John 9:1-41

ADDITIONAL NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Vv. 1-41.

1. The miracle recorded in this chapter occurred probably on the same day with the discourses of the closing part of ch. 8, and not improbably (if John 7:53 to John 8:11 be rejected) on the day mentioned in John 7:37.

2. The question of the disciples in John 9:2 is one of much difficulty. The exact correspondence in the form of the question respecting the man himself and of that which refers to the parents would seem to indicate the same possibility, to their view, of his sinning, which was manifest in the matter of their sinning. This fact bears somewhat strongly against the interpretation which makes this double question simply a means of indicating that they saw no possibility of explaining the blindness. On the other hand, there is not sufficient evidence to make it very probable that the disciples supposed that a man could sin before birth. There are some indications, however, of a belief, more or less extended, in the pre-existence or transmigration of souls, and in the existence of sin in the embryo condition of the child; and in their desire to obtain from Jesus His explanation of this calamity the disciples might, in their perplexity as to its connection with sin, have asked not only whether it was due to the sins of the man's parents (a thing which they themselves could allow) or to his own sins (a cause which, though not admitted by themselves, would be by some other persons).

3. The close sequence of John 9:3; John 9:5 may indicate that, to the thought of Jesus, the works of God in this case were to be in the line of light for this man. The physical illumination which is effected by restoring his sight is thus made emblematic of the illumination of the soul, and the miracle is, in this way, brought into immediate connection with the conversation and discourse which precede it in the eighth chapter. The miracle in this case follows the discourse as illustrating and confirming its truth, if this view is correct, instead of suggesting the thoughts of the discourse, as is generally the case in this Gospel. But, here as elsewhere, it takes its place in the development of the proof, in connection with the teaching: the works and the words.

4. The relation of the external means, which are sometimes used by Jesus when performing miracles, and sometimes not, to the end in view, can only be conjectured. Their use may, not improbably, have been determined by something in the man himself on whom the miracle was wrought, or in the spectators, which made such an element in the work essential to the spiritual impression which Jesus desired to produce.

5. The life-like character of this story of the blind man is more striking than that of any other, perhaps, in the whole circle of the Gospel narrative the question of the neighbors, etc., and the different answers which they received (John 9:8-9); the simplicity of the man's answer when interrogated by them as to his cure (John 9:11-12); the attitude of the Pharisees with regard to the matter first, trying to make the man believe that Jesus was not a Divinely-sent helper, because He healed on the Sabbath; then, refusing to believe that he had been blind and that Jesus had healed him; then, summoning his parents, in the hope that they would deny it; then, calling the man again and attempting to overbear him by the charge that Jesus was a sinner, and by referring to Moses; and, finally, when they found themselves unsuccessful, saying, “Thou wert altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us,” and thereupon driving him out; again, the progress in the man's answers first, The man called Jesus told me to go, and I went and gained the blessing, but I know not where He now is; then, I think He is a prophet; then, Whether He is a sinner or not, I do not know, but one thing I do know: whereas I was blind, I now see; then, I have told you the whole story once, why tell it again; then, It is surely a marvellous thing that you do not know whence such a man is, a man who has done such a wonderful miracle; if He were not from God He could not have done it; and lastly, when Jesus appears again and tells him that He is the Son of man, he says, Lord, I believe. Everything in the words and actions of all the participants in the scene has that inimitable naturalness which, in the case of a writer of the peculiar order of mind and character which belonged to the author of this Gospel, could not have been exhibited in his story had he not been personally acquainted with the scene. Whatever the author may have been, he had not the gifts which belong to the writer of fiction who pictures what is unknown with all the reality of life.

6. Two striking facts are noticeable in this chapter:

(a) The miracle has a peculiar character, and is the most remarkable one recorded in this Gospel, with the exception of the raising of Lazarus. It is the giving of sight to one who was born blind. The miracle at Bethesda, where the man who was healed had been thirty-eight years in his illness, leads to the opening of the discourse of ch. 5, which sets forth the equality of Jesus with God; this miracle of healing the man who had never seen closes the further development of that thought in ch. 8. Certainly there is no mere repetition, but progress in the miraculous works which are recorded. They are selected from the “many signs which Jesus did” as connected with the development of the author's plan from its beginning to its end.

(b) As in the case of the story of the Samaritan woman, Jesus here declares Himself distinctly to this man as the Son of man. The effect of this declaration, as it came to the knowledge of the disciples at the end of this succession of discourses, chs. 5-8, and after the miracles, chs. 5, 9, as well as the one in ch. 6, must have been greatly to strengthen their belief that “Jesus was the Christ,” and that life would come through faith in Him. Westcott says, with regard to John 9:35-41: “The ejection of the blind man who had been healed from the council of the Pharisees furnished the occasion for the beginning of a new society distinct from the dominant Judaism.” And in connection with this fact he thinks it is, that Jesus offers Himself here as the Son of man. But it seems very doubtful whether this can be affirmed. There is certainly no indication of the formation of a new society at this time, or as following upon this event.

7. In John 9:35 Tregelles, Alford, Meyer, Keil, read υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; Westcott and Hort agree with Tischendorf, 8th ed., and Godet in reading υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Weiss also seems to prefer this reading. R. V. reads Son of God in the text, Son of man in the margin. McClellan calls the latter reading “another glaring blunder of only א B D and Theb!”

8. The words of John 9:39 seem to have followed immediately after those which passed between the man and Jesus, but to have been addressed to the company of persons who surrounded Jesus, or, at least, to have been spoken in their presence. The κρῖμα, as Meyer remarks, “is an end, but not the ultimate end of the appearance of Jesus.” The expression You would not have sin may, perhaps, be explained as referring to an absolute want of all knowledge of right and duty, like this man's blindness to the things of sight, or it may refer to the matter of unbelief. If the former is the true meaning, the negative part of the sentence will hold good in all cases in proportion as the want of knowledge is complete or partial.