Introductory remarks:
In Chapter eight Jesus had just left the temple unobserved after the Jews took up stones to kill Him. His time has not yet come; so all the attempts by the Jews to kill Him are futile.
"The connection between the close of the preceding chapter and the opening of this one appears so close, that one is apt to conclude that all happened on one day, and that a Sabbath (v. 14). But the violence with which the former chapter closes, and the tranquility with which this one opens, renders that somewhat doubtful. At all events, the transactions of both chapters could not have been far apart in time" (David Brown-JFB Comm.).
The Healing of a Man Born Blind
Verse 1, "And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man which was blind from his birth."
LGT "And passing by He saw a man blind from birth."
The fact that this man was blind from birth, added to the miraculous power of the Christ.
"The poor blind beggar sitting probably at the Hulda gate of the Temple, the mode of the cure, and subsequent discussion of the case by the man's neighbors - is full of vivid details. It was not permitted to the beggar to ask or to receive alms on the Sabbath day; but his presence there on that day would be an advantage to him on other days. Jesus and the disciples were passing and observed this pitiable man, into whose soul no light of heaven ever penetrated. Such a case never escaped the sympathetic observation of Jesus. The disciples might have passed the poor man casually but Jesus would not." (Shepherd - The Christ).
Verse 2, "And His disciples asked Him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"
LGT "And His disciples asked Him saying, Rabbi, Who sinned, this one or his parents, that he should be born blind?"
"Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"
It was a common Jewish view that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear in the children, and that the thoughts of a mother might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring. The apostasy of one of the greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the sinful delight of his mother in passing through an idol grove (Vincent). It is true that the sins of the fathers will be visited on the children to the third and fourth generation (Exod. 20:5); however, it must be kept in mind that all suffering is because of sin.
Verse 3, "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."
LGT "Jesus answered, Neither this one sinned nor his parents, but in order that the works of God should be manifest in him."
Jesus doesn't give them the answer they wanted to hear.
"Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents:"
Of course both the blind man and his parents have sinned, but that is not the reason he is blind, says Jesus. The important thing when a man is sick is not to spend time speculating about the past, but get him well, if possible. The reason for the situation of the blind man is far greater than these disciples could possibly imagine.
"But that the works of God should be made manifest."
It is hard for us, if not impossible, to understand the workings of God, so all we can do is believe His written Word. "It is sometimes true that disease is a result of personal sin as in the man in 5:14 and parents can hand on the effects of sin to the third and fourth generations, but there are cases free from blame like this. There is comfort for many sufferers in the words of Jesus here" (Robertson).
"The purpose of his blindness was that a divine work should be wrought in him and the divine glory be revealed (as it is revealed in all the 'signs' of this Gospel). This does not mean that God deliberately caused the child to be born blind in order that, after many years, His glory should be displayed in the removal of the blindness; to think so would again be an aspersion on the character of God. It does mean that God overruled the disaster of the child's blindness so that, when the child grew to manhood, he might, by recovering his sight, see the glory of God in the face of Christ, and others, seeing this work of God, might turn to the true light of the World" (The Gospel and Epistles of John - F. F. Bruce).
This last phrase is lit. 'But in order that' an ellipsis (a contraction) using the adversative 'but' stating just the opposite of what the disciples had supposed, (that his blindness was the result of his or his parents sin), that God's power might be manifest (Vincent).
Verse 4, "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."
LGT "We must work the works of the One who sent Me while it is day: night is coming when no one is able to be working."
"I must work the works of Him that sent Me,"
The correct reading is 'we' not 'I'. Jesus is speaking to His disciples and soon will give them a commission to go into the world with the 'Gospel of the Kingdom." The word 'must' in Greek is 'dei' and is translated best 'it is necessary.' No one can define exactly how the Lord expresses the necessity He feels regarding His mission. The Lord Jesus Christ was sent by God on a mission to go to the Cross, and do the works of His Father, which is to lay down His life a ransom for all; His disciples were to enter that work through fellowship with Him, identifying themselves as His chosen ones. The Son sends the disciples as the Father sends the Son. I am sure that Jesus included all the works He had done so far, and all the works He is about to do, including healing the blind man, to the glory of the Father who sent Him.
"While it is day, the night cometh, when no man can work."
This phrase demonstrates the urgency, which the Son reveals concerning His mission. Night was coming fast for Jesus; He was soon to go to the Cross for us all (Robertson).
Verse 5, "As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."
LGT "Whenever I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." (Robertson)
This statement resounds throughout this Gospel. Jesus is the Light of the world and after He leaves in a few months, via the Cross, His apostles will be supernaturally empowered with the Light; after the apostolic period is passed, when the Bible was completed, the Bible is the Light of the world. We now have the Light of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit as our eternal guide.
Verse 6, "When He had thus spoken, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,"
LGT "Having said these things He spat on [the] ground and made clay out of the spittle and He spread the clay upon the eyes."
"The spittle was regarded as having a peculiar virtue, not only as a remedy for diseases of the eye, but generally as a charm, so that it was employed in incantations. Persians, describing an old crone handling an infant, says: 'She takes the babe from the cradle, and with her middle finger moistens its forehead and lips with spittle to keep away the evil eye.' Tacitus (an ancient Jewish historian) relates how one of the common people of Alexandria importuned Vespasian for a remedy for his blindness, and prayed him sprinkle his cheeks and the balls of his eyes with the secretion of his mouth. Pliny (another ancient Jewish historian) says: 'We are to believe that by continually anointing each morning with fasting saliva (i.e., before eating), inflammations of the eyes are prevented" (Vincent)
Verse 7, "And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing."
LGT "And said to him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is interpreted, Sent). He went therefore and washed and came seeing."
I believe there is two parts to Jesus' command to the Blind man. The first was to go to the Pool Siloam; the second was to wash the clay out of his eyes completely. There was no healing in the clay mixed with the spittle, nor the water of the pool. Jesus had already healed the blind man's sight, but if he did not obey the Lord, I do not believe he would have ever seen. We were all blind one day without Christ as our Savior, but then one day, by the Word of God, we realized that Christ died for us, and the Light of the Gospel was turned on and we could see. Then by faith we had to trust Christ as our Savior, and at that very moment, Jesus adopted us as His brothers and sisters into His spiritual family as children of God (John 1:12).
Verse 8, "The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen Him that was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and Begged?"
LGT "Therefore the neighbors and the ones who beheld him before that he was [the] beggar said, Is not this one he who was sitting and begging?"
The blind beggar was well known. Bruce says, "He had his regular spot and was recognized in the neighborhood."
Verse 9, "Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he."
LGT "Some said that he it is, others said, Not so, but like him he is. He said that I am."
Some of the blind man's neighbors recognized him but others said it looks like him, but we don't think it is. The crowd is divided. The blind man has to speak up and assure the people that it is he.
Verse 10, "Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?"
LGT "Therefore they said to him, How [therefore] were your eyes opened?"
The neighbors resigned to the fact that it is the blind beggar now want to know what manner of healing he had undergone.
Verse 11, "He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, 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."
LGT "He answered, The man the One named Jesus made clay and smeared my eyes and said to me that [I should] go into the [pool of] Siloam and wash: having gone therefore and washed I received sight."
It will be interesting to see the attitude of the blind beggar toward the Lord Jesus Christ as we trace this narrative of John; he starts here saying 'the man called Jesus.' This blind man has not accepted Christ as his Savior as yet. In this verse he simply relates to the crowd what had happened.
Verse 12, "Then said they unto him, Where is He? He said, I know not."
LGT "And they said to him, Where is He? He said I know not."
McGee wrote, "I love the testimony of this man. He told only what he knew - a good, honest, sincere testimony. He grew in perception every time he gave his testimony. Notice how accurate the Word of God is. He didn't say Jesus took spittle and made clay. In his blindness he didn't know that. All he knew was that he felt clay rubbed on his eyes. His testimony is honest not elaborated or glamorized."
The Pharisees Investigate the Healing
Verse 13, "They brought the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind."
LGT "They bring him to the Pharisees the once blind man."
There are mixed opinions as to the motive of the crowd that brought the blind man to the Pharisees. Some think it was because the common people looked up to the Pharisees and Scribes because of their religious celebrity; the other view is that they had deceitfulness in their hearts because the Pharisees had made it known that anyone who would befriend this Jesus was in deep trouble with the Jewish authorities, for they taught that Jesus was disloyal. I tend to agree with the latter opinion based on the fact that they didn't immediately seek the healer of the blind man, and give Him His due praise.
Verse 14, "And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes."
LGT "And it was a Sabbath on the day on which Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes."
With the minute regulations that the rabbis had laid down regarding the Sabbath, it was much more important to the Pharisees the time of Jesus' miracle, not the manner of how it was performed. There just seems to be a serious link between the importance these religious leaders put on the Sabbath, and the Lord of the Sabbath's attitude. Our Lord doesn't put the same stress on times and seasons as the Jews. I believe Jesus is beginning His teachings on 'Law and Grace' that Paul will later develop in his Epistles on 'The Grace of God.'
Verse 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."
LGT "Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received sight. And he said to them, He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed and I see."
This blind man still doesn't seem to know exactly who it was that caused him to receive his sight, for, his testimony is still quite straightforward as far as he knew what had happened. The Pharisees knew who it was, for they had already encountered a healing of Jesus of the impotent man at the pool of Siloam. Jesus used the argument to these Pharisees that a rabbi will circumcise on the Sabbath if the male child's eighth day happened on it. Jesus said is it more important to remove a little flesh than to heal a man's entire body. These Pharisees still do not see the logic of God's grace because of their attitude of malice and hatred for the Christ.
"Again, the man's testimony is very simple. You would think these Pharisees would have rejoiced that a blind man could now see. You'd think they would break out in a 'Hallelujah Chorus.' Not this cold-blooded crowd! Now notice the reaction of the Pharisees. They just don't know what to do about a man born blind who is now walking around seeing" (T. T. B. J. Vernon McGee).
Verse 16, "Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because He keepeth not the Sabbath Day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them."
LGT "Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This Man is not out from God, because He is not keeping the Sabbath. Some said How could a man a sinner be doing such signs? And a division was among them."
"This man is not of God, because He keepeth not the Sabbath."
As has just been pointed out, these Pharisees have not the slightest interest in doing anything less than killing Jesus. Jesus had already dealt with them on the Sabbath Day issue, but they still cannot see the grace of God because of their intense hatred of the Christ. [These Pharisees were thinking of a Rabbinical instruction declaring, 'It is forbidden to apply even fasting-spittle to the eyes on the Sabbath'-Vincent]. Both McGee and Bruce point out that these Pharisees were masters at debate; McGee says the Pharisees would have been a match for any of the Greek philosophers. The Pharisees use the syllogistic method of argument, which is that every argument must have a major and a minor premise [a basic principle] and a conclusion. Here is how their argument goes:
Major premise: all men of God keep the Sabbath.
Minor premise: Jesus broke the Sabbath.
Conclusion: Jesus is not a man of God.
"Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?"
There were those who opposed the first group of Pharisees using the same method of arguing; there opposing view went like this:
3.Major premise: A true Prophet has come from God and can perform miracles.
4.Minor premise: This Man performed a miracle by healing a blind man who was blind from birth.
5.Conclusion: This Man must be from God; He cannot be a sinner.
This argument of the Pharisees who were really willing to give the Lord credit as a prophet, were still not ready to accept Him as their Messiah. The only thing that is proved here in this argument is that there will arise a division among them; this division will not be settled until Christ goes to the Cross. This division also proves that these Pharisees knew full well what they were doing, and that their intense hatred for the Christ had completely blinded their eyes, so that they will not rest until they do the works of their father the Devil.
"And there was a division among them."
The truth has always caused divisions. It was not that there were some in this group that wanted the truth, it is just that whenever right is done, some see it for a moment as right, but none will have the strength of their convictions. The only thing that the truth does in this case is cause a division, for there can never really be unity where there is no truth.
"As the crowd was divided in John 7:43, so the Pharisees are now divided over Jesus' credentials. Adolf Schlatter, who was no mean authority in rabbinical scholarship, thought that the division followed the tendencies attributed respectively to the schools of Shammai and Hillel. The school of Shammai tended to argue from first principles (so here: anyone who breaks the law is a sinner); the school of Hillel tended to have the established facts of a case (so here: Jesus has performed a good work). In a case like this, their conclusions were bound to conflict with each other" (The Gospel and Epistles of John - F. F. Bruce).
Verse 17, "They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him, that hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet."
LGT "They therefore say to the blind [man] again, What do you say concerning Him, because He opened your eyes; and he said that He is a prophet."
Robertson says 'The doctors disagree, for there was a division among them, so they ask the patient, who had already told them what had happened.'
"What sayest thou of Him, that opened thine eyes?
As for the blind man, he seems to be gaining ground as far as his knowledge of who had healed him. He now has gone from a man called Jesus (vs.11) who healed me to making the statement 'He is a prophet' (that is, a man of God). This man was so overwhelmed with delight that he could now see he was unaware of the insidious (dangerous) intent of these Pharisees. This man gave the wrong answer as far as the Pharisees were concerned, because they were so blinded with rage they would not rest with the truth.
Verse 18, "But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight."
LGT "Therefore the Jews did not believe concerning him that he was blind and received sight until they called the parents of him who had received sight."
"But the Jews did not believe concerning him,"
"The facts told by the man, 'that he had been blind and had received his sight', conflicted with the Pharisees theological views of God and the Sabbath" (Robertson). "When men don't want to believe a thing, it is amazing what little peccadilloes (offenses) they will attempt to dig up to really get away from the truth. Because they won't accept the man's testimony, they call in his parents" (McGee). "There are two things here which ought to be observed; that they do not believe that a miracle has been performed, and that, being willfully blinded through a perverse hatred of Christ, they do not perceive what is manifest. The Evangelist (John) tells us that they did not believe. If the reason be asked, there can be no doubt that their blindness was voluntary. For what prevents them from seeing an obvious work of God placed before their eyes; or, after having been fully convinced, what prevents them from believing what they already know, except that the inward malice of their heart keeps their eyes shut?" (Calvin).
"Until they called the parents of him."
"They called out loud for his parents to throw light on this grave problem to cover up their own stupidity" (Robertson). The only ones who could really attest to the fact that he was born blind were his parents, so they were summoned.
Verse 19, "And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see?"
LGT "And they asked them saying, This is your son, whom you say that he was born blind? How therefore does he see now?"
It was shrewdly put with three questions in one, in order to confuse the parents if possible, and give the hostile Pharisees a handle (Robertson). Calvin notes: "Not having succeeded in the former way, they now attempt another; but the Lord not only defeats their attempts in a wonderful manner, but turns them even to an opposite purpose. They do not merely put a single question, but cunningly put a multitude of questions involved in each other, with the view of preventing a reply. But out of a variety of entangled and captious questions, the parents of the blind man select only the half, to which they reply."
Verse 20, "His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:"
LGT "Therefore the parents answered them and said, We know that he is our son and that blind he was born."
The first two questions the parents answered quickly and simply 'he is our son, and he was born blind.' The parents were sure of this. The next question they would not be so ready to answer.
Verse 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."
LGT "But how now he sees we know not, or who opened his eyes we know not: ask him, he has full age, he will speak concerning himself."
But how and who was responsible for opening their sons eyes they could not give an answer, for they had the same word about this issue as the Pharisees. These parents seem to be very honest people, however, they knew that these Pharisees could excommunicate them from the Synagogue, for the slightest reason; they now say, their son is of full age, and he is capable of answering for himself. Calvin condemns the parents on the ground of cowardice, however, they seem to answer from what they had witnessed themselves, they seem to be within their rights of being honest, and not taking too big of risk, for they weren't believers yet either.
Verse 22, "These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.'
LGT "These things said his parents because they feared the Jews; for already they agreed the Jews agreed together that if any one should confess Him to be Christ, he should be banished [Vincent] out of the synagogue."
"Because they feared the Jews;"
"We can understand, how everyone would dread such an anathema. But when we remember, what it would involve to persons in the rank of life, and so miserably poor as the parents of that blind man, we no longer wonder at their evasion of the question put by the Sanhedrin. And if we ask ourselves, on what ground so terrible a punishment could be inflicted to all time and in every place - for the ban once pronounced applied everywhere - simply for the confession of Jesus as the Christ, the answer is not difficult. The Rabbinists enumerate twenty-four grounds for excommunication, of which more than one might serve the purpose of the Pharisees. But in general, to resist the authority of the Scribes, or any of their decrees, or lead others either away from 'the commandments,' or to what was regarded as profanation of the Divine Name, was sufficient to incur the ban, while it must be borne in mind that excommunication by the President of the Sanhedrin extended to all places and persons" (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah - page 602 - Alfred Edersheim).
"For the Jews had agreed already,'
There was a division among the Jews, but on the subject of excommunication every one of them were agreed.
"That if any man did confess that He was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue."
Literally, 'confess Him to be Christ.' Christ made the confession about Himself, and even some of the Pharisees knew He was the Christ, but because of the dishonor of being excommunicated by the Sanhedrin (The Sadducees, Scribes and Pharisees) they kept it to themselves. Robertson says, 'small wonder the parents of the blind man cowered a bit.'
"It is commonly suggested today that John, writing towards the end of the nineties, was influenced by a decision that had been taken by the reconstituted Sanhedrin a few years before. The Sanhedrin reconstituted with Roman permission in the period after AD 70 consisted exclusively of doctors of the law. One of these, Samuel the Less, reworded one of the blessings recited daily in the synagogues so as to make it impossible for 'Nazarenes' (Jewish Christians) to take part in synagogue worship. The blessing, which traditionally included a curse on the enemies of God ('let all wickedness perish as in a moment'), was revised so that the curse ran: 'let Nazarenes and heretics perish as in a moment; let them be blotted out of the book of life and not be enrolled with the righteous.' The revision was approved by the Sanhedrin and adopted in synagogues, so Nazarenes, being forced to keep silence when the new form of words were recited by the congregation, would give themselves away. John probably does allude to this situation when he reports Jesus as saying to the disciples in the upper room, 'They will put you out of the synagogues' (John 16:2). The same adjective, aposynagogos (meaning 'excluded from the synagogue'), is used there as here in 9:22. But here (as in 12:42) the reference is to a situation in the context of Jesus' ministry, restricted perhaps to Jerusalem. It is uncertain whether we are to understand temporary expulsion or permanent excommunication here. The most solemn form of excommunication was to put someone under the ban (Hebrew herem; Greek anthema); that seems to have been involved in the new ordinance of AD 90, but it would probably be anachronistic (old fashioned) to envisage it at this stage. Even so, the man's parents were sufficiently intimidated to keep their mouths shut and say nothing about Jesus, either good or bad" (The Gospel and Epistles of John - F. F. Bruce)
Vincent describes the act of excommunication:
"Three kinds of excommunication were recognized, of which only the third was the real cutting off, the other two being disciplinary. The first, and lightest, was called rebuke, and lasted from seven to thirty days. The second was called thrusting out, and lasted for thirty days at least, followed by a 'second admonition,' which lasted thirty days more. This could only be pronounced in an assembly of ten. It was accompanied by curses, and sometimes proclaimed with the blast of the horn. The excommunicated person would not be admitted into any assembly of ten men, nor to public prayer. People would keep at the distance of four cubits from him, as if he were a leper. Stones were to be cast on his coffin when dead, and mourning for him was forbidden. If all else failed, the third, or real excommunication was pronounced, the duration of which was indefinite. The man was to be as one dead. No intercourse was to be held with him; one must not show him the road, and though he might buy the necessaries of life, it was forbidden to eat and drink with him. These severer forms appear to have been of later introduction, so that the penalty which the blind parents feared was probably separation from all religious fellowship, and from ordinary intercourse of life for perhaps thirty days" (Vincent's Word Studies in the NT).
Verse 23, "Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him."
LGT "For this reason his parents said, he is of age, you ask him."
The reason stated in the previous verse that they feared being excommunicated from the synagogue, they said, 'he is of age; ask him.'
Verse 24, "Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner."
LGT "Therefore they called the man a second time who was blind and said to him, Give glory to the God: we know that this man is a sinner."
"Give God the praise:"
"This phrase does not mean gratitude to God. It is rather an adjuration (command) to speak the truth (Josh. 7:19; I Sam.6:5) as if he had not done it before" (Robertson). What they are saying to the man is 'Own up, tell us the truth, what are you hiding; we know that this man is a sinner, and therefore could never have performed such a miracle (Bruce). These Jewish leaders were saying that this man should come clean and confess that Jesus did not really heal him, it was God; they say by this phrase, that he should give God the praise for his healing and not this imposter, Jesus. Calvin says, "In this way, the more fiercely they struggle against God, the more numerous are the cords which they put about their neck, and the more strongly do they bind themselves. Besides, they put the questions in such a manner as to endeavor to make the man say what they wish."
"We know that this man is a sinner."
These Jews are claiming that Jesus is a sinner because he heals on the Sabbath. "We, the wise men of religion" know what really happened (Vincent). "They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner" (Robertson).
Verse 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."
LGT "He therefore answered, If He is a sinner I know not: one [thing] I know that being blind I now see."
What a beautiful answer; how could anyone logically argue with this man? If they want to accuse Jesus as being from the devil and being a sinner let them, this man was blind, and because of this, Jesus, he now can see. This happens to everyone who is saved, 'once I was blind, but now I see.' This is the only testimony I believe, from someone who has been saved. In his commentary on John, McGee makes comment about personal testimonies: "I don't know about you, but I get a little weary of long-winded testimonies. I suspect that many of them are padded and embellished and polished up to make them attractive. Sometimes the emphasis is placed on the past, so much so, that the people actually come out as heroes in their testimony. They were leaders in crime, they were rubbing shoulders with the gang leaders, they knew all the great ones, they were the worst alcoholics, the worst gamblers, and on and on. Then they heard the Gospel and were converted. The people who hear such testimonies go home and call their friends, 'My, have you heard the testimony of So-and-So?' and they are so busy telling about So-and-So and all the things he had done that they hardly even mention Christ. Friend, the important part of any testimony that I want to hear is simply this, 'Once I was blind; now I see.' "
"Verse 26, "Then said they to him again, what did He to thee? How opened He thine eyes?"
LGT "Therefore they said to him, What did He do to you? How opened He your eyes?"
By this question the Jews are admitting to the fact that Jesus did heal this man's eyes. The man's answers is frustrating to the Jews, and now they want to know 'how Jesus did it.'
Verse 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?"
LGT "He answered them, I told you even now and you did not hear: what again do you wish to be hearing? Also do you wish His disciples to become?"
"I have told you already, and you did not hear: wherefore would you hear it again?"
I have told you in verses 15, 17 & 25, and even now 'eipon humin ede, you do not hear me; how many times must I tell you? (Robertson). This badgering by the Pharisees and Scribes bring about the sarcastic question from the man. These Pharisees were not only blind, and couldn't see the Light of the world, they were deaf, 'Would you hear it again?'
"Will ye also be His disciples?"
This ironical negative question by the man does not expect an answer. He is saying in effect, 'You have asked me this so many times one would think you want to be a disciples of this Jesus also. He knew that Jesus did have some followers that were somewhat sympathetic to the Lord. This man showed some courage in his response to these Pharisees (these wise men and guardians of the religion); what was the foremost concern on the part of the man that was blind is that he spent his whole life in darkness and now he sees the light, and all these fools can do is seek to incriminate the One who healed him. I am sure that to him this was the most absurd approach; I believe this man would want to honor Jesus, not kill Him.
Verse 28, "Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples."
LGT "And they reviled [hated] him and said, You are that man's disciple, but we are Moses' disciples."
"And they reviled Him, and said,"
The Greek word for 'reviled' is loideros meaning that they used loud and abusive language to him; they abhorred his response. The man by no means made friends with these Jews.
"Thou art his disciple;"
He wasn't the Lord's disciple yet, but soon he will be. These Jews were right in their abuse about him being a disciple of Jesus, but they were getting ahead of themselves. The next claim is also preposterous. Notice the LGT states 'You are that man's disciple,' not His disciple; this shows a contemptuous (sneering) force in their screaming (Vincent).
""But we are Moses' disciples."
This claim of the Pharisees shows what incredible liars they are, for if they were Moses' disciples they would be followers of this Jesus also
Verse 29, "We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is."
LGT "We know that God has spoken to Moses, but this man we know not whence He is."
"Naturally they do not appreciate the man's irony [sarcasm]; it is too evident that he has seen through their plan to trip him up. They therefore have recourse to abuse. Who would be a disciple of someone whose origin was unknown and whose authority was disallowed by those in a position to judge such matters? An ignoramus like the man who stood before them might know no better than to take such a person seriously; they were better informed. Moses was their teacher; they were his disciples. The tradition of oral law transmitted in the rabbinical schools was held to stem from Moses, who (they believed) had received it on Sinai together with the written law. No one could doubt that God spoke to Moses; of him God Himself had said, 'With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech' (Num. 12:8). Moses was the pre-eminent prophet of the Lord; the claim to be the disciples of his was a claim worth making. The disciples of this nobody from Nazareth were worthy of Him whom they chose as their teacher. In all this, indeed, the Evangelist [John] practices his own brand of irony: he and his readers know of Jesus' true origin; they know, moreover, that while 'the law was given through Moses', the full revelation of God came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17)" (The Gospel and Epistles of John - F. F. Bruce).
Verse 30, "The man answered and said unto them, Why is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes."
LGT "The man answered and said to them, For in this the marvel is, that you do not know whence He is, and yet He opened my eyes."
"Why is a marvelous thing,"
In the Greek NT the word 'marvelous' has the article and should read, 'for in this the marvel is." Congenital blindness is something that is incurable. This man knows that God had to be working through this Jesus in order for him to see. The marvel to this man is that these so-called religious leaders did not recognize Jesus as anything but a Samaritan and a sinner.
"That ye know not from whence He is,"
You religious leaders, who are supposed to know everything, yet, you do not know anything about this man who has done such a great divine thing.
"And yet He opened mine eyes."
This blind man shows no evidence that He has accepted Jesus Christ as his savior as yet, but he does recognize that Jesus must be sent from God to be able to do such a divine thing; what is incredible to him is that these Jewish leaders deliberately refuse to acknowledge Christ as One sent from God. Calvin remarks regarding these Jews: "Hence it follows that they are malicious and ungrateful, because they voluntarily shut their eyes on a manifest work of God."
Verse 31, "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth."
LGT "We are knowing that sinners the God does not hear, but if any one be a worshipper of God and is doing His will that one He is hearing."
"Now we know that God heareth not sinners:"
The 'we' here is emphatic and includes all the Jews, the so-called religious leaders. It was common Bible knowledge that God only hears the prayers of those who pray in faith. The man is saying God could not hear Christ's prayers if He were a sinner. And as we notice in the next phrase, the man says that Christ was doing God's will by Healing him, for no sinner was ever known to make a blind man see.
"But if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth."
Christ must be a worshipper of God, for He is doing God's will, and therefore, God must hear Him.
Verse 32, "Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind."
LGT "From of old [age] it was not heard that anyone opened [the] eyes of [one] having been born blind."
"Since the world began it was not heard"
It was never heard of, that anyone had healed such as this Man.
"That any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind."
This was not just a blind man that had his vision impaired and then healed; Jesus healed a man with congenital blindness.
Verse 33, "If this man were not of God, He could do nothing."
LGT "If this man was not out from God, He could do nothing."
A simple statement from the man that was very true. If Jesus did not come from God He would be unable to perform such an incredible miracle. Robertson says, "The man has scored with terrific power in his use of Scripture and logic."
Verse 34, "They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."
LGT "They answered and said to him, In sins you were born wholly [all of thee] and you are teaching us? And they cast him out."
These Jews had no answer for the man's logic so they revert back to the fact that they said because he was born blind, it must be because he was a wicked sinner. The Greek word for 'altogether' is holos and is a predicate nominative meaning 'wholly', that is, according to their doctrine, totally depraved (Robertson). In the minds of these Jewish fools, this man had the audacity (boldness) to tell them what He thought was the reason for his cure; that it was because of the mercy of God, that this Jesus had healed him, and that Jesus must be who He said He was. O! How this angered these Jews. (In any case it was an impertinence for such an untrained member of the common people to argue with the acknowledged interpreters of the Law. - Bruce) Now the only thing left to do when your 100% wrong, is throw him out. "Probably not yet expulsion from the synagogue (9:22) which required a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, but certainly forcible driving of the gifted upstart from their presence" (Robertson).
Spiritual Blindness
Verse 35, "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
LGT "Jesus heard that they cast him out and having found him He said, Do you believe on the Son of Man?"
"And when He had found him,"
Jesus knew that the man was ready for the rest of the story. I believe, as many others, that Jesus does the seeking the sinner; the sinner does not seek the Lord. And when He found him, Jesus speaks those all important words:
"Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
The better manuscripts have 'Son of Man' with no discrepancy in the KJV. The question is still the same, do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ is God's Son? The form of the question expects an affirmative answer from the man based on the reason he was tossed out by the Pharisees.
"The Pharisees rejected his testimony, viewing his blindness to be a result of sin. They reasoned that since he was a sinner, he could not teach them, who were righteous. The man was thrown out of their presence. Christ now confronted the blind man, and for the first time the man could look at the One who had restored his sight. Christ inquired, 'Do you believe in the Son of Man?' (John 9:35). This was tantamount (the same as) to asking, 'Do you believe that I am the Messiah?' (The Words and Works of Jesus Christ - J. Dwight Pentecost).
Verse 36, "He answered and said, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him?
LGT "He answered and said, And who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him?"
The man had already confessed to the Pharisees that it must have been a Man sent from God who healed him, and now face to face with the Savior he wants to know if this is the Messiah he was taught about from his youth up.
Verse 37, "And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee."
LGT "Jesus said to him, both you have seen Him and the One talking with you He is."
Jesus answered, Yes, I am He. I am the Son of God. Here Jesus reveals Himself to this poor lost sinner.
Verse 38, "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him."
LGT "And he said, I believe, Lord: and he worshipped Him."
The moment the blind man said I believe he was saved for eternity. Notice his confession that Jesus was Lord came after he believed. This modern day nonsense that a person can't accept Christ as Savior unless he accepts Him as Lord of your life is sanctimonious man's addition to simple free grace salvation. The man didn't worship the Lord until after he believed, and then because he was awe struck with the fact that he was in the presence of the Messiah, he fell down on his knees and worshipped his Lord.
Verse 39, "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."
LGT "And Jesus said, Unto judgment I into this world came, in order that the ones not seeing might see and the ones seeing might become blind."
"For judgment I am come into this world,"
This might seem to be a contradiction to what He had said earlier in this Gospel that He did not come to judge the world but to save it. There really is no contradiction for the word 'judgment' is krima meaning here, to make a separation or distinction between. Jesus' very presence will allow the person the opportunity to accept or reject. If a person does not believe that Christ is 'The Great I Am' he is lost. No amount of pleading or rationalizing will get a lost person to accept Christ, for the natural man cannot understand the Spiritual. A person either believes that Jesus is the 'Son of God' and is saved for eternity, or he does not believe, and therefore is lost for eternity. The next phrase explains this separation by Jesus Christ.
"That they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind."
This is not made more obvious than between the blind man who could not see, but when his sight was restored by the Lord, and the Lord kindly and mercifully sought him (as He does us all), the blind man believed. Now the opposite happened with the Pharisees; they had all the knowledge, and had seen Jesus on several occasions, yet they refused to believe, for they saw with their own eyes, and by their own free wills became blind.
Verse 40, "And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto Him, Are we blind also?"
LGT "And heard of the Pharisees these things the ones who were with him and said to Him, Are we also blind?"
This phrase begins with a negative particle 'me' which means that these Pharisees expected a negative answer from the Lord. It was as if they were saying, 'surely you are not talking about us being blind.' The Lord most certainly was talking about these Pharisees. "Up in Galilee Jesus had called the Pharisees blind guides who stumble into the pit" (Matt. 15:14) (Robertson).
Verse 41, "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."
LGT "Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would not have sin: but now you are saying that you see, your sin remains."
Robertson says "that if the Pharisees were born morally blind they would be as idiots, and therefore not accountable to God." But they claim to be morally aware and perfect teachers of the Law, and now that they are exposed to the Light, they become as blind as bats. These Pharisees ignorantly assert superior knowledge, and they are blind to the truth.
"The Pharisees asked if He considered them to be blind. Christ in His reply moved from the physical to the spiritual realm. His answer indicates that if the Pharisees had acknowledged that they were spiritually blind and had turned to Him, the Light of the World, for sight, they would have been forgiven their sins because of their faith in Him. However, they still claimed they could see; so they were saying they did not need His Light. Therefore their guilt remained" (The Words and Works of Jesus Christ - J. Dwight Pentecost).
"We begin with a blind man who was healed so that he saw, both physically and spiritually. We end with religious rulers who were terribly, tragically blind, yet who thought they could see. In the presence of Christ, in the presence of the Light, in the presence of the revelation of God, they said they had no sin.
Some of the most dogmatic people today are the atheists and the cultists. They say they see, but they are blind. They reject the Lord Jesus Christ, and so their sin remains. Although they are not walking around with a white walking stick, they are blind" (T. T. B. J. Vernon McGee).
Share freely but cite the source: http://bbbiblehelps.epizy.com