Dr. Lightfoot has shown, that anointing the eyes on the sabbath day, with any kind of medicine, was forbidden to the Jews by the tradition of the elders.

14. Sabbath day—The Evangelist here prepares us for the ground upon which the Pharisees will seek to invalidate the miracle.

Verses 15, 16. Then again the Pharisees asked him, &c. — They hoped to find something in the manner of the cure, which would show it to be no miracle, or, at least, which would prove Jesus to be a bad man. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, &c. — He honestly and plainly told them the whole matter, as he had before declared it to the people. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, &c. — “On hearing the man’s account of the miracle, the Pharisees declare that the author of it was certainly an impostor, because he had violated the sabbath in performing of it. Nevertheless, others of them, more candid in their way of thinking, gave it as their opinion, that no deceiver could possibly do a miracle of that kind, because it was too great and beneficial for any evil being to have either the inclination or the power to perform.” — Macknight. How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? — This seems to intimate, that there were at least some miracles so glorious and so benevolent, that no evil agent would have either inclination or power to perform them; and that they reckoned this in that number. And there was a division — Or schism, Greek, scisma; among them — On this important question. The council was divided into two parties, which contended one against the other, although they continued in the same place. Thus discord, debate, and strife arose in the councils of Christ’s enemies, by which their designs against him were, for the present, defeated. If Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both members of the sanhedrim, were now present, they would naturally distinguish themselves on this occasion; and Gamaliel too, on the principles he afterward avowed, (Acts 5:38, 39,) must have been on their side.

Ver. 15. Then again they asked him how he had received his sight. The young man gave them a plain narrative of the miracle. The first flaw those rulers found was profanation of the sabbath: an idea, it would seem, which had not struck the populace. But as anger obstructs the judgment, some perceived the necessity of calling up the parents, doubtless then among the crowd, that they might expose the imposture by giving evidence and proof that the young man never had been blind.

15. Again—In addition to the previous questioning by the neighbours. The man doggedly reiterates the methods which formed the body, and the supernatural affect which formed the soul, of the miracle. He evidently sees that there is a demand for firmness, and he braces himself for the trial. Nothing shall induce him to deny his benefactor’s mercy. Thus there may be a heroic and martyr-like spirit of faith before the object of faith is clearly discovered and made known.

V. 16. This man is not of God-Not sent of God.

How can a man that is a sinner-That is, one living in wilful sin, do such miracles?

Verse 16. This man is not of God] He can neither be the Messiah, nor a prophet, for he has broken the Sabbath. The Jews always argued falsely on this principle. The law relative to the observation of the Sabbath never forbade any work but what was of the servile and unnecessary kind. Works of necessity and mercy never could be forbidden on that day by him whose name is mercy, and whose nature is love; for the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; were it otherwise, the Sabbath would be rather a curse than a blessing.

How can a man that is a sinner, &c.] They knew very well that though magicians and impostors might do things apparently miraculous, yet nothing really good could be performed by them. We might have safely defied all the magicians in Egypt, who are said to have been so successful in imitating some of the miracles of Moses, to have opened the eyes of one blind man, or to have done any essential good either to the body or to the soul.

And there was a division among them.] scisma, a schism, a decided difference of opinion, which caused a separation of the assembly.

Verses 15, 16. Then again the Pharisees asked him, &c. — They hoped to find something in the manner of the cure, which would show it to be no miracle, or, at least, which would prove Jesus to be a bad man. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, &c. — He honestly and plainly told them the whole matter, as he had before declared it to the people. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, &c. — “On hearing the man’s account of the miracle, the Pharisees declare that the author of it was certainly an impostor, because he had violated the sabbath in performing of it. Nevertheless, others of them, more candid in their way of thinking, gave it as their opinion, that no deceiver could possibly do a miracle of that kind, because it was too great and beneficial for any evil being to have either the inclination or the power to perform.” — Macknight. How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? — This seems to intimate, that there were at least some miracles so glorious and so benevolent, that no evil agent would have either inclination or power to perform them; and that they reckoned this in that number. And there was a division — Or schism, Greek, scisma; among them — On this important question. The council was divided into two parties, which contended one against the other, although they continued in the same place. Thus discord, debate, and strife arose in the councils of Christ’s enemies, by which their designs against him were, for the present, defeated. If Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both members of the sanhedrim, were now present, they would naturally distinguish themselves on this occasion; and Gamaliel too, on the principles he afterward avowed, (Acts 5:38, 39,) must have been on their side.

16. Therefore—That is, in consequence of the man’s unflinching statement. They had hoped that he would invalidate the miracle by his testimony; but, failing of this, they proceed to invalidate it against testimony, by reasonings of their own. Others said—One party said, He is a sinner, and this cannot be a miracle. The other party said, This is a miracle; so he cannot be a sinner. Had the deed truly been a sin, the reasoning of the first party would have been correct. The premise of the second party proved not only that Jesus was no sinner, but that he was a messenger of God.

V. 17. What sayest thou of him, for that he hath opened thine eyes?-What inference dost thou draw herefrom?

Verse 17. He is a prophet.] They had intended to lay snares for the poor man, that, getting him to acknowledge Christ for the Messiah, they might put him out of the synagogue, John 9:22, or put him to death, that such a witness to the Divine power of Christ might not appear against them. But, as the mercy of God had given him his sight, so the wisdom of God taught him how to escape the snares laid for his ruin. On all thy glory there shall be a defense, says the prophet, Isaiah 4:5. When God gives any particular mercy or grace, he sends power to preserve it, and wisdom to improve it. The man said, He is a prophet. Now, according to a Jewish maxim, a prophet might dispense with the observation of the Sabbath. See Grotius. If they allow that Jesus was a prophet, then, even in their sense, he might break the law of the Sabbath, and be guiltless: or, if they did not allow him to be a prophet, they must account for the miracle some other way than by the power of God; as from Satan or his agents no good can proceed-to do this it was impossible. So the wisdom of God taught the poor man to give them such an answer as put them into a complete dilemma, from which they could not possibly extricate themselves.

Verses 17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him — What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet — For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind — The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see verse 28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight — Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews — “As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (verse 11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him.” For the Jews had agreed already — That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue — That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. “The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, exebalon auton, they cast him out, (verses 34, 35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (John 16:2,) aposunagwgouv poihsousin umav, they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.” See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.

17. What sayest thou of him, [in view of the matter,] that he hath opened— This shows that there is but one question. And the crooked question brings a straight answer. A prophet—The man had heard from the readings of the Old Testament (though his own eyes had never seen a letter) that there were prophets of old, who did works by the power of God, and whose words, as from God, were thus divinely authenticated. Nothing less than such a one, even before this spiritual court, he avers, could this restorer of his sight have been. And this firm confessor shows himself prepared for that humble reception of Jesus’s words which he exhibited in verses 36-38. He is a predestined sheep of Christ; predestined, that is, by predisposition and free volitional purpose before he is by full regeneration. And this confession disconcerts these lords spiritual for the moment. But they fall back upon a pretext; perhaps his parents will admit that he was not born blind.

Parents examined before the spiritual court, 18-23.

Verse 18. But the Jews did not believe] All the subterfuge they could use was simply to sin against their conscience, by asserting that the man had not been blind; but out of this subterfuge they were soon driven by the testimony of the parents, who, if tried farther on this subject, might have produced as witness, not only the whole neighbourhood, but nearly the whole city: for it appears the man got his bread by publicly begging, John 9:8.

That he had been blind, and received his sight] This clause is omitted in some MSS., probably because similar words occur immediately after. There is, however, no evidence against it, sufficient to exclude it from the test.

Verses 17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him — What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet — For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind — The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see verse 28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight — Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews — “As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (verse 11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him.” For the Jews had agreed already — That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue — That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. “The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, exebalon auton, they cast him out, (verses 34, 35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (John 16:2,) aposunagwgouv poihsousin umav, they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.” See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.

Verses 17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him — What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet — For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind — The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see verse 28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight — Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews — “As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (verse 11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him.” For the Jews had agreed already — That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue — That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. “The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, exebalon auton, they cast him out, (verses 34, 35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (John 16:2,) aposunagwgouv poihsousin umav, they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.” See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.

Verses 17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him — What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet — For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind — The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see verse 28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight — Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews — “As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (verse 11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him.” For the Jews had agreed already — That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue — That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. “The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, exebalon auton, they cast him out, (verses 34, 35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (John 16:2,) aposunagwgouv poihsousin umav, they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.” See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.

Ver. 20, 21. His parents answered, we know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now seeth we know not. Vile ungrateful parents, ashamed of the Lord for fear of man.

20. Parents answered—To suit the court, they ought to answer that it is a great mistake that the man was born blind. He was only a little dim, and washing in Siloam purged his vision, and so gave grounds for this impostor’s quackery. But the aged couple, though non-committal, refuse to be false. We know—As the court had asked a double question, the wary witnesses divide it and give a twofold answer. He is their own blind-born son, they know; but as to the pinch, how he now sees, these deponents say not.

Verse 21. He is of age] hJlikian ecei, literally, he has stature, i.e. he is a full-grown man; and in this sense the phrase is used by the best Greek writers. See Kypke and Raphelius. Mature age was fixed among the Jews at thirty years.

Verses 17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him — What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet — For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind — The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see verse 28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight — Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews — “As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (verse 11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him.” For the Jews had agreed already — That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue — That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. “The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, exebalon auton, they cast him out, (verses 34, 35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (John 16:2,) aposunagwgouv poihsousin umav, they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.” See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.

Ver. 20, 21. His parents answered, we know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now seeth we know not. Vile ungrateful parents, ashamed of the Lord for fear of man.

21. What means—The safe testimony they clearly give; the unsafe part they slip, and thrust their son into the post of danger. That danger he is man enough to brave. He is of age—He has maturity to be responsible for his own case.

V. 22. He should be put out of the synagogue-That is be excommunicated.

Verse 22. Put out of the synagogue.] That is, excommunicated-separated from all religious connection with those who worshipped God. This was the lesser kind of excommunication among the Jews and was termed nidui. The cherem, or anathema, was not used against the followers of Christ till after the resurrection.

Verses 17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him — What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet — For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind — The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see verse 28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight — Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews — “As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (verse 11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him.” For the Jews had agreed already — That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue — That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. “The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, exebalon auton, they cast him out, (verses 34, 35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (John 16:2,) aposunagwgouv poihsousin umav, they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.” See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.

22. Had agreed already—Doubtless this agreement was published by authority, or these parents could not have known it. To these Jews, therefore, there are chargeable two crimes against truth. They predetermined that no evidence of the divinity of Jesus should be admitted as valid, and thus they rejected truth by positive will. They decreed that all acknowledgments of his Messiahship, on whatever evidence, should be suppressed by force; and this was persecution. They ignored truth, and they persecuted what they feared to be truth. He was Christ—They might have acknowledged Jesus to be a prophet, or a worker of miracles, without confessing him to be Christ or Messiah. But then, so varying was the notion in regard to Christ, that they might fear that any acknowledgment of his supernatural claims might incur the penalty. The tyranny that can pass a persecuting decree can stretch it to any shape that suits its own malice. The re-examination of the blind-born, 24-34.

They are little satisfied with the previous arraignment, which resulted in a firm confession of the prophetic character of Jesus, (verse 17.) They recall and salute him with a peremptory declaration of the character of Jesus, according to their verdict. The blind-born is of course expected to agree. The result is doubly unsatisfactory.

Verses 17-23. They say unto the blind man, What sayest thou of him — What inference dost thou draw from what thou sayest he hath done for thee? He said, He is a prophet — For surely otherwise he would have been unable to perform so great a miracle. But the Jews did not believe that he had been blind — The Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar had been blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick of beggars to feign themselves blind; and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus to advance his reputation; (see verse 28;) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Until they called the parents of him that had received his sight — Having called his parents, they inquired of them, first, whether he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained his sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but, with respect to the manner in which he had received his sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information; but that their son, being of age, would answer for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews — “As the man who had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle, (verse 11,) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion. But they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him.” For the Jews had agreed already — That is, it was resolved by an act of the court; that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue — That is, should be excommunicated. They refused, therefore, to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. “The Jews had two sorts of excommunication: one was what they called niddai, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, but left him free, at that distance, either to expound the law, or hear it expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind, called shematta, from shem, which signifies a name in general, but, by way of eminence, was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 13:25; being that which was inflicted on those Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on this beggar; for the words, exebalon auton, they cast him out, (verses 34, 35,) agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably, also, it was this that our Lord speaks of, when he says to his disciples, (John 16:2,) aposunagwgouv poihsousin umav, they shall put you out of the synagogues. According to Selden, the synagogue from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil; the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this opinion he has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several particulars, for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.” See Buxtorf, on the word Niddai; and Macknight.

Verse 24. Give God the praise] Having called the man a second time, they proceeded to deal with him in the most solemn manner; and therefore they put him to his oath; for the words above were the form of an oath, proposed by the chief magistrate to those who were to give evidence to any particular fact, or to attest any thing, as produced by or belonging to the Lord. See Joshua 7:19; 1 Samuel 6:5, and Luke 17:18. But, while they solemnly put him to his oath, they endeavoured to put their own words in his mouth, viz. he is a sinner-a pretender to the prophetic character, and a transgressor of the law of God:-assert this, or you will not please us.

Verses 24-29. Then again called they the man — The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the man’s parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried, by fair words, to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. They said, Give God the praise — If the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of God, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know this man, of whom thou speakest, is a profligate sinner, and deserves public punishment rather than esteem. Thus some explain the clause; and doubtless this would be the meaning of it, if the original words did properly signify, Give God the praise. But the expression, Dov doxan tw qew, is literally, Give glory to God, that is, as they seem to have meant, by a free confession of the fraud, collusion, or artifice which they supposed was in this affair, and in which they believed the man to be an accomplice of Jesus. See Joshua 7:19, where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. Their speech was to this effect: Thou canst not impose upon us by this incredible story. We know that the man thou speakest of, who openly profanes the sabbath, is a transgressor, and therefore can have no authority or commission from God: it will, consequently, be the wisest thing thou canst do, to profess the truth honestly, as thereby thou wilt give glory to God. “As it is greatly for the honour of the divine omniscience and providence, that persons who are guilty of crimes not fully proved against them, should freely confess them, and not presume, against the dictates of conscience, to maintain their own innocence; there is a propriety in the phrase, taken in this sense.” — Doddridge. He answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not — Having no personal acquaintance with him; one thing I know — And will stand to the truth of it; that, whereas I was blind — Even from my birth; now I see — Perfectly well, and owe my sight to the very person whom you condemn. “In this answer of the beggar there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him, therefore, to tell them again how it had been performed: saying, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? — They asked him this question before, (verse 15,) but they now proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at his cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. For gladly would they have prevailed with him to join them in the judgment which they passed upon Jesus. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that, laying aside fear, he answered, I have told you already, and you did not hear — That is, believe; wherefore would ye hear it again? — Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? Will ye also — As well as I; be his disciples? — Being at length convinced of his divine mission. In this answer the irony was more plain, pointed, and severe, than in the former. By this, therefore, the rulers were provoked to the highest pitch; and reviled him, saying, Thou art his disciple — As is plain from the partiality thou discoverest toward him; but we are Moses’s disciples — And with great reason; for we know God spake to Moses — He clearly demonstrated his mission from God. As for this fellow, &c. — Whereas this fellow, who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws, by his pretended cures performed on the sabbath; we know not whence he is — Nor by what power or authority he does these things. “Their partiality here was inexcusable; for if they believed the mission of Moses, on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they were here compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove.”

24. Give God the praise—The obvious meaning of this phrase to the English reader is, Give God the praise for thy healing, and not to this man. But it is rather an adjuration—Revere and glorify God by testifying the truth. We know—And he is bound, so they think, to know just as they know. Respect was doubtless due to the opinion of this court; but with the man a point of conscience and a point of fact were at stake. This man is a sinner—This they might opine, but they could not know. This opinion was grounded upon the assumption that to apply moist clay to heal a man’s eyes on the Sabbath is Sabbath-breaking.

Verse 25. Whereas I was blind, now I see.] He pays no attention to their cavils, nor to their perversion of justice; but, in the simplicity of his heart, speaks to the fact, of the reality of which he was ready to give them the most substantial evidence.

Verses 24-29. Then again called they the man — The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the man’s parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried, by fair words, to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. They said, Give God the praise — If the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of God, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know this man, of whom thou speakest, is a profligate sinner, and deserves public punishment rather than esteem. Thus some explain the clause; and doubtless this would be the meaning of it, if the original words did properly signify, Give God the praise. But the expression, Dov doxan tw qew, is literally, Give glory to God, that is, as they seem to have meant, by a free confession of the fraud, collusion, or artifice which they supposed was in this affair, and in which they believed the man to be an accomplice of Jesus. See Joshua 7:19, where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. Their speech was to this effect: Thou canst not impose upon us by this incredible story. We know that the man thou speakest of, who openly profanes the sabbath, is a transgressor, and therefore can have no authority or commission from God: it will, consequently, be the wisest thing thou canst do, to profess the truth honestly, as thereby thou wilt give glory to God. “As it is greatly for the honour of the divine omniscience and providence, that persons who are guilty of crimes not fully proved against them, should freely confess them, and not presume, against the dictates of conscience, to maintain their own innocence; there is a propriety in the phrase, taken in this sense.” — Doddridge. He answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not — Having no personal acquaintance with him; one thing I know — And will stand to the truth of it; that, whereas I was blind — Even from my birth; now I see — Perfectly well, and owe my sight to the very person whom you condemn. “In this answer of the beggar there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him, therefore, to tell them again how it had been performed: saying, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? — They asked him this question before, (verse 15,) but they now proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at his cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. For gladly would they have prevailed with him to join them in the judgment which they passed upon Jesus. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that, laying aside fear, he answered, I have told you already, and you did not hear — That is, believe; wherefore would ye hear it again? — Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? Will ye also — As well as I; be his disciples? — Being at length convinced of his divine mission. In this answer the irony was more plain, pointed, and severe, than in the former. By this, therefore, the rulers were provoked to the highest pitch; and reviled him, saying, Thou art his disciple — As is plain from the partiality thou discoverest toward him; but we are Moses’s disciples — And with great reason; for we know God spake to Moses — He clearly demonstrated his mission from God. As for this fellow, &c. — Whereas this fellow, who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws, by his pretended cures performed on the sabbath; we know not whence he is — Nor by what power or authority he does these things. “Their partiality here was inexcusable; for if they believed the mission of Moses, on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they were here compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove.”

25. Whether… a sinner—Rather, If he be a sinner I know it not. He stands first upon a profoundly conscientious know not, and next upon his own infallible know. Was blind, now I see—Upon this point his knowledge was surer than any Sanhedrim’s that ever sat. A feeble character might have surrendered; but in soul this is a most princely beggar.

Verses 24-29. Then again called they the man — The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the man’s parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried, by fair words, to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. They said, Give God the praise — If the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of God, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know this man, of whom thou speakest, is a profligate sinner, and deserves public punishment rather than esteem. Thus some explain the clause; and doubtless this would be the meaning of it, if the original words did properly signify, Give God the praise. But the expression, Dov doxan tw qew, is literally, Give glory to God, that is, as they seem to have meant, by a free confession of the fraud, collusion, or artifice which they supposed was in this affair, and in which they believed the man to be an accomplice of Jesus. See Joshua 7:19, where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. Their speech was to this effect: Thou canst not impose upon us by this incredible story. We know that the man thou speakest of, who openly profanes the sabbath, is a transgressor, and therefore can have no authority or commission from God: it will, consequently, be the wisest thing thou canst do, to profess the truth honestly, as thereby thou wilt give glory to God. “As it is greatly for the honour of the divine omniscience and providence, that persons who are guilty of crimes not fully proved against them, should freely confess them, and not presume, against the dictates of conscience, to maintain their own innocence; there is a propriety in the phrase, taken in this sense.” — Doddridge. He answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not — Having no personal acquaintance with him; one thing I know — And will stand to the truth of it; that, whereas I was blind — Even from my birth; now I see — Perfectly well, and owe my sight to the very person whom you condemn. “In this answer of the beggar there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him, therefore, to tell them again how it had been performed: saying, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? — They asked him this question before, (verse 15,) but they now proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at his cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. For gladly would they have prevailed with him to join them in the judgment which they passed upon Jesus. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that, laying aside fear, he answered, I have told you already, and you did not hear — That is, believe; wherefore would ye hear it again? — Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? Will ye also — As well as I; be his disciples? — Being at length convinced of his divine mission. In this answer the irony was more plain, pointed, and severe, than in the former. By this, therefore, the rulers were provoked to the highest pitch; and reviled him, saying, Thou art his disciple — As is plain from the partiality thou discoverest toward him; but we are Moses’s disciples — And with great reason; for we know God spake to Moses — He clearly demonstrated his mission from God. As for this fellow, &c. — Whereas this fellow, who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws, by his pretended cures performed on the sabbath; we know not whence he is — Nor by what power or authority he does these things. “Their partiality here was inexcusable; for if they believed the mission of Moses, on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they were here compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove.”

Ver. 26. What did he to thee? We have here the cross-examination. The youth answers like one filled with the light and love of God. Every reply was full of wisdom, glory, and truth. — In the course of the day Jesus found him in the temple, and said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He discovered his divinity to him, demonstrated by the miracle of re-creating his eyes, and giving him sight. The young man fell down and worshipped him, as the true God and eternal life, while the scribes, who rejected the Lord, were given up to strong delusion, or the efficacy of error to hurry them on to perdition.

26. Said they… again—Proceeding apparently to cross-question him, in order to detect some refutation of the miracle. This cross-questioning the man indignantly and sarcastically declines. He refers them to his explicit narrative in his former examination, which they endeavoured to slight; and he ironically imputes their zealous questioning to a desire to become his disciples. The keenness with which sceptics scrutinize the Gospel often surpasses the earnestness of its believing students. And it is a striking fact that critical attacks have stimulated Christian scholars to a profounder study of the word of God, and have thus resulted in a truer understanding of its depths of meaning, and clearer demonstrations of its infinite truth.

V. 27. Are ye also-As well as I, at length convinced and willing to be his disciples?

Verse 27. I have told you already] So he did, John 9:15. And did ye not hear? Ye certainly did. Why then do you wish to hear it again? Is it because ye wish to become his disciples? The poor man continued steady in his testimony; and, by putting this question to them, he knew he should soon put an end to the debate.

Verses 24-29. Then again called they the man — The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the man’s parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried, by fair words, to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. They said, Give God the praise — If the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of God, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know this man, of whom thou speakest, is a profligate sinner, and deserves public punishment rather than esteem. Thus some explain the clause; and doubtless this would be the meaning of it, if the original words did properly signify, Give God the praise. But the expression, Dov doxan tw qew, is literally, Give glory to God, that is, as they seem to have meant, by a free confession of the fraud, collusion, or artifice which they supposed was in this affair, and in which they believed the man to be an accomplice of Jesus. See Joshua 7:19, where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. Their speech was to this effect: Thou canst not impose upon us by this incredible story. We know that the man thou speakest of, who openly profanes the sabbath, is a transgressor, and therefore can have no authority or commission from God: it will, consequently, be the wisest thing thou canst do, to profess the truth honestly, as thereby thou wilt give glory to God. “As it is greatly for the honour of the divine omniscience and providence, that persons who are guilty of crimes not fully proved against them, should freely confess them, and not presume, against the dictates of conscience, to maintain their own innocence; there is a propriety in the phrase, taken in this sense.” — Doddridge. He answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not — Having no personal acquaintance with him; one thing I know — And will stand to the truth of it; that, whereas I was blind — Even from my birth; now I see — Perfectly well, and owe my sight to the very person whom you condemn. “In this answer of the beggar there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him, therefore, to tell them again how it had been performed: saying, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? — They asked him this question before, (verse 15,) but they now proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at his cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. For gladly would they have prevailed with him to join them in the judgment which they passed upon Jesus. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that, laying aside fear, he answered, I have told you already, and you did not hear — That is, believe; wherefore would ye hear it again? — Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? Will ye also — As well as I; be his disciples? — Being at length convinced of his divine mission. In this answer the irony was more plain, pointed, and severe, than in the former. By this, therefore, the rulers were provoked to the highest pitch; and reviled him, saying, Thou art his disciple — As is plain from the partiality thou discoverest toward him; but we are Moses’s disciples — And with great reason; for we know God spake to Moses — He clearly demonstrated his mission from God. As for this fellow, &c. — Whereas this fellow, who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws, by his pretended cures performed on the sabbath; we know not whence he is — Nor by what power or authority he does these things. “Their partiality here was inexcusable; for if they believed the mission of Moses, on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they were here compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove.”

27. Be his disciples—Was the irony in his question justifiable? Elijah used irony in 1 Kings 18:27, and Jesus in Matthew 23:32. And yet, if this were truly a legal court, it may be doubted whether the man did not commit a faulty disrespect for which the want of self-respect in the court furnishes no full excuse. Yet when we consider that he was a poor, uncultivated mendicant, we can excuse this single error, and still wonder at his martyr-like constancy.

Verse 28. Then they reviled him] eloidorhsan. Eustathius derives loidoria from logov, a word, and doru, a spear:-they spoke cutting, piercing words. Solomon talks of some who spoke like the piercings of a sword, Proverbs 12:18. And the psalmist speaks of words that are like drawn swords, Psalm 55:21, words which show that the person who speaks them has his heart full of murderous intentions; and that, if he had the same power with a sword as he has with his tongue, he would destroy him whom he thus reproaches.

We are Moses’ disciples.] By this they meant that they were genuine Pharisees; for they did not allow the Sadducees to be disciples of Moses.

Verses 24-29. Then again called they the man — The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the man’s parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried, by fair words, to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. They said, Give God the praise — If the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of God, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know this man, of whom thou speakest, is a profligate sinner, and deserves public punishment rather than esteem. Thus some explain the clause; and doubtless this would be the meaning of it, if the original words did properly signify, Give God the praise. But the expression, Dov doxan tw qew, is literally, Give glory to God, that is, as they seem to have meant, by a free confession of the fraud, collusion, or artifice which they supposed was in this affair, and in which they believed the man to be an accomplice of Jesus. See Joshua 7:19, where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. Their speech was to this effect: Thou canst not impose upon us by this incredible story. We know that the man thou speakest of, who openly profanes the sabbath, is a transgressor, and therefore can have no authority or commission from God: it will, consequently, be the wisest thing thou canst do, to profess the truth honestly, as thereby thou wilt give glory to God. “As it is greatly for the honour of the divine omniscience and providence, that persons who are guilty of crimes not fully proved against them, should freely confess them, and not presume, against the dictates of conscience, to maintain their own innocence; there is a propriety in the phrase, taken in this sense.” — Doddridge. He answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not — Having no personal acquaintance with him; one thing I know — And will stand to the truth of it; that, whereas I was blind — Even from my birth; now I see — Perfectly well, and owe my sight to the very person whom you condemn. “In this answer of the beggar there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him, therefore, to tell them again how it had been performed: saying, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? — They asked him this question before, (verse 15,) but they now proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at his cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. For gladly would they have prevailed with him to join them in the judgment which they passed upon Jesus. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that, laying aside fear, he answered, I have told you already, and you did not hear — That is, believe; wherefore would ye hear it again? — Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? Will ye also — As well as I; be his disciples? — Being at length convinced of his divine mission. In this answer the irony was more plain, pointed, and severe, than in the former. By this, therefore, the rulers were provoked to the highest pitch; and reviled him, saying, Thou art his disciple — As is plain from the partiality thou discoverest toward him; but we are Moses’s disciples — And with great reason; for we know God spake to Moses — He clearly demonstrated his mission from God. As for this fellow, &c. — Whereas this fellow, who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws, by his pretended cures performed on the sabbath; we know not whence he is — Nor by what power or authority he does these things. “Their partiality here was inexcusable; for if they believed the mission of Moses, on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they were here compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove.”

28. Moses’ disciples—The court puts on its dignity. Disciples of this Jesus, forsooth! We are disciples of the ancient founder of our law and nation!

V. 29. We know not whence he is-By what power and authority he does these things.

Verse 29. We know not from whence he is.] As if they had said: We have the fullest assurance that the commission of Moses was Divine; but we have no proof that this man has such a commission: and should we leave Moses, and attach ourselves to this stranger? No.

Verses 24-29. Then again called they the man — The court, finding that nothing could be learned from the man’s parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried, by fair words, to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. They said, Give God the praise — If the cure was really wrought in the manner thou affirmest, acknowledge the power, sovereignty, and goodness of God, in working by so unworthy an instrument; for we certainly know this man, of whom thou speakest, is a profligate sinner, and deserves public punishment rather than esteem. Thus some explain the clause; and doubtless this would be the meaning of it, if the original words did properly signify, Give God the praise. But the expression, Dov doxan tw qew, is literally, Give glory to God, that is, as they seem to have meant, by a free confession of the fraud, collusion, or artifice which they supposed was in this affair, and in which they believed the man to be an accomplice of Jesus. See Joshua 7:19, where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. Their speech was to this effect: Thou canst not impose upon us by this incredible story. We know that the man thou speakest of, who openly profanes the sabbath, is a transgressor, and therefore can have no authority or commission from God: it will, consequently, be the wisest thing thou canst do, to profess the truth honestly, as thereby thou wilt give glory to God. “As it is greatly for the honour of the divine omniscience and providence, that persons who are guilty of crimes not fully proved against them, should freely confess them, and not presume, against the dictates of conscience, to maintain their own innocence; there is a propriety in the phrase, taken in this sense.” — Doddridge. He answered, Whether he be a sinner, I know not — Having no personal acquaintance with him; one thing I know — And will stand to the truth of it; that, whereas I was blind — Even from my birth; now I see — Perfectly well, and owe my sight to the very person whom you condemn. “In this answer of the beggar there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him, therefore, to tell them again how it had been performed: saying, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? — They asked him this question before, (verse 15,) but they now proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at his cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. For gladly would they have prevailed with him to join them in the judgment which they passed upon Jesus. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that, laying aside fear, he answered, I have told you already, and you did not hear — That is, believe; wherefore would ye hear it again? — Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? Will ye also — As well as I; be his disciples? — Being at length convinced of his divine mission. In this answer the irony was more plain, pointed, and severe, than in the former. By this, therefore, the rulers were provoked to the highest pitch; and reviled him, saying, Thou art his disciple — As is plain from the partiality thou discoverest toward him; but we are Moses’s disciples — And with great reason; for we know God spake to Moses — He clearly demonstrated his mission from God. As for this fellow, &c. — Whereas this fellow, who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws, by his pretended cures performed on the sabbath; we know not whence he is — Nor by what power or authority he does these things. “Their partiality here was inexcusable; for if they believed the mission of Moses, on the evidence of miracles, credibly attested indeed, but performed two thousand years before they were born, it was much more reasonable, on their own principles, to believe the mission of Jesus, on at least equal miracles, wrought daily among them, when they might, in many instances, have been eye-witnesses to the facts; and one of which, notwithstanding all their malice, they were here compelled to own, or, at least, found themselves utterly unable to disprove.”

29. Whence he is—Moses was sent from God; but whence Jesus is sent we know not.

V. 30. The man answered-Utterly illiterate as he was. And with what strength and clearness of reason! So had God opened the eyes of his understanding, as well as his bodily eyes.

Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye-The teachers and guides of the people, should not know, that a man who has wrought a miracle, the like of which was never heard of before, must be from heaven, sent by God.

Verse 30. Why herein is a marvellous thing] As if he had said, This is wonderful indeed! Is it possible that such persons as you are, whose business it is to distinguish good from evil, and who pretend to know a true from a false prophet, cannot decide in a case so plain? Has not the man opened my eyes? Is not the miracle known to all the town; and could any one do it who was not endued with the power of God?

Verses 30-34. The man answered — Utterly illiterate as he was: and with what strength and clearness of reason! So had God opened the eyes of his understanding, as well as his bodily eyes! Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye — The teachers and guides of the people; know not whence he is — From whence he comes, and who hath sent him; and yet he hath opened mine eyes — Hath wrought a miracle, the like of which was never heard of before. Surely a man who could do such a thing must be from heaven, must be sent of God. It was esteemed by the Jews a peculiar sign of the Messiah, that he should open the eyes of the blind, that is, of those born blind; a miracle never known to be wrought by Moses or any of the prophets. Now we know — Even we of the populace know; God heareth not sinners — Impenitent sinners who continue in sin, so as to answer their prayers in this manner, and assist them to perform such astonishing miracles; which, without his assistance, and that communicated in a very extraordinary degree, could not possibly have been performed. But if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will — If any man truly worship and serve him; him he heareth — Answereth his prayers, and that sometimes, probably, in a singular sense. Since the world began, &c. — That is, from the beginning of the world; it was never heard, that any man — Who was not a worshipper of God, and a doer of his will, that is, any sinner, any impostor; opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God — Were not sent of God; if he were not a prophet and messenger of God; he could do nothing — Thus the beggar, though illiterate, answered that great body of learned men with such strength of reason, that they had not a word to reply. However, the evidence of his arguments had no other effect but to put them into a passion; insomuch that they railed at him, saying, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Thou wicked, illiterate, impudent fellow, whose understanding continues still as blind as thy body was, and who wast born under the heaviest punishment of sin, dost thou pretend to instruct us in a matter of this kind? Us, who are the guides of the people, and eminent for our skill in the law? The reproach, Thou wast altogether born in sins, proceeded from the same general principle from which the question of the disciples arose, (verse 2,) Who did sin, this man or his parents? They inferred from his being born blind, that he was in some peculiar way born in sins. And they cast him out — That is, passed the sentence of excommunication upon him, which was the highest punishment in their power to inflict. From this account we learn, that a plain man, void of the advantages of learning and education, but who has an upright disposition, is in a fairer way to understand the truth, than a whole council of learned doctors, who are under the power of prejudice, and of an earthly mind, lovers of wealth, honour, and pleasure, rather than lovers of God.

30. Ye know not—Ye is here emphatic; ye, who of all ought to know. The opener of my eyes can be no other than God-sent; and this ye are the ones who should know.

V. 31. We-Even we of the populace, know that God heareth not sinners-Not impenitent sinners, so as to answer their prayers in this manner. The honest courage of this man in adhering to the truth, though he knew the consequence, John 9:22, gives him claim to the title of a confessor.

Verse 31. God heareth not sinners] I believe the word amartwlwn signifies heathens, or persons not proselyted to the Jewish religion; and therefore it is put in opposition to qeosebhv, a worshipper of the true God. See the note on Luke 7:37. But in what sense may it be said, following our common version, that God heareth not sinners? When they regard iniquity in their heart-when they wish to be saved, and yet abide in their sins-when they will not separate themselves from the workers and works of iniquity. In all these cases, God heareth not sinners.

Verses 30-34. The man answered — Utterly illiterate as he was: and with what strength and clearness of reason! So had God opened the eyes of his understanding, as well as his bodily eyes! Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye — The teachers and guides of the people; know not whence he is — From whence he comes, and who hath sent him; and yet he hath opened mine eyes — Hath wrought a miracle, the like of which was never heard of before. Surely a man who could do such a thing must be from heaven, must be sent of God. It was esteemed by the Jews a peculiar sign of the Messiah, that he should open the eyes of the blind, that is, of those born blind; a miracle never known to be wrought by Moses or any of the prophets. Now we know — Even we of the populace know; God heareth not sinners — Impenitent sinners who continue in sin, so as to answer their prayers in this manner, and assist them to perform such astonishing miracles; which, without his assistance, and that communicated in a very extraordinary degree, could not possibly have been performed. But if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will — If any man truly worship and serve him; him he heareth — Answereth his prayers, and that sometimes, probably, in a singular sense. Since the world began, &c. — That is, from the beginning of the world; it was never heard, that any man — Who was not a worshipper of God, and a doer of his will, that is, any sinner, any impostor; opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God — Were not sent of God; if he were not a prophet and messenger of God; he could do nothing — Thus the beggar, though illiterate, answered that great body of learned men with such strength of reason, that they had not a word to reply. However, the evidence of his arguments had no other effect but to put them into a passion; insomuch that they railed at him, saying, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Thou wicked, illiterate, impudent fellow, whose understanding continues still as blind as thy body was, and who wast born under the heaviest punishment of sin, dost thou pretend to instruct us in a matter of this kind? Us, who are the guides of the people, and eminent for our skill in the law? The reproach, Thou wast altogether born in sins, proceeded from the same general principle from which the question of the disciples arose, (verse 2,) Who did sin, this man or his parents? They inferred from his being born blind, that he was in some peculiar way born in sins. And they cast him out — That is, passed the sentence of excommunication upon him, which was the highest punishment in their power to inflict. From this account we learn, that a plain man, void of the advantages of learning and education, but who has an upright disposition, is in a fairer way to understand the truth, than a whole council of learned doctors, who are under the power of prejudice, and of an earthly mind, lovers of wealth, honour, and pleasure, rather than lovers of God.

31. God heareth not sinners—That is, to grant them miraculous powers. The blind-born ably argues, on ground of common sense, that a man who receives a commission from God to work miracles, his character, authority, and teaching are thereby endorsed by God; and if God be holy, the man cannot be, in the very miracle, a sinner.

Verse 32. Since the world began] ek tou aiwnov, From the age-probably meaning from the commencement of time. Neither Moses nor the prophets have ever opened the eyes of a man who was born blind: if this person then were not the best of beings, would God grant him a privilege which he has hitherto denied to his choicest favourites? Opened the eyes of one that was born blind.] It will readily appear that our Lord performed no surgical operation in this cure: the man was born blind, and he was restored to sight by the power of God; the simple means used could have had no effect in the cure; the miracle is therefore complete. That there are cases, in which a person who was born blind may be restored to sight by surgical means, we know: but no such means were used by Christ: and it is worthy of remark that, from the foundation of the world, no person born blind has been restored to sight, even by surgical operation, till about the year of our Lord, 1728; when the celebrated Dr. Cheselden, by couching the eyes of a young man, 14 years of age, who had been born blind, restored him to perfect soundness. This was the effect of well directed surgery: that performed by Christ was a miracle.

Verses 30-34. The man answered — Utterly illiterate as he was: and with what strength and clearness of reason! So had God opened the eyes of his understanding, as well as his bodily eyes! Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye — The teachers and guides of the people; know not whence he is — From whence he comes, and who hath sent him; and yet he hath opened mine eyes — Hath wrought a miracle, the like of which was never heard of before. Surely a man who could do such a thing must be from heaven, must be sent of God. It was esteemed by the Jews a peculiar sign of the Messiah, that he should open the eyes of the blind, that is, of those born blind; a miracle never known to be wrought by Moses or any of the prophets. Now we know — Even we of the populace know; God heareth not sinners — Impenitent sinners who continue in sin, so as to answer their prayers in this manner, and assist them to perform such astonishing miracles; which, without his assistance, and that communicated in a very extraordinary degree, could not possibly have been performed. But if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will — If any man truly worship and serve him; him he heareth — Answereth his prayers, and that sometimes, probably, in a singular sense. Since the world began, &c. — That is, from the beginning of the world; it was never heard, that any man — Who was not a worshipper of God, and a doer of his will, that is, any sinner, any impostor; opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God — Were not sent of God; if he were not a prophet and messenger of God; he could do nothing — Thus the beggar, though illiterate, answered that great body of learned men with such strength of reason, that they had not a word to reply. However, the evidence of his arguments had no other effect but to put them into a passion; insomuch that they railed at him, saying, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Thou wicked, illiterate, impudent fellow, whose understanding continues still as blind as thy body was, and who wast born under the heaviest punishment of sin, dost thou pretend to instruct us in a matter of this kind? Us, who are the guides of the people, and eminent for our skill in the law? The reproach, Thou wast altogether born in sins, proceeded from the same general principle from which the question of the disciples arose, (verse 2,) Who did sin, this man or his parents? They inferred from his being born blind, that he was in some peculiar way born in sins. And they cast him out — That is, passed the sentence of excommunication upon him, which was the highest punishment in their power to inflict. From this account we learn, that a plain man, void of the advantages of learning and education, but who has an upright disposition, is in a fairer way to understand the truth, than a whole council of learned doctors, who are under the power of prejudice, and of an earthly mind, lovers of wealth, honour, and pleasure, rather than lovers of God.

32. Since the world began—Philosophers at the present day, like Hume and his followers, maintain that as miracles are contrary to experience, they can never take place. But, 1. A thing is not contrary to experience because it is unexperienced. To be contrary to experience, somebody must have a positive experience that a miracle cannot take place. But no one ever had or can have such an experience. 2. Miracles are not contrary but according to experience. This man could hold that giving sight to the blind-born was hitherto unexperienced; but he positively knew that it was not contrary to experience, for he knew that he himself had just experienced it. 3. Human experience is, that the so-called laws of nature are in themselves permanent, and yet that their operations are sometimes interrupted or varied by divine interpositions. And these two experiences are perfectly consistent with each other. Hence our man here correctly argues, human experience is, that ordinarily the born-blind is never restored; but a human experience also is, that in the present case the operation of that law has received a divine exception. 4. To say that a miracle never happened, because it is contrary to experience, is reasoning in a circle. For to say “it is contrary to experience” is but to say, in other words, that “it never happened.” So that the reasoning then is: A miracle “never happened” because it “never happened.”

V. 33. He could do nothing-Of this kind; nothing miraculous.

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

Verses 30-34. The man answered — Utterly illiterate as he was: and with what strength and clearness of reason! So had God opened the eyes of his understanding, as well as his bodily eyes! Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye — The teachers and guides of the people; know not whence he is — From whence he comes, and who hath sent him; and yet he hath opened mine eyes — Hath wrought a miracle, the like of which was never heard of before. Surely a man who could do such a thing must be from heaven, must be sent of God. It was esteemed by the Jews a peculiar sign of the Messiah, that he should open the eyes of the blind, that is, of those born blind; a miracle never known to be wrought by Moses or any of the prophets. Now we know — Even we of the populace know; God heareth not sinners — Impenitent sinners who continue in sin, so as to answer their prayers in this manner, and assist them to perform such astonishing miracles; which, without his assistance, and that communicated in a very extraordinary degree, could not possibly have been performed. But if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will — If any man truly worship and serve him; him he heareth — Answereth his prayers, and that sometimes, probably, in a singular sense. Since the world began, &c. — That is, from the beginning of the world; it was never heard, that any man — Who was not a worshipper of God, and a doer of his will, that is, any sinner, any impostor; opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God — Were not sent of God; if he were not a prophet and messenger of God; he could do nothing — Thus the beggar, though illiterate, answered that great body of learned men with such strength of reason, that they had not a word to reply. However, the evidence of his arguments had no other effect but to put them into a passion; insomuch that they railed at him, saying, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Thou wicked, illiterate, impudent fellow, whose understanding continues still as blind as thy body was, and who wast born under the heaviest punishment of sin, dost thou pretend to instruct us in a matter of this kind? Us, who are the guides of the people, and eminent for our skill in the law? The reproach, Thou wast altogether born in sins, proceeded from the same general principle from which the question of the disciples arose, (verse 2,) Who did sin, this man or his parents? They inferred from his being born blind, that he was in some peculiar way born in sins. And they cast him out — That is, passed the sentence of excommunication upon him, which was the highest punishment in their power to inflict. From this account we learn, that a plain man, void of the advantages of learning and education, but who has an upright disposition, is in a fairer way to understand the truth, than a whole council of learned doctors, who are under the power of prejudice, and of an earthly mind, lovers of wealth, honour, and pleasure, rather than lovers of God.

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

V. 34. Born in sin-And therefore, they supposed, born blind. They cast him out-Of the synagogue; excommunicated him.

Verse 34. Thou wast altogether born in sins] Thou hast not only been a vile wretch in some other pre-existent state, but thy parents also have been grossly iniquitous; therefore thou and they are punished by this blindness: Thou wast altogether born in sins-thou art no other than a sinful lump of deformity, and utterly unfit to have any connection with those who worship God.

And they cast him out.] They immediately excommunicated him, as the margin properly reads-drove him from their assembly with disdain, and forbade his farther appearing in the worship of God. Thus a simple man, guided by the Spirit of truth, and continuing steady in his testimony, utterly confounded the most eminent Jewish doctors. When they had no longer either reason or argument to oppose to him, as a proof of their discomfiture and a monument of their reproach and shame, they had recourse to the secular arm, and thus silenced by political power a person whom they had neither reason nor religion to withstand. They have had since many followers in their crimes. A false religion, supported by the state, has, by fire and sword silenced those whose truth in the end annihilated the system of their opponents.

Verses 30-34. The man answered — Utterly illiterate as he was: and with what strength and clearness of reason! So had God opened the eyes of his understanding, as well as his bodily eyes! Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye — The teachers and guides of the people; know not whence he is — From whence he comes, and who hath sent him; and yet he hath opened mine eyes — Hath wrought a miracle, the like of which was never heard of before. Surely a man who could do such a thing must be from heaven, must be sent of God. It was esteemed by the Jews a peculiar sign of the Messiah, that he should open the eyes of the blind, that is, of those born blind; a miracle never known to be wrought by Moses or any of the prophets. Now we know — Even we of the populace know; God heareth not sinners — Impenitent sinners who continue in sin, so as to answer their prayers in this manner, and assist them to perform such astonishing miracles; which, without his assistance, and that communicated in a very extraordinary degree, could not possibly have been performed. But if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will — If any man truly worship and serve him; him he heareth — Answereth his prayers, and that sometimes, probably, in a singular sense. Since the world began, &c. — That is, from the beginning of the world; it was never heard, that any man — Who was not a worshipper of God, and a doer of his will, that is, any sinner, any impostor; opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God — Were not sent of God; if he were not a prophet and messenger of God; he could do nothing — Thus the beggar, though illiterate, answered that great body of learned men with such strength of reason, that they had not a word to reply. However, the evidence of his arguments had no other effect but to put them into a passion; insomuch that they railed at him, saying, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us — Thou wicked, illiterate, impudent fellow, whose understanding continues still as blind as thy body was, and who wast born under the heaviest punishment of sin, dost thou pretend to instruct us in a matter of this kind? Us, who are the guides of the people, and eminent for our skill in the law? The reproach, Thou wast altogether born in sins, proceeded from the same general principle from which the question of the disciples arose, (verse 2,) Who did sin, this man or his parents? They inferred from his being born blind, that he was in some peculiar way born in sins. And they cast him out — That is, passed the sentence of excommunication upon him, which was the highest punishment in their power to inflict. From this account we learn, that a plain man, void of the advantages of learning and education, but who has an upright disposition, is in a fairer way to understand the truth, than a whole council of learned doctors, who are under the power of prejudice, and of an earthly mind, lovers of wealth, honour, and pleasure, rather than lovers of God.

34. Altogether—In body and in soul; in body, as thy birth of blindness shows; in soul, as thy sustaining this Jesus shows. By this they do not assert that he had sinned before birth or in a previous body. In the spirit of Hindoo caste, they pronounce him of more base and depraved nature than their own. He is of a vile, unholy flesh and blood. Cast him out— Excommunicated him. Not only thrust him bodily from the court-room, but from the synagogue and temple, and from all worship therein. A second grade of excommunication additionally confiscated his property. A third, by cutting him off from Israel, gave him over to heathenism and hell. Persecuted and outcast, the man is firm. Perhaps his very life of deprivation and mendicancy enabled him, while the more luxurious sacrificed their conscience rather than their prosperity, to bear his outcast condition with firmness. But thus cast out for Christ, he is soon received by Christ. And happier therein is he than the court that condemned, or the moral cowards who, frightened by his lot, renounce the truth of Jesus. Jesus consoles the outcast sheep, but condemns his false shepherds, 35-41.

A day or two may have passed, when the outcast is strangely blessed by the hitherto unseen Jesus. Blessed is he whom Jesus thus seeks to bless! That voice the born-blind had heard bid him to wash and see; and, surely, he could need no other proof of the identity of Jesus than that forever unforgotten voice. And then how divine the benignity of the eye of the Son of man beaming upon the face of this his faithful confessor amid rebuke and persecution!

V. 35. Having found him-For he had sought him.

Verse 35. Dost thou believe on the Son of God?] This was the same with, Dost thou believe on the Messiah? for these two characters were inseparable; see John 1:34, 49; 10:36; Matthew 16:16; Mark 1:1.

Verses 35-38. Jesus heard that they had cast him out — Had excommunicated the poor man for his sake; and when he had found him — Which it appears he did soon after; he said unto him, privately, Dost thou believe on the Son of God — The great expected Messiah? Dost thou give credit to the promises of the Messiah? Dost thou expect his coming, and art thou ready to receive and embrace him when he is manifested to thee? This was that faith of the Son of God which they lived by, who lived before his manifestation; and this faith Christ here inquires after. Observe, reader, the great thing which is now required of us, and concerning which a strict and solemn inquiry will soon be made, is, whether we believe on the Son of God; and on this point our acquittance or condemnation will depend in the day of final accounts. He answered, Who is he, Lord — Christ’s question intimated that the Messiah was come, and was now among them, which the poor man noticing, asks, Who is he? As if he had said, I know that such a glorious person is expected, and if he be already come, only tell me where he is, and where I may meet with him; that, knowing him, I may believe on him — This implies that he had already some degree of faith. He was ready to receive what Jesus said. And — As the circumstances of the case were extraordinary, this being the first instance in which any one had incurred the great inconveniences attending a sentence of excommunication, out of zeal for the honour of Christ, to encourage him under what he was now suffering on his account, Jesus said to him — With a degree of freedom which was very unusual; Thou hast both seen him — Or, thou seest him; and it is he that talketh with thee — As if he had said, Thou needest not go far to seek him; he is before thine eyes, and thou hast had experience of his power and goodness. We do not find that Christ did thus expressly, and in so many words, reveal himself to any other, as he did to this man here, and to the woman of Samaria; he left others to find out by arguments who he was; but to these weak and foolish things of the world, he chose to manifest himself so as he did not to the wise and prudent. Now this poor man was made more sensible than before, what an unspeakable mercy it was to be cured of his blindness; for, in consequence of this, he could see the Son of God, a sight which rejoiced his heart more than that of the light of this world. How contentedly might he have returned to his former blindness, in that now, like old Simeon, his eyes had seen God’s salvation. And he said — Yielding to that convincing argument, which arose from what he had himself experienced of Christ’s almighty power; Lord, I believe — That is, I believe thee to be the Son of God. He would not dispute any thing that the person said who had showed such mercy to him, and wrought such a miracle for him; nor doubt of the truth of a doctrine which was confirmed by such signs. Believing with the heart, he thus makes confession with his mouth. And he worshipped him — He not only rendered him the civil respects due to a great man, and the acknowledgments owing to a kind benefactor, but paid him divine honour, and worshipped him as the Son of God manifested in the flesh. Thus true faith will always show itself in an humble adoration of the Lord Jesus. They who believe aright in him will see all the reason in the world to worship him. What an excellent spirit was this man of! Of so deep and strong an understanding, as he had just shown, to the confusion of the Pharisees, and yet of so teachable a temper!

35. Dost thou believe—When a man’s will and purpose is aright for Christ it is easy to believe. This man knows not what Jesus will teach him, but what Jesus shall teach, that he believes beforehand.

V. 36. Who is he, that I may believe?-This implies some degree of faith already. He was ready to receive whatever Jesus said.

Verse 36. Who is he, Lord?] it is very likely that the blind man did not know that it was Jesus the Christ who now spoke to him; for it is evident he had never seen him before this time; and he might now see him without knowing that he was the person by whom he was cured, till our Lord made that discovery of himself, mentioned in the following verse.

Verses 35-38. Jesus heard that they had cast him out — Had excommunicated the poor man for his sake; and when he had found him — Which it appears he did soon after; he said unto him, privately, Dost thou believe on the Son of God — The great expected Messiah? Dost thou give credit to the promises of the Messiah? Dost thou expect his coming, and art thou ready to receive and embrace him when he is manifested to thee? This was that faith of the Son of God which they lived by, who lived before his manifestation; and this faith Christ here inquires after. Observe, reader, the great thing which is now required of us, and concerning which a strict and solemn inquiry will soon be made, is, whether we believe on the Son of God; and on this point our acquittance or condemnation will depend in the day of final accounts. He answered, Who is he, Lord — Christ’s question intimated that the Messiah was come, and was now among them, which the poor man noticing, asks, Who is he? As if he had said, I know that such a glorious person is expected, and if he be already come, only tell me where he is, and where I may meet with him; that, knowing him, I may believe on him — This implies that he had already some degree of faith. He was ready to receive what Jesus said. And — As the circumstances of the case were extraordinary, this being the first instance in which any one had incurred the great inconveniences attending a sentence of excommunication, out of zeal for the honour of Christ, to encourage him under what he was now suffering on his account, Jesus said to him — With a degree of freedom which was very unusual; Thou hast both seen him — Or, thou seest him; and it is he that talketh with thee — As if he had said, Thou needest not go far to seek him; he is before thine eyes, and thou hast had experience of his power and goodness. We do not find that Christ did thus expressly, and in so many words, reveal himself to any other, as he did to this man here, and to the woman of Samaria; he left others to find out by arguments who he was; but to these weak and foolish things of the world, he chose to manifest himself so as he did not to the wise and prudent. Now this poor man was made more sensible than before, what an unspeakable mercy it was to be cured of his blindness; for, in consequence of this, he could see the Son of God, a sight which rejoiced his heart more than that of the light of this world. How contentedly might he have returned to his former blindness, in that now, like old Simeon, his eyes had seen God’s salvation. And he said — Yielding to that convincing argument, which arose from what he had himself experienced of Christ’s almighty power; Lord, I believe — That is, I believe thee to be the Son of God. He would not dispute any thing that the person said who had showed such mercy to him, and wrought such a miracle for him; nor doubt of the truth of a doctrine which was confirmed by such signs. Believing with the heart, he thus makes confession with his mouth. And he worshipped him — He not only rendered him the civil respects due to a great man, and the acknowledgments owing to a kind benefactor, but paid him divine honour, and worshipped him as the Son of God manifested in the flesh. Thus true faith will always show itself in an humble adoration of the Lord Jesus. They who believe aright in him will see all the reason in the world to worship him. What an excellent spirit was this man of! Of so deep and strong an understanding, as he had just shown, to the confusion of the Pharisees, and yet of so teachable a temper!

36. Who is he—What it is to be the Son of God, the man knows not; but whatever Jesus shall affirm, that it is. And to whom belongs this title he knows not; but to whom Jesus assigns that high title, to him it belongs. So faith may lie in the heart, the spirit, and the will, long before it is completely defined in the head. See notes on verses 8-12.

V. 37. Lord, I believe-What an excellent spirit was this man of! Of so deep and strong an understanding; (as he had just shown to the confusion of the Pharisees,) and yet of so teachable a temper!

Verses 35-38. Jesus heard that they had cast him out — Had excommunicated the poor man for his sake; and when he had found him — Which it appears he did soon after; he said unto him, privately, Dost thou believe on the Son of God — The great expected Messiah? Dost thou give credit to the promises of the Messiah? Dost thou expect his coming, and art thou ready to receive and embrace him when he is manifested to thee? This was that faith of the Son of God which they lived by, who lived before his manifestation; and this faith Christ here inquires after. Observe, reader, the great thing which is now required of us, and concerning which a strict and solemn inquiry will soon be made, is, whether we believe on the Son of God; and on this point our acquittance or condemnation will depend in the day of final accounts. He answered, Who is he, Lord — Christ’s question intimated that the Messiah was come, and was now among them, which the poor man noticing, asks, Who is he? As if he had said, I know that such a glorious person is expected, and if he be already come, only tell me where he is, and where I may meet with him; that, knowing him, I may believe on him — This implies that he had already some degree of faith. He was ready to receive what Jesus said. And — As the circumstances of the case were extraordinary, this being the first instance in which any one had incurred the great inconveniences attending a sentence of excommunication, out of zeal for the honour of Christ, to encourage him under what he was now suffering on his account, Jesus said to him — With a degree of freedom which was very unusual; Thou hast both seen him — Or, thou seest him; and it is he that talketh with thee — As if he had said, Thou needest not go far to seek him; he is before thine eyes, and thou hast had experience of his power and goodness. We do not find that Christ did thus expressly, and in so many words, reveal himself to any other, as he did to this man here, and to the woman of Samaria; he left others to find out by arguments who he was; but to these weak and foolish things of the world, he chose to manifest himself so as he did not to the wise and prudent. Now this poor man was made more sensible than before, what an unspeakable mercy it was to be cured of his blindness; for, in consequence of this, he could see the Son of God, a sight which rejoiced his heart more than that of the light of this world. How contentedly might he have returned to his former blindness, in that now, like old Simeon, his eyes had seen God’s salvation. And he said — Yielding to that convincing argument, which arose from what he had himself experienced of Christ’s almighty power; Lord, I believe — That is, I believe thee to be the Son of God. He would not dispute any thing that the person said who had showed such mercy to him, and wrought such a miracle for him; nor doubt of the truth of a doctrine which was confirmed by such signs. Believing with the heart, he thus makes confession with his mouth. And he worshipped him — He not only rendered him the civil respects due to a great man, and the acknowledgments owing to a kind benefactor, but paid him divine honour, and worshipped him as the Son of God manifested in the flesh. Thus true faith will always show itself in an humble adoration of the Lord Jesus. They who believe aright in him will see all the reason in the world to worship him. What an excellent spirit was this man of! Of so deep and strong an understanding, as he had just shown, to the confusion of the Pharisees, and yet of so teachable a temper!

Verse 38. And he said, Lord, I believe.] That is, I believe thou art the Messiah; and, to give the fullest proof of the sincerity of his faith, he fell down before and adored him. Never having seen Jesus before, but simply knowing that a person of that name had opened his eyes, he had only considered him as a holy man and a prophet; but now that he sees and hears him he is convinced of his divinity, and glorifies him as his Saviour. We may hear much of Jesus, but can never know his glories and excellencies till he has discovered himself to our hearts by his own Spirit; then we believe on him, trust him with our souls, and trust in him for our salvation. The word kurie has two meanings: it signifies Lord, or Sovereign Ruler, and Sir, a title of civil respect. In the latter sense it seems evidently used in the 36th verse, {John 9:36} because the poor man did not then know that Jesus was the Messiah; in the former sense it is used in this verse-now the healed man knew the quality of his benefactor.

Verses 35-38. Jesus heard that they had cast him out — Had excommunicated the poor man for his sake; and when he had found him — Which it appears he did soon after; he said unto him, privately, Dost thou believe on the Son of God — The great expected Messiah? Dost thou give credit to the promises of the Messiah? Dost thou expect his coming, and art thou ready to receive and embrace him when he is manifested to thee? This was that faith of the Son of God which they lived by, who lived before his manifestation; and this faith Christ here inquires after. Observe, reader, the great thing which is now required of us, and concerning which a strict and solemn inquiry will soon be made, is, whether we believe on the Son of God; and on this point our acquittance or condemnation will depend in the day of final accounts. He answered, Who is he, Lord — Christ’s question intimated that the Messiah was come, and was now among them, which the poor man noticing, asks, Who is he? As if he had said, I know that such a glorious person is expected, and if he be already come, only tell me where he is, and where I may meet with him; that, knowing him, I may believe on him — This implies that he had already some degree of faith. He was ready to receive what Jesus said. And — As the circumstances of the case were extraordinary, this being the first instance in which any one had incurred the great inconveniences attending a sentence of excommunication, out of zeal for the honour of Christ, to encourage him under what he was now suffering on his account, Jesus said to him — With a degree of freedom which was very unusual; Thou hast both seen him — Or, thou seest him; and it is he that talketh with thee — As if he had said, Thou needest not go far to seek him; he is before thine eyes, and thou hast had experience of his power and goodness. We do not find that Christ did thus expressly, and in so many words, reveal himself to any other, as he did to this man here, and to the woman of Samaria; he left others to find out by arguments who he was; but to these weak and foolish things of the world, he chose to manifest himself so as he did not to the wise and prudent. Now this poor man was made more sensible than before, what an unspeakable mercy it was to be cured of his blindness; for, in consequence of this, he could see the Son of God, a sight which rejoiced his heart more than that of the light of this world. How contentedly might he have returned to his former blindness, in that now, like old Simeon, his eyes had seen God’s salvation. And he said — Yielding to that convincing argument, which arose from what he had himself experienced of Christ’s almighty power; Lord, I believe — That is, I believe thee to be the Son of God. He would not dispute any thing that the person said who had showed such mercy to him, and wrought such a miracle for him; nor doubt of the truth of a doctrine which was confirmed by such signs. Believing with the heart, he thus makes confession with his mouth. And he worshipped him — He not only rendered him the civil respects due to a great man, and the acknowledgments owing to a kind benefactor, but paid him divine honour, and worshipped him as the Son of God manifested in the flesh. Thus true faith will always show itself in an humble adoration of the Lord Jesus. They who believe aright in him will see all the reason in the world to worship him. What an excellent spirit was this man of! Of so deep and strong an understanding, as he had just shown, to the confusion of the Pharisees, and yet of so teachable a temper!

38. Lord, I believe—So faith is the consent of the will, the accord of the heart, and the assent of the understanding.

V. 39. For judgment am I come into the world-That is, the consequence of my coming will be, that by the just judgment of God, while the blind in body and soul receive their sight, they who boast they see, will be given up to still greater blindness than before.

Verse 39. For judgment I am come] I am come to manifest and execute the just judgment of God: 1. By giving sight to the blind, and light to the Gentiles who sit in darkness. 2. By removing the true light from those who, pretending to make a proper use of it, only abuse the mercy of God. In a word, salvation shall be taken away from the Jews, because they reject it; and the kingdom of God shall be given to the Gentiles.

Verses 39-41. And Jesus said — While he stood talking with the blind man who had received his sight, several people, it seems, being gathered about them; For judgment, as well as mercy, I am come into this world, that they which see not might see — That the ignorant, who are willing and desirous to be instructed, might have divine knowledge and true wisdom imparted to them; and that they which see — Who are confident that they see, who are conceited of, or trust in, their supposed knowledge and wisdom; might be made blind — Might be confirmed in their ignorance and folly, and be abandoned to a greater degree thereof. In these words he alluded to the cure of the blind man, but his meaning was spiritual; representing the consequences of his coming, which, by the just judgment of God, would be, that while the blind, both in body and soul, should receive their sight, they who boasted that they saw would be given up to still greater blindness than before. He meant to show, also, that his coming would manifest the disposition and character of every man. The humble, teachable, and upright, though they were as much in the dark with respect to religion and the knowledge of divine things, as the blind man had been with respect to the light of the sun, should be greatly enlightened by his coming: whereas those, who in their own opinion were wise, and learned, and clear-sighted, should appear to be, what they really were, blind, that is, quite ignorant and foolish. And some of the Pharisees which were with him — Which were present on this occasion; heard these words — And apprehending that he glanced at them, and cast a reflection on their sect, which was held in great veneration among the common people, because of their supposed skill in the law; said unto him, Are we blind also? — Dost thou imagine that we are like the rude, ignorant vulgar? We, who are their teachers, and have taken such pains to acquire the knowledge of the Scriptures? Darest thou say that we are blind, whose judgment every one has such a veneration for, and values, and bows to? Observe, nothing fortifies men’s corrupt hearts more against the convictions of the truth, or more effectually repels those convictions, than the good opinion which others have of them; as if what had gained applause with men, must needs find acceptance with God; than which nothing can be more false and deceitful, for God sees not as man sees. Jesus said, If ye were blind — Unavoidably ignorant, and not favoured with the means of divine and saving knowledge; ye should have no sin — In comparison of what you now have. But now ye say, We see — Are possessed of a high degree of discernment and knowledge, are more enlightened than the rest of mankind; therefore your sin remaineth — Without excuse, without remedy. It abides upon you with greater aggravations; and the conceit which you have of your own knowledge hinders conviction, and prevents the first entrance of instruction and true wisdom into your minds. They gloried that they were not blind, as the common people were, nor so credulous as they, but had abilities sufficient to direct their own conduct, and needed no aid in that respect from any one. Now this very thing which they gloried in, Christ here tells them was their shame and ruin: for, 1st, If they had been really ignorant, their sin would not have been so deeply aggravated, nor would they have had so much to answer for as now they had; for invincible ignorance, though it does not justify sin, excuses it in some measure, and lessens its guilt. 2d, If they had been sensible of their blindness, and had seen their need of one to guide them, they would soon have accepted Christ as their guide, and then they would have had no sin unpardoned, unconquered. They would have submitted to the righteousness of faith, and have been brought into a justified state. Those who are convinced of their disease, are in a fair way to be cured: but self-sufficiency, self-confidence, and self-righteousness, are some of the greatest hinderances of salvation. As those are most blind who will not see, so their blindness is most dangerous who fancy they do see. No patients are managed with so much difficulty as those who are in a phrensy, who say they are well, and that nothing ails them. The sin of those that are self-confident remains; for they reject the gospel of grace, and therefore the guilt of their sin remains uncancelled; and they grieve and quench the Spirit of grace, and therefore the power of their sin remains unbroken. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? Hearest thou the Pharisee say, We see? There is more hope of a fool, of a publican, and a harlot, than of such.

39. For judgment—For a judicial dealing by which those who close their eyes may have them sealed; and vice versa. Which see not—As this man saw not physically, but was made to see, so those who see not spiritually are made to see. They which see—Which wilfully refuse right seeing in order to see falsely. Made blind—Made to lose the power and chance of seeing truth, and left to the real blindness of their false seeing.

Verse 40. Are we blind also?] These Pharisees understood Christ as speaking of blindness in a spiritual sense, and wished to know if he considered them in that state.

Verses 39-41. And Jesus said — While he stood talking with the blind man who had received his sight, several people, it seems, being gathered about them; For judgment, as well as mercy, I am come into this world, that they which see not might see — That the ignorant, who are willing and desirous to be instructed, might have divine knowledge and true wisdom imparted to them; and that they which see — Who are confident that they see, who are conceited of, or trust in, their supposed knowledge and wisdom; might be made blind — Might be confirmed in their ignorance and folly, and be abandoned to a greater degree thereof. In these words he alluded to the cure of the blind man, but his meaning was spiritual; representing the consequences of his coming, which, by the just judgment of God, would be, that while the blind, both in body and soul, should receive their sight, they who boasted that they saw would be given up to still greater blindness than before. He meant to show, also, that his coming would manifest the disposition and character of every man. The humble, teachable, and upright, though they were as much in the dark with respect to religion and the knowledge of divine things, as the blind man had been with respect to the light of the sun, should be greatly enlightened by his coming: whereas those, who in their own opinion were wise, and learned, and clear-sighted, should appear to be, what they really were, blind, that is, quite ignorant and foolish. And some of the Pharisees which were with him — Which were present on this occasion; heard these words — And apprehending that he glanced at them, and cast a reflection on their sect, which was held in great veneration among the common people, because of their supposed skill in the law; said unto him, Are we blind also? — Dost thou imagine that we are like the rude, ignorant vulgar? We, who are their teachers, and have taken such pains to acquire the knowledge of the Scriptures? Darest thou say that we are blind, whose judgment every one has such a veneration for, and values, and bows to? Observe, nothing fortifies men’s corrupt hearts more against the convictions of the truth, or more effectually repels those convictions, than the good opinion which others have of them; as if what had gained applause with men, must needs find acceptance with God; than which nothing can be more false and deceitful, for God sees not as man sees. Jesus said, If ye were blind — Unavoidably ignorant, and not favoured with the means of divine and saving knowledge; ye should have no sin — In comparison of what you now have. But now ye say, We see — Are possessed of a high degree of discernment and knowledge, are more enlightened than the rest of mankind; therefore your sin remaineth — Without excuse, without remedy. It abides upon you with greater aggravations; and the conceit which you have of your own knowledge hinders conviction, and prevents the first entrance of instruction and true wisdom into your minds. They gloried that they were not blind, as the common people were, nor so credulous as they, but had abilities sufficient to direct their own conduct, and needed no aid in that respect from any one. Now this very thing which they gloried in, Christ here tells them was their shame and ruin: for, 1st, If they had been really ignorant, their sin would not have been so deeply aggravated, nor would they have had so much to answer for as now they had; for invincible ignorance, though it does not justify sin, excuses it in some measure, and lessens its guilt. 2d, If they had been sensible of their blindness, and had seen their need of one to guide them, they would soon have accepted Christ as their guide, and then they would have had no sin unpardoned, unconquered. They would have submitted to the righteousness of faith, and have been brought into a justified state. Those who are convinced of their disease, are in a fair way to be cured: but self-sufficiency, self-confidence, and self-righteousness, are some of the greatest hinderances of salvation. As those are most blind who will not see, so their blindness is most dangerous who fancy they do see. No patients are managed with so much difficulty as those who are in a phrensy, who say they are well, and that nothing ails them. The sin of those that are self-confident remains; for they reject the gospel of grace, and therefore the guilt of their sin remains uncancelled; and they grieve and quench the Spirit of grace, and therefore the power of their sin remains unbroken. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? Hearest thou the Pharisee say, We see? There is more hope of a fool, of a publican, and a harlot, than of such.

40. Some of the Pharisees… with him heard—It would seem as if these Pharisees, expecting that Jesus might visit his poor adherent, were in a sort of ambush to watch and see and hear. Accordingly as Jesus utters this reflection upon his own work they are on hand to overhear and retort. We blind also?—Are we included in that class who need to receive sight from thy hand?

V. 41. If ye had been blind-Invincibly ignorant; if ye had not had so many means of knowing:

ye would have had no sin-Comparatively to what ye have now. But now ye say-Ye yourselves acknowledge,

Ye see, therefore your sin remaineth-Without excuse, without remedy.

Verse 41. If ye were blind] If ye had not had sufficient opportunities to have acquainted yourselves with my Divine nature, by the unparalleled miracles which I have wrought before you? and the holy doctrine which I have preached, then your rejecting me could not be imputed to you as sin; but because ye say, we see-we are perfectly capable of judging between a true and false prophet, and can from the Scriptures point out the Messiah by his works-on this account you are guilty, and your sin is of no common nature, it remaineth, i.e. it shall not be expiated: as ye have rejected the Lord from being your deliverer, so the Lord has rejected you from being his people. When the Scripture speaks of sin remaining, it is always put in opposition to pardon; for pardon is termed the taking away of sin, John 1:29; Psalm 32:5. And this is the proper import of the phrase, afesiv twn amartiwv, which occurs so frequently in the sacred writings.

1. THE history of the man who was born blind and cured by our Lord is, in every point of view, instructive. His simplicity, his courage, his constancy, and his gratitude are all so many subjects worthy of attention and emulation. He certainly confessed the truth at the most imminent risk of his life; and therefore, as Stephen was the first martyr for Christianity, this man was the first confessor. The power and influence of TRUTH, in supporting its friends and confounding its adversaries, are well exemplified in him; and not less so, that providence of God by which he was preserved from the malice of these bad men. The whole story is related with inimitable simplicity, and cannot be read by the most cold-hearted without extorting the exclamation, How forcible are right words?

2. It has already been remarked that, since the world began, there is no evidence that any man born blind was ever restored to sight by surgical means, till the days of Mr. Cheselden, who was a celebrated surgeon at St. Thomas’s Hospital, London. For though, even before the Christian æra, there is reason to believe that both the Greek and Roman physicians performed operations to remove blindness occasioned by the cataract, yet we know of none of these ever attempted on the eyes of those who had been born blind, much less of any such persons being restored to sight. The cure before us must have been wholly miraculous-no appropriate means were used to effect it. What was done had rather a tendency to prevent and destroy sight than to help or restore it. The blindness in question was probably occasioned by a morbid structure of the organs of sight; and our Lord, by his sovereign power, instantaneously restored them to perfect soundness, without the intervention of any healing process. In this case there could be neither deception nor collusion.

ST. JOHN

Verses 39-41. And Jesus said — While he stood talking with the blind man who had received his sight, several people, it seems, being gathered about them; For judgment, as well as mercy, I am come into this world, that they which see not might see — That the ignorant, who are willing and desirous to be instructed, might have divine knowledge and true wisdom imparted to them; and that they which see — Who are confident that they see, who are conceited of, or trust in, their supposed knowledge and wisdom; might be made blind — Might be confirmed in their ignorance and folly, and be abandoned to a greater degree thereof. In these words he alluded to the cure of the blind man, but his meaning was spiritual; representing the consequences of his coming, which, by the just judgment of God, would be, that while the blind, both in body and soul, should receive their sight, they who boasted that they saw would be given up to still greater blindness than before. He meant to show, also, that his coming would manifest the disposition and character of every man. The humble, teachable, and upright, though they were as much in the dark with respect to religion and the knowledge of divine things, as the blind man had been with respect to the light of the sun, should be greatly enlightened by his coming: whereas those, who in their own opinion were wise, and learned, and clear-sighted, should appear to be, what they really were, blind, that is, quite ignorant and foolish. And some of the Pharisees which were with him — Which were present on this occasion; heard these words — And apprehending that he glanced at them, and cast a reflection on their sect, which was held in great veneration among the common people, because of their supposed skill in the law; said unto him, Are we blind also? — Dost thou imagine that we are like the rude, ignorant vulgar? We, who are their teachers, and have taken such pains to acquire the knowledge of the Scriptures? Darest thou say that we are blind, whose judgment every one has such a veneration for, and values, and bows to? Observe, nothing fortifies men’s corrupt hearts more against the convictions of the truth, or more effectually repels those convictions, than the good opinion which others have of them; as if what had gained applause with men, must needs find acceptance with God; than which nothing can be more false and deceitful, for God sees not as man sees. Jesus said, If ye were blind — Unavoidably ignorant, and not favoured with the means of divine and saving knowledge; ye should have no sin — In comparison of what you now have. But now ye say, We see — Are possessed of a high degree of discernment and knowledge, are more enlightened than the rest of mankind; therefore your sin remaineth — Without excuse, without remedy. It abides upon you with greater aggravations; and the conceit which you have of your own knowledge hinders conviction, and prevents the first entrance of instruction and true wisdom into your minds. They gloried that they were not blind, as the common people were, nor so credulous as they, but had abilities sufficient to direct their own conduct, and needed no aid in that respect from any one. Now this very thing which they gloried in, Christ here tells them was their shame and ruin: for, 1st, If they had been really ignorant, their sin would not have been so deeply aggravated, nor would they have had so much to answer for as now they had; for invincible ignorance, though it does not justify sin, excuses it in some measure, and lessens its guilt. 2d, If they had been sensible of their blindness, and had seen their need of one to guide them, they would soon have accepted Christ as their guide, and then they would have had no sin unpardoned, unconquered. They would have submitted to the righteousness of faith, and have been brought into a justified state. Those who are convinced of their disease, are in a fair way to be cured: but self-sufficiency, self-confidence, and self-righteousness, are some of the greatest hinderances of salvation. As those are most blind who will not see, so their blindness is most dangerous who fancy they do see. No patients are managed with so much difficulty as those who are in a phrensy, who say they are well, and that nothing ails them. The sin of those that are self-confident remains; for they reject the gospel of grace, and therefore the guilt of their sin remains uncancelled; and they grieve and quench the Spirit of grace, and therefore the power of their sin remains unbroken. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? Hearest thou the Pharisee say, We see? There is more hope of a fool, of a publican, and a harlot, than of such.

Ver. 41. If ye were blind, ye should have no sin, the great sin of rejecting me, and bringing upon yourselves the utter ruin foretold by your prophets. Joel 2:32. Malachi 4:1. This verse connects the tenth chapter, and commences the fourth and last disputation with the jews.

41. If ye were blind—If, like this man, you were utterly and innocently without the power to see. Ye should have no sin—Ye would be perfectly blameless for not seeing. Just as blameless as this man for not seeing the sun without the power. No man is required to use a power he never could possess. If a man never could possess the power for right, he could never be condemned for wrong. If, indeed, he brings his powerlessness upon himself, he cannot plead it in excuse. But now ye say, We see—By your own confession, which is true, you are able to see the truth; and yet, wilfully, ye see falsely; your judgment shall be that ye shall lose the opportunity to see truth, and ye shall be abandoned to that false seeing which is a real blindness. As both their not seeing truth and their untruthful seeing were willful, there was no excuse; their sin stood permanent, recorded, unpardoned, eternal.