Chapter 9

1 The man that was born blind restored to sight. 8 He is brought to the Pharisees. 13 They are offended at it, and excommunicate him: 35 but he is received of Jesus, and confesseth him. 39 Who they are whom Christ enlighteneth.

1. Jesus passed by. [The Man Born Blind, John 9:1–41. See Early Peraean Ministry; The Ministry of Our Lord; on miracles pp. 208–213.] For the chronological setting of this event see on Matt. 19:1. The miracle of healing took place on the Sabbath day (John 9:14), probably the Sabbath following the Feast of Tabernacles with which the events of chs. 7 and 8 were connected (see on chs. 7:2; 8:2). However, it is possible that several months elapsed between the sermon of ch. 8 and the miracle. If so, the incident took place in connection with the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication a few months later (see on ch. 10:22).

Blind from his birth. Blindness from various causes, especially trachoma, is still common in the East. Of the miracles mentioned in the Gospels, concerning this one only is it noted that the malady had existed from birth.

2. Who did sin? The Jews taught that the sufferings of this life were divine punishment for sin. According to the Talmud, “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity” (Shabbath 55a, Soncino ed., p. 255). “A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him” (Nedarim 41a, Soncino ed., p. 130). The rabbis further taught that God was careful that sin met its punishment according to the rule, measure for measure. Several examples of the rule are given in the Mishnah: “In the measure with which a man measures it is meted out to him.” “Samson went after [the desire of] his eyes; therefore the Philistines put out his eyes. … Absalom gloried in his hair; therefore he was hanged by his hair. And because he cohabited with the ten concubines of his father, therefore he was stabbed with ten lances. … And because he stole three hearts, the heart of his father, the heart of the court of justice, and the heart of Israel, … therefore three darts were thrust through him” (Sotah 1. 7, 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 37, 41). The Jews held that every sin had its peculiar punishment, and believed it possible in certain cases, at least, to determine the guilt of a man by the nature of his suffering. After the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Sanhedrin, and with it the end of Jewish executions, Rabbi Joseph taught that God visited natural calamities upon those deserving death: “He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation, is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation” (Talmud Kethuboth 30a, 30b, Soncino ed., p. 167).

Although these statements are of a date later than the time of Jesus, they doubtless reflect the thinking of the Jews in His time. This is evident from the question of the disciples on this occasion, also from the question of Jesus on this subject in Luke 13:2, 4.

It should be noted that even though the above represents the overwhelming opinion, the Jews did make provision for what they called the chastisement of love. This they believed God sent for testing and purification. Such chastisements, they held, would never interfere with the study of the Torah or with prayer. He who willingly submitted to these chastisements would be richly rewarded. However, they considered these chastisements of love as exceptions to the general rule, where there is suffering there is also guilt.

This man. If this man was blind as the result of his own sin, then he must have sinned before he was born, inasmuch as his blindness had existed from birth. There are a few hints in rabbinical literature to the effect that the Jews considered prenatal sinning on the part of the child at least a possibility. For example, Midrash Rabbah, on Gen. 25:22 (Soncino ed., pp. 559, 560), charges that Esau committed sin both prior to and at the time of his birth. However, the predominant view of the Jews was that a child cold not be guilty of any misdemeanor before birth. Midrash Rabbah, on Lev. 22:27 (Soncino ed., p. 350), tells the story of a mother who brought her son to the judge because of some offense. When she observed the judge condemning others to lashing she began to fear that if she would disclose the offense of her son the judge would kill him. When she turn came she said nothing of the offense but simply charged that before birth her son had kicked [like a refractory beast]. The judge inquired. Has he done anything else? She answered No. He said, That is no offense at all. The answer of the judge reflects the general teaching of the Jews with regard to supposed prenatal sin on the part of the child.

The disciples had doubtless heard of the hairsplitting arguments of the rabbis on this perplexing question and were anxious to hear what Jesus had to say on the matter.

His parents. This part of the disciples’ question had at least some scriptural basis, for the law declares that the Lord visits “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate” Him (Ex. 20:5). Children often do suffer the consequences of their parents’ wrongdoing, but they are not punished for the parents’ guilt (see on Eze. 18:1, 2; cf. PP 306).

Some of the rabbis taught that epilepsy, lameness, dumbness, and deafness came as the result of the transgression of the most trivial traditional rules (see Talmud Pesahim 112b, Soncino ed., p. 579; Gittin 70a, Soncino ed., p. 333; Nedarim 20a, 20b, Soncino ed., pp. 57, 58).

They had received their erroneous philosophy of suffering from Satan, for he, “the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,—as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin” (DA 471). They had not grasped the lesson from the book of Job which showed that “suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy” (DA 471; see on Ps. 38:3).

3. Neither hath. Such a teaching went directly contrary to the view popularly held by the Jews (see on v. 2).

Made manifest. This statement has often been understood—or, more correctly, misunderstood—as teaching that blindness had been visited upon an innocent infant in order that 38 years later God might reveal His might power. The English translation tends to support this observation. However, the conjunction “that” (Gr. hina), which introduces the clause, though it often expresses purpose, may also, and frequently does, introduce a consecutive clause or clause of result. Examples of the latter usage are the following: Luke 9:45; Gal. 5:17; 1 Thess. 5:4; 1 John 1:9; see on Matt. 1:22. If the hina in John 9:3 is interpreted as expressing result, then the problem posed by this verse seems to be eliminated, and the verse may be paraphrased as follows: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but as a result of his suffering the works of God will be made manifest in him.” Thus Jesus “did not explain the cause of man’s affliction, but told them [the Jews] what would be the result” (DA 471). For those who love Him, God works all things, including the afflictions sent by the enemy, for good (Rom. 8:28). In the providence of God the inflictions of the enemy are overruled for our good.

4. I must work. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between this reading and “we must work.” The latter emphasizes the association of the disciples with Jesus in His labors.

That sent me. A frequently occurring Johannine phrase (see chs. 4:34; 5:24; 6:38; etc.; see on ch. 3:17).

While it is day. That is, the time for labor (Ps. 104:23). The phrase suggests urgency. A similar figure is found in the Mishnah, where Rabbi Tarfon, commenting on the daytime of life, says, “The day is short, and the work [to be performed] is much; and the workmen are indolent, but the reward is much; and the master of the house is insistent” (Aboth 2. 15, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 24).

The night cometh. For Jesus the night was not far away (see ch. 7:33). His brief “day” was the time of His ministry here on earth; the arrival of His night, the time when He would depart out of this world (see ch. 9:5).

5. As long as. This does not mean that Jesus was the light of the world only during the time of His historic sojourn upon earth, for He is still the light of the world. He referred particularly to His role as the “light” during the time He walked visibly among men. The Greek has no article before light, nor does it express separately the pronoun “I” as in the statement “I am the light of the world” (ch. 8:12). For the significance of the figure see on ch. 1:4, 5; cf. DA 464, 465.

6. Spat on the ground. The ancients believed that saliva contained healing properties (see, for example, Talmud Baba Bathra 126b, Soncino ed., p. 526). However, a supposed healing virtue in saliva was not the reason Jesus made use of the agency, unless simply to strengthen the man’s faith. In two other miracles the use of saliva is mentioned (see on Mark 7:33; cf. ch. 8:23).

The preparation of the clay doubtless came within the restrictions of rabbinical laws with regard to the Sabbath (see ch. 9:14; see on chs. 5:10, 16; 7:22–24). Kneading was specifically forbidden (see Mishnah Shabbath 7. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 349). For example, men were permitted to pour water on bran in preparation as feed for animals, but they were not permitted to “mix it” (Mishnah Shabbath 24. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 794). See on chs. 5:16; 9:16.

Anointed the eyes. Here also (see above under “Spat on the ground”) Jesus transgressed rabbinical tradition, which permitted only such anointing as was normally conducted on other days. Any unusual anointing was forbidden. For example, the ancients used vinegar for the relief of toothache. A man with a pain in his teeth could not suck vinegar through them on the Sabbath, but he could take vinegar in the usual fashion at mealtime and obtain relief in that way (Mishnah Shabbath 14.4, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 539).

7. Siloam. A pool in the southern part of Jerusalem (see on Isa. 8:6; see Jerusalem in Time of Christ; Josephus War v. 4. 1, 2 [136–141]; 9. 4 [409–411]).

By interpretation, Sent. Siloam is a transliteration through the Greek of the Heb. Shiloach, which comes from the verb shalach, “to send.” It was a characteristic of John to supply the meaning of Hebrew proper names for Greek readers (see ch. 1:38, 42). The command to wash in the pool was not because of any healing power in the water itself, but was doubtless because Jesus desired to test the man’s faith. Compare 2 Kings 5:10.

8. That he was blind. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 146) the reading “that he was a beggar.”

Is not this he? The construction in the Greek shows that a positive answer is expected. They were sure it was he.

Sat and begged. Rather, “used to sit and beg.” It was his custom. The Midrash cites several formulas employed by beggars when asking for gifts: “‘Benefit yourself through me’” (Rabbah, on Lev. 25:25, Soncino ed., p. 432), “‘Give me alms’” (ibid. [131a]). The Talmud has the following: “ ‘Master,’ she said to him, ‘feed me’” (Kethuboth 66b, Soncino ed., p. 405).

9. He is like him. The appearance of the man was doubtless greatly changed. His opened eyes now lighted up his whole face. Considerable excitement was aroused concerning his identity, but the man himself settled the question, affirming, “I am he.”

10. How? A perfectly natural question. The neighbors apparently do not challenge the validity of the miracle, as the leaders did later (v. 18).

11. Called Jesus. Jesus had apparently identified Himself only by name. The blind man did not know that He was the Messiah (see vs. 35–38). He had never seen Jesus, for when he went to wash in the Pool of Siloam, in the southern part of Jerusalem, he was still blind.

12. Where is he? The desire to see the miracle worker was natural. Compare ch. 7:11.

13. They brought. Literally, “they are bringing.” John relates the narrative with dramatic vividness. The reason why the people brought the healed man to the Pharisees is not stated. Perhaps the fact that the healing was a breach of the traditional Sabbath laws (see on v. 6) led them to the conclusion that the case required the attention of the Pharisees.

14. The sabbath day. Inasmuch as the case of the blind man was not an emergency, that is, life was not in danger, the healing Jesus performed was a violation of Jewish traditional law (see on ch. 7:22–24). These laws also forbade the mixing of the clay and the anointing of the eyes (see on ch. 9:6).

The Jews, the would-be champions of the law, completely mistook the intention and purpose of the Sabbath (see on Mark 2:27, 28). They did not sense that the day was sanctified for the good of man, physically, mentally, and spiritually. Its sanctification was never intended to prevent works of necessity and mercy, consistent with the creative energy it commemorates (see on Gen. 2:1–3). To heal the sick man was no breach of the divine law of the Sabbath. In finding fault with our Lord for such a breach the Jews showed their ignorance of a law they were supposed to observe.

Seven miracles in all are recorded as having taken place on the Sabbath (see Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 27, 28, 29, on pp. 205-207).

15. The Pharisees also. These religious leaders inquire about the facts of the case. They do not deny the miracle. The healed man gives a brief, but doubtless courteous, reply.

16. Of God. The Pharisees granted the truth of the miracle, but implied that the power by which it was wrought was of the evil one (see on Matt. 12:24).

Keepeth not the sabbath. The healing was considered illegal because the case was chronic and required no immediate attention. Life was not in danger (see on v. 14). The preparation of the clay and the anointing of the eyes were also considered to be breaches of the Sabbath laws (see on v. 6).

Others said. There were men among the Pharisees of a better spirit and attitude, such as Nicodemus (chs. 3:1–21; 7:50, 51) and Joseph (see on Matt. 27:57).

A sinner. The Jews taught that God wrought miracles only for those who were worthy. The Talmud contains the following interesting discussion: “Said R. Papa to Abaye: How is it that for the former generations miracles were performed and for us, miracles are not performed? … yet when Rab[bi] Judah drew off one shoe [in preparation for fasting], rain used to come, whereas we torment ourselves and cry loudly, and no notice is taken of us! He replied: The former generations used to be ready to sacrifice their lives for the sanctity of [God’s] name; we od not sacrifice their lives for the sanctity of [God’s] name” (Berakoth 20a, Soncino ed., pp. 119, 120). Compare Luke 7:4.

17. What sayest thou? Emphasis is upon the “thou.” The Pharisees disagreed among themselves, and this question may have been designed to conceal their division.

That he hath opened. The connection between this clause and the preceding is better shown by rendering the conjunction translated “that” as “in that,” or “since” (RSV). The thought of the Greek runs as follows: “And you, what do you say of him since it is your eyes he has opened?”

He is a prophet. In Greek the word “prophet” lacks the article. The healed man is not acknowledging Jesus to be “that prophet,” as had the multitudes fed with the loaves and fishes (see on ch. 6:14; cf. ch. 1:21). But he recognizes that Jesus is more than an ordinary man. He is convinced that the power that brought healing is of God, and that the person who exercised it is a messenger from God. His testimony contradicted that of the Pharisees who declared, “This man is not of God” (ch. 9:16).

18. Did not believe. Up to this point the miracle had remained unchallenged. But the Jews were confronted with a seeming contradiction of circumstances—how could a man with such extraordinary powers of healing, apparently derived from God, break the Sabbath? Perhaps the miracle was not genuine. They were groping for a solution and decided to question the parents.

19. Is this your son? There are three questions, here perhaps phrased so as to confuse the parents: Is this your son? Do you say that he was born blind? How do you account for the fact that he now sees?

20. He was born blind. This is the point the Jews were hoping could be proved untrue. Their scheme to invalidate the miracle had failed.

21. We know not. This was an untruth, or at least an evasion of the truth. They seem not to have been present at the time of the anointing of the man’s eyes or when he washed at the pool, and thus could not testify as eyewitnesses. But with their neighbors, they had heard of the cure and knew of the circumstances (see v. 22).

He is of age. The Jews counted maturity from 13 years and one day in the case of boys and one year earlier for girls. The healed man was thus more than 13 years old, but how much older is a matter of conjecture. In v. 1 he is identified simply as a “man” (Gr. anthroµpos), a member of the human family.

22. Feared the Jews. This observation proves that the parents were familiar with the circumstances of the cure (see on v. 21). Fear of excommunication led them to cover up the truth.

He was Christ. Christ means Messiah (see on Matt. 1:1; cf. John 1:41). To say that Jesus was the Christ was to confess the belief that He was the Messiah of prophecy. Many of the Jews (see John 7:41) and even of the rulers (ch. 7:50, 51 see on ch. 9:16) were under conviction that He was indeed the Sent of God.

Put out of the synagogue. This doubtless refers to the 30-day ban imposed by the Jews for certain offenses such as derogatory speech against those in authority (see Mishnah ФEduyyoth 5. 6, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 34, 35; Talmud Nedarim 50b, Soncino ed., p. 158; MoФed, Katan 16a, Soncino ed., p. 98; Kiddushin 70a, Soncino ed., pp. 354, 355). For a discussion of the ban see Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 4, pp. 293-333.

23. Of age. See on v. 21.

24. Give God the praise. This was a technical formula, one that required the person so addressed to take action appropriate to the circumstances that would bring honor to God. The context indicates the type of action expected. In the case of Achan the formula demanded a confession of guilt (Joshua 7:19). Here the demand implied that the healed man’s conduct and confession had not brought honor to God. The Jews sought to elicit the declaration that it was not Jesus who had healed him, but God.

A sinner. That is, because, according to them, He had broken the Sabbath (see on v. 14).

25. I know not. He was not so certain as the Jews. They claimed to “know” (v. 24). However, they had not supplied sufficient evidence, nor had they solved the dilemma of how a man that was a sinner could do such miracles (v. 16).

One thing I know. The healed man revealed remarkable shrewdness. He refused to quibble about whether Jesus was a sinner. He based his testimony upon indisputable evidence.

26. What did he? This further cross-examination was doubtless designed to confuse the healed man. They were looking for some defect or contradiction in his testimony.

27. Did not hear. That is, did not accept my testimony.

Be his disciples. The construction in Greek shows that a negative answer is expected: “It isn’t that you also want to be His disciples, is it?” The Holy Spirit enabled the uneducated man to make this bold defense (see on Matt. 10:19).

28. Moses’ disciples. Although not a common designation, the expression is found in the Talmud in a reference to Pharisaic scholars (Yoma 4a, Soncino ed., p. 12). The disciples of Jesus are contrasted with the disciples of Moses. A similar contrast is made in the Mishnah between the disciples of Abraham and the disciples of Balaam, as the Christians are designated (Aboth 5. 19, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 72, 73).

29. God spake unto Moses. This clause recurs frequently in the OT (Lev. 4:1; 6:1; 8:1; etc.; cf. Ex. 33:11; Heb. 1:1).

We know not. Some of the people claimed to know (ch. 7:27). Jesus had plainly informed the Jews that He had come from God (ch. 8:42), but they chose not to believe His testimony.

30. A marvellous thing. Literally, “the marvelous thing.” These religious leaders should have been familiar with the origin and claims of so notable a miracle worker as Jesus. He had been active among them for over three years. Evidence after evidence had been given to inspire faith, but the Jews turned against the evidence of their senses. They chose willful ignorance, and their dramatic exposure on this occasion was fully merited.

31. God heareth not sinners. This statement was in agreement with the viewpoint of at least one division of the Pharisees (see on v. 16). The reasoning of the healed man was irrefutable. If, as some of the Pharisees admitted, God works miracles only for those who are worthy, then they must agree that the miracle worker was of God, especially in view of the unusual character of the miracle (v. 32).

The statement, “God heareth not sinners,” is, of course, true of the willful, unrepentant sinner. But God always hears the prayer of the penitent who pleads for mercy and pardon (see on Luke 18:13). He also frequently hears the prayers of those who have departed from the path of right; He does not immediately abandon those who stray. He often continues His blessings as an inducement to return. Because of this fact the converse of the above statement is not always true. The fact that God answers a man’s prayer is not necessarily evidence that He approves of that man’s entire conduct. The one who receives marked answers to prayer should not exult in a supposed evidence of righteousness and acceptance; he should search his heart diligently that he might the more fully conform to the divine pattern. He must not interpret the blessing of God as sanctioning his entire course of action. Any willful persistence in known sin will eventually lead to an irrevocable separation between the sinner and God (Rev. 22:11).

Doeth his will. Compare 1 John 3:22; SC 95.

32. Since the world began. Literally, “from the age,” an expression equivalent to “never.” Historical records revealed no instance of a case of congenital blindness being healed.

33. He could do nothing. This point some of the Pharisees themselves had raised (v. 16). Nicodemus had confessed the same (ch. 3:2). The man had scored a complete victory. His logic was irrefutable. The Pharisees were baffled. Having nothing with which to answer his arguments, they resorted to invective.

34. Born in sins. They cast in his his teeth the calamity of his birth as a mark of special sin, perhaps implying prenatal sin (see on v. 2).

Cast him out. Perhaps in fulfillment of the threat mentioned in v. 22 (see comments there).

35. When he had found him. The lost sheep the shepherds of Israel had thrust out is found by the Good Shepherd (John 10:11; see on Luke 15:1–7). Jesus is never far from those susceptible to divine influences (Rom. 10:8, 9).

Son of God. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between this and “son of man.” The former has in its favor the fact that the expression was common in confessions of faith (see John 1:49; 11:27; cf. Matt. 16:16; John 1:34; 20:31). It is more consonant with the testimony the healed man had delivered before the Pharisees (John 9:30–33). The humanity of Jesus, emphasized in the title “Son of man” (see on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10), was not so much the point at issue here.

36. Who is he? The healed man had not seen Jesus before. When the Lord dismissed him to wash in the Pool of Siloam the man was still blind. Having been blind from birth, he had never seen a human face before this day. How thrilled he must have been to gaze upon the countenances of his parents and acquaintances! Now for the first time he beheld the lovely face of Jesus. What a contrast to the scowling faces of the hyprocritical Pharisees! The voice doubtless identified Jesus as the one who had healed him.

Lord. Gr. kurios, here perhaps simply a title of respect equivalent to “sir.”

That I might believe. He was ready to believe on the Messiah, and felt that this man whom he had acknowledged as a prophet (v. 17) could tell him who the Messiah was.

37. Thou hast both seen him. The words do not refer to a previous meeting but to the present moment. He saw in Jesus one whom those who had had the use of their sight throughout life were unable to see. None are more blind than those unwilling to see! Contrast the attitude of the Jews in ch. 6:36.

38. Lord. Gr. kurios, now perhaps expressed in reverence and with its divine implications (see on v. 36).

Worshipped. As a dramatic sequel to the narrative the man whose physical sight was restored now sees Jesus, the true light of the world. He not only rejoices in the light of the body but sees also with the eyes of his soul.

39. Judgment. Gr. krima, not the act of judging, which is krisis, but the result of judging, in this case a sifting or separation. This verse is thus not a contradiction of ch. 3:17 (cf. ch. 8:15). The ultimate purpose of the first advent was not to judge the world, but to save the world (cf. Luke 19:10). However, the coming of Christ brought light into the darkness of men’s hearts, and as men accepted or rejected that light, they pronounced judgment upon themselves. The light itself judged no man, but by it, those upon whom it shone were judged. This effect of the ministry of Christ had been predicted by Simeon (Luke 2:34, 35).

They which see not. This was true in a double sense. Christ healed the physically blind (Matt. 11:5); He also healed the spiritually blind. Both aspects of His mission were demonstrated in this miracle.

Might be made blind. Compare Isa. 6:9, 10; Mark 4:11, 12. When men love darkness rather than light (John 3:19) they finally lose their sense of spiritual perception. See Matt. 6:23; 1 John 2:11.

40. Are we blind also? The Greek construction anticipates a negative answer. The emphasis is upon the “we.” Surely we, the religious leaders, are not blind! This was not a humble, anxious inquiry. The Pharisees doubtless saw the implication of the Lord’s statement, and their words were uttered in scorn.

41. If ye were blind. That is, if there had been no opportunity to receive enlightenment. God judges men on the basis of the light they have received or might have received had they have received or might have received had they put forth the effort. See on ch. 15:22.

We see. There was a self-satisfaction with present knowledge that made it impossible for God to impart further knowledge. In rejecting Jesus the Jews rejected the channel through which Heaven was seeking to impart light.

Ellen G. White comments

1–3DA 470

1–41DA 470–475

4 CT 416; DA 73; Ev 653; FE 201, 355, 359; GW 26; MH 195; ML 109; MM 333; 1T 694; 2T 401, 429; 4T 290, 377; 5T 353, 732; 6T 26, 198; 8T 178; 9T 26, 135, 200

5 DA 471; FE 177; 9T 171

6, 7 DA 70

7 DA 824; MH 233

8 DA 471

9, 11, 12 DA 472

14 DA 471

16–22DA 472

20–27EW 29

24–26DA 473

27–35DA 474

29 COL 79

35–41DA 475

41 2T 124