CHAPTER IX.

Ch. 9:1-41. THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND.--A MIRACLE OF CHRIST ATTESTED BY A JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION.--A PARABLE OF REDEMPTION.--A LESSON IN FAITH. See note at ver. 38.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--This miracle is reported only by John. There is nothing peculiar in this, since John alone reports Christ’s Judean ministry, in which it occurred. The place was Jerusalem; the time is uncertain; it was on a Sabbath (ver. 14), in the fall of A. D. 29 (Vol. I, p. 45), between the feast of Tabernacles in October (ch. 7:2) and the feast of Dedication in December (ch. 10:22). Some identify it with the last day of the former feast (ch. 7:37), which was a Sabbath, supposing ch. 7:53 to 8:11 to be an interpolation. It is not probable that it occurred at the time which seems to be indicated by its place in the report furnished by the Evangelists. That Christ stopped on escaping from a mob who threatened to stone him, in order to work this miracle, is not probable; that under such circumstances his disciples should have asked him the abstruse question of ver. 2 is still more improbable. I put it therefore at some other time in his Judean ministry, which lasted a little over two months. See ch. 7, Prel. Note. In studying this chapter the student will do well to observe its natural division into three parts: (1) the miracle (verses 1-7); (2) the investigation (verses 8-33); (3) the result (verses 34-38).

1 And as _Jesus_ passed by, he saw a man which was blind from _his_ birth.

=1. And passing by, he saw a man blind from birth.= To the ordinary reader the connection of this verse with the last verse of the preceding chapter indicates that this miracle was wrought as Jesus passed from the temple driven by the mob. But the latter clause of that verse is of doubtful authenticity. The phrase “passing by” appears to be used here simply to indicate that the miracle of mercy was called forth by the occasion, not by the blind man’s petition nor by any previously formed purpose. “It was he who saw the blind man, not the blind man who came to him; and so earnestly did he look upon him that even his disciples perceived it.”--(_Chrysostom._) Compare this case with that in Luke 18:35-43. There the blind man appeals to Christ, here Christ heals without being appealed to. There, in the stillness of the country, the noise of the multitude awakens the attention of the blind man. Here, in the crowded city, there is nothing to announce to the blind man a healer until Christ speaks to him. There, therefore, he awaits the petition; here he does not. Congenital blindness is incurable by modern science. How it was known to the Evangelist that this man was blind from his birth has been questioned. The man appears, from the following narrative, to have been a well-known mendicant. Perhaps he proclaimed the nature and extent of his misfortune as a means of awakening charity.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

=2. Who did sin?= It was not only a Jewish opinion that such afflictions were a divine punishment for sin, it is the teaching of experience that special diseases are frequently the natural consequence of sin either in the sufferer or in his ancestry, and the teaching of Scripture that all disease, and even death itself, is the fruit of sin. This truth Christ had already recognized in at least two instances (Mark 2:5; John 5:14), and it is enforced both by warnings and by historical illustrations in the O. T. (Lev. 26:16; Deut. 28:22; Numb. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27). The Jewish error consisted in believing that all special afflictions were divine visitations for special sins (Job 4:7; 8:6), an opinion which was not confined to the Jews (Acts 28:4). This error Christ here corrects. The form of the disciples’ question has given rise to some needless perplexity. How could they, even in imagination, attribute a blindness from birth to the blind man’s own sin? All such explanations as that some among the Jews believed in the transmigration of souls and others in a pre-existent state, and therefore in sins committed in a previous life, and still others in the possibility of sin committed by the unborn babe in the womb, a doctrine deduced by the rabbis from such passages as Gen. 25:22 and Psalm 51:5, are inadmissible, because these refinements in theology, even if actually entertained among the Jewish rabbis, certainly were not accepted among the common people, from whom Christ drew his disciples. The question appears to be in spirit this: What is the explanation of this man’s blindness? his own sin? That cannot be, for he was born blind. Is he then punished for his parents’ sin?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that[357] the works of God should be made manifest in him.

[357] ch. 11:4.

=3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.= That is, his blindness is not a punishment for his or their sin.--=But that the works of God should be made manifest in him.= Manifest to us by his miraculous cure; but this is not all. The work of God is to believe on him whom he hath sent (ch. 6:29), and to this belief the blind man was brought by his cure (ver. 38). Thus the work of God was made manifest, not only through him to us, but _in_ him. Thus Christ gives the key to the Christian doctrine of suffering. It is inflicted sometimes as a special punishment for special sins (see references above), but more frequently it is a means of grace, inflicted either that by our endurance we may manifest the grace of God to others (2 Cor. 12:9), or may be taught of God ourselves (Heb. 12:6, 11). Compare with Christ’s language here his declaration concerning the sickness and death of Lazarus (ch. 11:4).

4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I[358] am the light of the world.

[358] chaps. 1:5,9; 8:12; 12:35, 46.

=4, 5. While it is day; the night cometh.= The day is life; the night is death. Christ in his human estate was subject to the law under which all his disciples are placed. Death cut short his human work. The day for work is short, the night is at hand; therefore the greater need of earnest and urgent labor. Sleep is a parable of death (Ps. 104:23) that should perpetually remind us that our day is short.=--The light of the world.= It was prophesied that the Messiah should open the eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). The direct reference is to Christ’s fulfilment of these prophecies (Luke 4:18, 21). But it is true, in a larger sense, that just so far as Christ is in the world, and accepted by the world, he becomes its light, intellectual, moral, and spiritual (ch. 1:9, note).

6 When he had thus spoken, he spat[359] on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

[359] Mark 8:23.

7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,[360] (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He[361] went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

[360] Neh. 3:15.

[361] 2 Kings 5:14.

=6, 7. Spat on the ground * * * * and he anointed the eyes with the clay.= Clay and spittle were both believed in ancient times to possess curative properties. Why Christ used them here is a matter only of conjecture. Certainly not as remedies, for one blind from birth could not be cured by a remedy so simple, and he who healed the blind men at Jericho by a touch (Matt. 20:34) had no need here to resort to other means. Not to conceal the miracle, as may have been the case in analogous instances (see Mark 7:33; 8:23, notes), for here his object was to manifest the works of God, and the result was a public and protracted investigation of his own character. It is noticeable, however, that Christ never cured without giving the healed something to do, as a test of his faith and obedience. Even in the three cases of raising from the dead he called on the mourners, to indicate by their obedience to his direction their faith in him (Matt. 9:24, 25; Luke 7:14; John 11:39, 40). When he was asked to heal, the simple request served as an indication of faith; when, as here, he volunteered the cure, he seems always to have required some act as an evidence of faith. Comp. ch. 5:6-8.--=Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.= One of the pools in the vicinity of Jerusalem, entitled also Siloah or Shiloah (Neh. 3:15; Isa. 8:6). It is identified with a pool or tank still found in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which stands to the south of the Temple mount, and consists of an oblong tank, partly hewn out of the rock and partly built of masonry, measuring about fifty-three feet in length, eighteen feet in width, and nineteen feet in depth, with a flight of steps leading down to the bottom. Several columns stand out of the side walls, extending from the top downward into the reservoir, the design of which it is now difficult to conjecture. The water passes out of this reservoir through an open channel cut in the rock, which is covered for a short distance, and a few yards off is partly dammed up by the people of the adjoining village of Siloam, for the purpose of washing their clothes, and then divided into small streams to irrigate the gardens below. The water flows into this reservoir from an artificial cave or basin under the cliff. This cave is entered by a small archway hewn in the rock. It is irregular in form, and decreases in size as it proceeds from about fifteen to three feet in height. It is connected with what is known as the Fountain of the Virgin by a remarkable conduit cut through the very heart of the rock in a zigzag form, measuring some seventeen hundred and fifty feet, while the distance in a straight line is only eleven hundred feet. This remarkable fact was discovered by Dr. Edward Robinson, who had the hardihood to crawl through the passage.--=Which is by interpretation Sent.= The meaning of this addition has been doubted, but does not seem to me to be doubtful. The pool, by its very name, was a symbol of Him who was sent into the world to work the works of God (ver. 4), and who gives light to the world by providing a fountain in which not only all uncleanness is washed away, but all ignorance and blindness of heart.--=He went therefore=, etc. Compare with the cure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:11, 13), who was in like manner bid to wash in Jordan, and only reluctantly and after angry resistance consented. Observe how great the trial to this blind man’s faith, directed to take so considerable a walk, in his blindness, as a condition of cure. Observe, too, in the miracle a parable of redemption. The whole world lieth in darkness from the beginning (Ps. 107:10; Matt. 4:16; 1 John 5:19); Christ, the light of the world, comes to call us out of darkness into marvellous light (Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:13; 1 Pet. 2:9); the condition of receiving that light is faith, exemplified by obedience, without which the soul remains in darkness (chaps. 1:5; 3:19); and he often calls us to prove our faith by walking, in obedience to his direction, in the darkness for a while, in order that we may come into the light (Mark 8:22-26, notes).

8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

9 Some said, This is he: others _said_, He is like him: _but_ he said, I am _he_.

=8, 9. The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was a beggar.= The best manuscripts have _beggar_, not, as in our English version, _blind_. So Alford and Tischendorf.--=Is not this he that sat and begged?= Apparently he was a well-known beggar, like the one described in Acts 3:2, 10. Comp. Luke 18:35. He is described as one that _sat and begged_, in contrast with such as beg from door to door. Beggars of this description having a regular place, where they may always be found soliciting alms, are a not uncommon sight in the East.--=Some said, This is he. Others, No! but he is like him. He himself said, I am he.= This is the correct rendering of the best reading; it varies slightly from our English version. His own response seems to have settled the question of his identity among the common people. That some should have at first doubted is not strange, considering the alterations in appearance made by the clear eye in place of the sightless eyeballs, and the fact that he was no longer to be found in his accustomed place, begging.

10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay,[362] and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash; and I went and washed, and I received sight.

[362] verses 6, 7.

12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

=10-12.= The first investigation is made informally, and without prejudice, by the common people. It is curiosity alone which inquires, and it is easily convinced of the facts in the case.--The man’s reply to his questioners is more laconic in the original than in our English version. It is literally, “_And going and washing, I saw._” It reminds one of Cæsar’s famous report, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” The verb rendered I saw or I received sight (ἀναβλέπω) is literally, _I saw again_. Sight being the prerogative of humanity, he speaks as though it were really once his prerogative (though in fact he never possessed it), had been lost, and was now recovered to him again.--The question, _Where is he?_ appears to be asked, not in a spirit of enmity, but simply from a natural curiosity and interest to see him who had wrought the cure. Christ’s escape from the blind man and the multitude is analogous to his course on other occasions (comp. ch. 5:13), and is characteristic of one who ordinarily avoided all occasions of public triumph and enthusiasm (ch. 6:15; Matt. 8:4; 9:30; Mark 5:43).

13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

=13.= Verses 13-34 report a semi-official investigation by the Pharisees, instigated not by a sincere desire to ascertain the truth, nor by mere curiosity, but by a determination to break the force of the miracle that had been wrought. For this purpose they first examine the man (verses 15-17) and his parents (18-21), in hope to prove an imposture; next they subject the man to a further cross-examination in an unsuccessful endeavor to break down his testimony (verses 24-33); failing in that, they do what they can to discredit his testimony by excommunicating him (ver. 34).--=The Pharisees.= It is generally supposed that this phrase indicates the Jewish court formally assembled, either the Sanhedrim, _i. e._, the supreme court of the nation, or the lesser Sanhedrim, _i. e._, one of the local courts in Jerusalem. But the passages cited to show that John uses the term “Pharisees” to designate a court rather indicate the opposite. In both John 7:32, 45-47 and John 11:46, 47, he distinguishes between the “chief-priests and Pharisees” who constituted the council, and the Pharisees who constituted not a body, but a party. I judge then that the investigation which follows is an informal one. It must be remembered that in that age, and even to the present time in that country, no such clear line was drawn as with us between an official and an unofficial trial.

14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How[363] can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And[364] there was a division among them.

[363] verse 31; ch. 3:2.

[364] ch. 7:12, 43.

=14-16. The Sabbath day.= For analogous case of Sabbath healing, see ch. 5, notes.--=Then again the Pharisees also asked him.= Not that they had asked him before; the “again” refers to the question by the people in ver. 10.--=Some said * * * * Others said.= It is a mistake to suppose that all the Pharisees were hypocrites. Among them were such men as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus. See Matt. 3:7, note. But the honest Pharisees were timid, and were easily overborne by their opponents. For account of a similar conflict, see ch. 7:47-52. Observe the inherent vice of Pharisaism, ancient and modern; it puts the ceremonial above humanity; it is of the essence of Christianity that it regards all ceremonials and observances as for humanity (Mark 2:27; note on Matt. 12:8).

17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.[365]

[365] ch. 4:19.

18 But the Jews did not believe[366] concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

[366] Isa. 26:11.

19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

=17-21. What sayest thou of him because he hath opened thine eyes?= They ask for the man’s opinion, each party perhaps hoping to get support for its own views.--=He is a prophet.= At first to the blind man Christ was only “a man that is called Jesus” (ver. 11). The discussion has not only deepened, it has clarified his convictions.--=But the Jews did not believe * * * * until they had called the parents.= The Pharisees make a twofold endeavor to break the force of the miracle, first by questioning the identity of the man, second by questioning the method of his cure.--So they ask the parents if this is their son, and how he was cured.--=His parents answered them=, etc. The answer of the parents was probably literally true, but it was evasive.--Their knowledge of the cure was probably derived from their son; hence they justify themselves in referring the inquirers to him. But duty, both to truth and to their son, required that they should have sustained his testimony by their own expressed belief in the miraculous cure.

22 These _words_ spake his parents, because they[367] feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he[368] should be put out of the synagogue.

[367] chaps. 7:13; 12:42; Prov. 29:25.

[368] verse 34; ch. 16:2.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

=22, 23. Because they feared the Jews.= The term “Jews,” as John uses it, generally means the Judeans, _i. e._, the inhabitants of Judea, as distinguished from the Galileans or other dispersed Israelites. Living in the vicinity of Jerusalem, they were most attached to its ritual, and most intolerant of any departure from Jewish ceremonials or any fellowship with the Gentiles. Through their influence the Sanhedrim had resolved that any one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah should be excommunicated. When this resolution was arrived at does not appear. It clearly indicates that even in Judea there was growing a feeling, if not a faith, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Promised One.--=He should be put out of the synagogue.= That is, excommunicated. According to the Jewish scholars, there were three kinds of discipline known in the ancient synagogues, all of which are entitled _excommunication_ or _cutting off_. Excommunication in the slightest degree involved separation from the synagogue, and the suspension of intercourse with all Jews whatever, even with one’s wife and domestics. A person who had exposed himself to excommunication was not allowed to approach another nearer than a distance of four cubits. This separation was continued for thirty days; and in case the excommunicated person did not repent, the time might be doubled or tripled, even when the transgression, by means of which it was incurred, was of small consequence. The second degree of excommunication is denominated _the curse_, and was more severe in its effects. It was pronounced with imprecations, in the presence of ten men, and so thoroughly excluded the guilty person from all communion whatever with his countrymen, that they were not allowed to sell him anything, even the necessaries of life. The _third degree of excommunication_ was more severe in its consequences than either of the preceding. It was a solemn and absolute exclusion from all intercourse and communion with any other individuals of the nation; and the criminal was left in the hands, and to the justice of God. It is probable that in the time of Christ the second degree of excommunication was not distinguished from the third. It is uncertain what degree of excommunication was here threatened; but it is quite unimportant, since the first was sure to be succeeded by the others, unless the condemned repented, and made confession of his wrong-doing; in this case retracted his confession of Jesus as the Messiah.

24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God[369] the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

[369] Josh. 7:19; Ps. 50:14, 15.

25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner _or no_, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

=24, 25.= The Pharisees attempt to overawe the blind man. The conference with his parents has been held in his absence. They then summon him into their presence with the declaration that they have discovered the imposture, and call on him to confess it.--=Give God the praise= is not equivalent to _Give to God the glory of your cure_; they do not admit that any cure has been wrought. It is a solemn form of adjuration to confess the fraud which they pretend to have discovered (Josh. 7:19).--=We know that this man is a sinner=, indicates that their investigation has discovered the imposture. The man’s reply is shrewd and wise. He will not undertake to dispute the conclusion which these doctors of the law pretend to have reached; but neither will he abate in the slightest his testimony to the miraculous cure.--=One thing I know, that being blind, now I see.= No testimony to Christ is more pertinent or potent than this personal experience of his grace. Comp. Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:12-18.

26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear _it_ again? will ye also be his disciples?

=26, 27.= Defeated in an attempt to overawe the blind man, the Pharisees resort to the common artifice of cross-examination; they call on him to repeat his story, in the hope of detecting some real or imaginary discrepancy in his two accounts, by which they may discredit him. He refuses to be cross-examined; grows impatient at their manifest injustice; answers defiantly.--=Ye will not hear.= Equivalent to, Ye will not heed, will not accept. It is useless to repeat testimony which they have resolved to reject. He thus illustrates Christ’s precept, Neither cast ye your pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6).--=Will ye also be his disciples?= Ironical. The man affects to misunderstand their object, and to think that they are inquiring for the purpose of becoming Christ’s disciples. The mere suggestion elicits an indignant disclaimer, and so brings out clearly that they are not honestly seeking to get at the truth respecting Jesus, but are attempting to discredit him. The word _also_ scarcely indicates, as some suppose, that the man is resolved to become Christ’s disciple. We know too little concerning him, as yet, to come to that conclusion (ver. 36).

28 Then they reviled[370] him, and said. Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.

[370] 1 Pet. 2:23.

29 We know[371] that God spake unto Moses: _as for_ this _fellow_, we[372] know not from whence he is.

[371] Ps. 103:7; Heb. 3:5.

[372] ch. 8:14.

=28, 29.= A curious illustration of the inconsistency of bigotry is afforded by a comparison of the language of the Pharisees here and in ch. 7:27. There, because they suppose they know the parentage of Jesus, they say he cannot be the Messiah; here, the pretence that he is an unknown, affords an equally satisfactory reason for rejecting him.

30 The man answered and said unto them, Why[373] herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and _yet_ he hath opened[374] mine eyes.

[373] ch. 3:10.

[374] Ps. 119:18; Isa. 29:18, 19; 35:5; 2 Cor. 4:6.

31 Now we know that God[375] heareth not sinners: but if[376] any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

[375] Job 27:9; Ps. 66:18; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 1:15; Jer. 11:11; Ezek. 8:18; Micah 3:4; Zech. 7:13.

[376] Ps. 34:15; Prov. 15:29.

=30, 31.= The argument of these verses is, (1) founded on the Pharisees’ doctrine that man is made acceptable to God by his good works. The Pharisees could furnish no reply to it, because they believed that God only heard the prayers of the pious (see Neh. 13:14, 22, 31; 2 Sam. 22:21). The doctrine that he hears and answers the prayers of the penitent, though abundantly taught in the O. T. (Ps. 25:11; 32:5; Isaiah 55:6, 7), they wholly ignored; (2) It is founded on the Scriptural doctrine that God does not hear the prayer of deliberate, willful and persistent sinners, while continuing in their sins. If this “man that is called Jesus” was the impostor that the Pharisees declared him to be, God would not accompany his ministry with such manifestations of divine blessing (Isaiah 1:11-15; 59:1, 2; Prov. 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9; Jer. 14:11, 12; Amos 5:21-23; Micah 3:4); (3) It accords in fact with the N. T. doctrine of prayer, which teaches us to pray in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, in and through whom we are heard, though sinners (chaps. 14:13, 14; 15:16; 16:23, 24). Observe the double condition of prayer, as indicated by this man: (1) a true reverence of God, (2) a sincere practical obedience to his will. Comp. ch. 15:17; Heb. 11:6; James 5:16. In the failing of one or the other of these conditions we may find one principal reason why so many prayers are not answered.

32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

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

=32, 33.= It was prophesied of the Messiah that he should restore sight to the blind (ver. 5, note). This peculiar form of miraculous cure is not narrated to have been performed by any one except Christ, unless 2 Kings 6:18, 20 be regarded as an instance; it was performed by Christ on several occasions (Matt. 9:27-30; 11:5; 12:22; 20:30-34; Mark 8:22-25); but this is the only case of the cure of one blind from birth.--=If this man was not from God he could do nothing.= The man now openly confesses his conviction, which in his previous answer he has concealed. Observe that he enunciated the same principle as Nicodemus, and in almost the same words. The declaration is spiritually true of Christ (ch. 5:19-30) and of every one of Christ’s disciples (ch. 15:5; comp. Phil. 4:13).

34 They answered and said unto him, Thou[377] wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him[378] out.

[377] verse 2.

[378] Isa. 66:5.

=34.= Failing in their attempt to break the force of the man’s testimony, the Pharisees endeavored to discredit it by excommunicating him. Religious persecution is generally the last resort of intellectual weakness and defeat. Their declaration _Thou wast altogether born in sins_ is a reference to the fact that he was born blind. Thus they become themselves unconscious witnesses to the miracle; for their language here shows their belief that he was born blind, and the man himself affords ocular demonstration of the cure. The declaration _They cast him out_ means, not they drove him out of the court-room, as interpreted by Chrysostom, Tholuck and others, but they excommunicated him, in conformity to the resolution previously taken (ver. 22).

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe[379] on the Son of God?

[379] 1 John 5:13.

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and[380] it is he that talketh with thee.

[380] ch. 4:26.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.[381]

[381] Matt. 14:33.

=35-38. When Jesus heard that they had cast him out.= Perhaps he purposely waited, that the man’s fidelity to the truth might be fully tested. This trial of the blind man symbolizes the trial to which Christ subjects his church (1 Pet. 1:7). When men cast the faithful witness out, Christ comes to him (Ps. 27:10). Thus the man realizes the promise of Luke 6:22.--=Dost thou believe on the Son of God.= There is an emphasis on _Thou_ in the original, which cannot well be repeated in the English. Christ contrasts his belief with the disbelief of the Pharisees. “Believest thou, whilst so many others are disbelievers” (_Trench_).--=Who is he, Sire, that I might believe on him.= The word translated lord (κύριος) is only a general term of respect. It is sometimes translated _Sir_ (Matt. 21:30; chaps. 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7; 12:20; 20:15). It does not imply here that the man recognized in Jesus the Son of God. But his language, _That I might believe on him_, indicates that he was ready to believe when the Messiah should be made known to him. This spirit of desire always brings the answer of disclosure (Matt. 5:6; Acts, ch. 10).--=Thou hast both seen him.= A reminder of the benefit which has been conferred upon the man.--=And it is he that talketh to thee.= To no one did Christ disclose his divine nature more clearly than to this blind man, whose fidelity to truth showed him worthy to receive the disclosure of further truth, and one which even the disciples but imperfectly apprehended.--=Sire, I believe. And he reverenced him.= Not necessarily _worshipped_. The original does not necessarily signify anything more than a form of salutation paid by an inferior to a superior, by falling upon the knees and touching the forehead to the ground. For meaning of both words, “lord” and “worshipped,” see Matt. 8:2, note. It is clear, however, that the man accepted fully Christ’s declaration respecting himself, though not so clear that he fully comprehended his meaning.

* * * * *

THE CURE OF THE MAN BORN BLIND. It is safe to assume that John has narrated no event at such length as this miracle and its subsequent investigation without a definite purpose. The general lessons taught by this account, apart from those incidentally conveyed in single utterances, appear to me to be three. (1) This is the only one of Christ’s miracles which was subjected to a judicial or _quasi_ judicial investigation. That investigation originated not with the disciples, but with the people, and was carried on before a hostile tribunal. The identity of the blind man was established by his own testimony and corroborated by that of his parents. That he was born blind was established by the same indisputable evidence. That he was cured was ocularly demonstrated. The cure necessarily involved a miracle, since congenital blindness is not curable by natural means. The value of the evidence is increased by the facts that the parents were reluctant witnesses; that the man himself had no interest to further the cause of Christ, since he did not even know who he was; that the Pharisees themselves were forced to the unconscious admission that a miracle had been wrought (ver. 34, note); and that, defeated in their attempt to browbeat the witness, they endeavored to discredit his testimony by excommunicating him. (2) There is an instructive contrast in the characters so briefly but graphically portrayed. (_a_) The people, moved by mere wonder, investigate curiously but not earnestly, reach no conclusion, and so learn nothing of Christ; (_b_) The Pharisees, instigated by malice and religious bigotry, investigate thoroughly, and are compelled to adopt the conclusion that a miracle has been wrought, but refuse to accept the Worker as even a man sent from God, and so learn nothing of Christ. (_c_) The parents, honest but timid, accept the facts, but are unwilling to risk persecution for truth’s sake, and so learn nothing of Christ. (_d_) The man himself, who is faithful to his convictions, and whose convictions grow by reason of his fidelity, is brought to a knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus is illustrated the principle that to find the truth as it is in Christ Jesus it is not enough to investigate curiously, earnestly, honestly; it is necessary also to confess fearlessly the truth so far as it is apprehended. (3) The history of the blind man illustrates the growth of faith, as well as its conditions. At first he knew nothing of Jesus; but without knowledge or definite hope he obeys Christ’s direction, goes to the pool of Siloam, washes, sees. He still knows nothing of the Healer but that he is “a man that is called Jesus.” Despite the timidity of his parents, and the threatening of the Pharisees, he maintains the truth, defends the unknown, asserts him to be a prophet, and a man of God. Finally, he finds in him the Messiah, the Son of God. Fidelity, in that which is least, is the condition of receiving larger gifts in knowledge and faith.

39 And Jesus said, For[382] judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not[383] might see; and that they which see might be made blind.[384]

[382] ch. 5:22, 27; 12:47.

[383] 1 Pet. 2:9.

[384] ch. 3:19; Matt. 13:13.

=39. For judgment am I come into this world.= Contrast chaps. 8:15; 12:47. Christ does not hesitate to state truths at different times in forms which make his statements apparently contradictory. He does not come to announce judgment or condemnation, but to provide mercy; nevertheless, he has come _for judgment_, since he draws to himself all that love the divine character and the divine life, and repels all that are worldly and selfish. He does not condemn, but they that reject him are self-condemned, testifying that they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.--=That they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.= The meaning is not, _That they which see not their own blindness might be made to see it_; this interpretation makes the second clause of the sentence either a mere repetition of the first, _And that they which think they see might be made aware that they are blind_, or unmeaning. Nor is it to be rendered, _That they which see not spiritual things might be made to see them, and they which see the world might be made blind to that as a preparation for seeing Christ_; for though this would be in analogy with Paul’s metaphor (Rom. 6:11; 7:9), it would not interpret Christ’s declaration that he has come for judgment. The two clauses of the sentence are to be interpreted alike. Christ’s coming gave moral and spiritual sight to the publicans who were without moral culture, but opened their hearts to receive Christ’s instructions; and it darkened such moral sense as the Pharisees already possessed, since they closed their eyes to the clear revelation which Christ brought. Thus Christ is both savor of life unto life and of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16), both the corner-stone and the stone of stumbling (1 Pet. 2:6-8; comp. Matt. 3:12, note).

40 And _some_ of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we[385] blind also?

[385] Rom. 2:19; Rev. 3:17.

41 Jesus said unto them, If[386] ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see: therefore[387] your sin remaineth?

[386] ch. 15:22, 24.

[387] Is. 5:21; Luke 18:14; 1 John 1:8-10.

=40, 41. Some of the Pharisees which were with him.= That is, who happened to be present. But their presence as auditors, coupled with their question, perhaps implies that they were of that class which were inclined to regard Jesus as a prophet (ver. 17; ch. 10:21).--=Are we blind also?= The form of the original implies a strong expectation of a negative reply. It might be rendered, _Surely we are not blind also_.--=If ye were blind ye should have no sin.= This is not to be interpreted away, as equivalent to, Your sin would be less. It is literally true, that sin is in the proportion of knowledge, so that one who is, by no fault of his own, absolutely ignorant of moral distinctions, is absolutely free from moral responsibility.--=Ye say, We see; therefore your sin remains.= They had the law and the prophets which foretold the Messiah (ch. 5:39), and they had the knowledge of his works and the moral capacity to judge them, and did adjudge that God was with him (ch. 3:2), and that he could not be a sinner (ch. 9:16). This was enough to render them guilty in not following out their convictions by a public confession of Christ as a prophet, which they really saw him to be. Comp. ch. 15:24; and with the entire passage (vers. 39-41), Rom. 2:17-24.