Jesus and the Man Born Blind (John 9)
Jesus and the Man Born Blind (John 9)
Vs. 1 Notice no note of time here, just Καὶ παράγων. The narrative may be continuous with the preceding one, but there is nothing to indicate that it is. The incident happens on a Sabbath day (vs. 14) and therefore the time seems to have been after the Festival, for it can hardly be the end of the Festival Sabbath mentioned in 7:37 as Ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ τῆς ἑορτῆς, else it would have been otherwise than we find described in John 9. A brief outhne of what follows will be useful:
With the Twelfth Chapter begins the history of the Paschal Week.
Vs. 2 οὗτος ἢ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ; I do not know that it is necessary to ask how the man’s being born blind was caused by his own sin. This is the sort of expression that might rise to the lips of anyone, speaking carelessly and off-hand. If any explanation be necessary, it is perhaps that this text refers to sin foreseen by God and punished at the birth, rather than to: 1) the pre-existence of souls, or 2) sin in the embryo. Of these two, the latter is more probable. On rabbis that at least considered that sin began before birth, see John Lightfoot.
ἵνα τυφλός Not a final ἵνα.
Vs. 3 ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῇ There is an ellipsis between ἀλλ’ and ἵνα. See 11:52; 13:18; 14:31; 15:25; 18:28; 1 John 2:19; 2 Thess 3:9.
Vs. 4 Ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι (B.M.T. and T.R. reading) A reference to the fact of it being a Sabbath day, not mentioned until vs. 14. Comp. vs. 17. ‘Six days in the week are too little to do deeds of mercy. My time is short, and I must work. The day closes in, and the night comes too soon.’
But observe how naturally these words flow. The Evangelist has not told us that it is the Sabbath day. He has the whole scene before him, and assumes that his readers have as well. He proceeds with the narrative accordingly. Comp. 9:9, 10.
Vs. 5 The day, the night. The time for working and the time for resting. This suggests another application of the image. The daytime—the light. ‘I am the light of the world. My presence, my work, in the daytime, in the light.’
Vs. 6 The action is familiar and would be understood. There is a large collection of passages both from classical writers and rabbinical ones quoted at this point in Wettstein, showing that it was customary to anoint some eyes with saliva and clay. So Vespasian heals the blind man in Alexandria—Tacitus, Hist. iv.81. Alford has copied the false reference (iv.8) from Trench.
The rabbinical passages are especially interesting inasmuch as they discuss whether it is lawful to perform this process on a Sabbath day. One would almost infer that the discussion had arisen out of our Lord’s action in the first instance. See Sabbath folio 10 col. 2, the discussion begins with R. Samuel.
But whatever they might have thought of the anointing with saliva, the making of clay would have been a violation of the Sabbath in their eyes. See John Lightfoot and Wettstein. Our Lord uses this common instrumentality, but uses it to work a great, a miraculous result.
Vs. 7 Σιλωάμ as in the LXX and Luke 13:4, and in Josephus frequently. In the Hebrew usually with the definite article—הַשִּׁלֹחַ. Aquila, Theodotion, Symach. have Σιλωά. The modern name is Silwan. Probably the same place as in Neh. iii.15—שַׁלּוּן. See Buxtorf, p. 2412sq. As for the verbal form comp. Job 5:10; Ezek 36:4; one reference seems to use the term to refer to a field artificially irrigated.
The Situation Alford’s statement is incorrect. The situation (unlike that with Bethesda) can hardly be considered doubtful. This place is frequently mentioned and described in Josephus. And the tradition is tolerably continuous. The place bears the same name now. At the north of the Tyropaeon valley, close to its juncture with the valley of Hinnom. Fed with a stream issuing somewhere from the heart of the rock of Jerusalem, within proximity of the Temple. Remember the libations at the Feast of the Tabernacle, and the Water Gate. So here.
We are talking about both a fountain and a pool. On the fountains, see Josephus; on the pool, see Neh 3:15. Its symbolism existed already. See 1) Isaiah 8:6 (just mentions ‘the water’); comp. Ps. 46:4 and perhaps Is 33:21; 2) the libation of the Feast of Tabernacles. Our Lord has adopted these as a type of Himself, see 7:37. And doubtless this washing in Siloam was intended as a symbol of the healing water of Life. Rightly explained by the commentators on Isaiah 8. See Epiphanius, Hom. xxxv.3, p. 261 (Petan ?).
Hence the Evangelist sees a significance in the name which signifies ‘sent.’ On the passage’s sense see Ewald, Lehrbuch sec. 156a. The Siloah, therefore properly called, seems not to be the pool but the streams that feed it or issue from it.
Ἀπεσταλμένος This refers here not to the man sent thither to be healed. That would be senseless, but to our Lord Himself as the messenger, the Sent One of the Father. Of this, the water of Siloam is a symbol, as we have seen before.
ἀποστέλλω In this Gospel at 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21; comp. Luke 4:18. The Messiah is called the Sent in rabbinical literature, in passages cited by Wettstein.
νίψαι εἰς A.V. ‘go wash in the pool of Siloam.’ This leaves a false impression. νίψαι—‘wash your eyes’; ‘wash off the clay.’ See Trench, New Testament Synon. sec. 178 for εἰς meaning ‘at.’ See Test. Twelve. Pat. Levi, 9. Compare this to the relevant passages in Exodus LXX.
Vs. 11 ἀνέβλεψα There are two senses to this word: 1) to look up as in Matt 14:19 ‘to look up into heaven’; 2) to see again, recover sight, as in Matt 11:5. Here ‘recovery of sight’ is not strictly correct, but the expression is very intelligible. See Pausanias iv.12, p.310, quoted by Lücke.
Vs. 16 ὁ ἄνθρωπος ‘this fellow’ asserted contemptuously. See Mark 14:21; Luke 14:30, and so perhaps the words since consecrated in all Christian hearts. See John 19:5. In the proper order it becomes very emphatic oὐκ ἔστιν οὗτος παρὰ Θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, א, B,D, etc. There is however no opposition of ἄνθρωπος and Θεός here, as some have suggested.
ἄλλοι Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, perhaps Gamaliel.
ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλός See Luke 7:34, ἄνθρωπος φάγος; Luke 19:21-22, ἄνθρωπος αὐστηρός; Acts 22:25, ἄνθρωπον Ῥωμαῖον. This is a Hebraism.
Vs. 17 ὅτι ἠνέῳξέν ‘bearing of the fact that he opened’ i.e. ‘to explain his opening.’ The same elliptical use of ὅτι is seen in 2:19 and 11:47.
Προφήτης ἐστίν comp. 6:14. Hitherto, the truth had only partially dawned on him. The further revelation only came afterwards, vss. 36-37.
Vs. 18 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι St. John uses the word to signify the party opposed to Jesus. Here he has substituted the word for οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. The Pharisees are mixed, some opposed, some half-believing. So vss. 22-23 and again the ‘Jews’ sought to kill Him—5:16, 18; 7:1 etc. The mode of speaking in Rev 2:9; 3:9 is an earlier stage, but it is a stage on the same road.
αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναβλέψαντος A.V. wrong has ‘of him.’ That lad received his sight. Some texts leave out αὐτοῦ.
Vs. 21 ἡλικίαν ἔχει Just as we say ‘to come of age’ we say ‘mature age.’ The αὐτός from its position is emphatic. Ask himself (A.V. has ‘ask him’). ἡλικίαν is 1) stature, or 2) age, this being measured by stature.
Vs. 22 ἀποσυνάγωγος comp. 16:2. Mentioning here an expression for a limited period or little repentance. Thirty days seems to have been the mildest form of this penalty. Comp. Luke 6:22, and see Trench, Miracles, p. 300 and references there.
Vs. 24 δὸς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ· A.V. wrongly has ‘give God the praise’ which implies admitting the fact of a miracle. Rather it is a solemn prefatory injunction. See Josh 7:19; Exod 9:8 (quoted by Meyer); 1 Sam 6:5 (quoted by Godet). See especially Ewald p. 296. Speak not lies or blasphemies. Do not dishonor God.
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν and therefore he can’t have worked a miracle. In other words, they indirectly deny the fact. So he understands them, and replies accordingly.
Vs. 25 τυφλὸς ὢν ἄρτι βλέπω Not as the A.V. has it ‘whereas I was blind,’ but much more expressive ‘being a blind man, now (at this moment) I see.’ An oxymoron, a verbal paradox.
Vs. 27 καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε· ‘And you did not hear, did not take it in.’
τί πάλιν θέλετε ἀκούειν ‘Why do you wish me to repeat it a second time, so that the second time you may take it in?’
μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε αὐτοῦ μαθηταὶ γενέσθαι; There is a shrewd move in this. John Lightfoot says he asks them ‘in gentle and persuasive terms’ and that they answer ‘ruggedly.’ But this is not consistent with the μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς comp. 6:67; 7:47, 52; 18:17, 25 and below vs. 40. They understood his irony, and resent it accordingly.
Vs. 30 ἐν τούτῳ γάρ Comp 4:37; 13:35; 15:8; 16:30; 1 John 2:3 etc.
ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε ‘We the ruler, the leaders, the teachers of Israel.’
Vs. 34 ἐν ἁμαρτίαις σὺ etc. As their blindness showed. See the note by Alford.
Vs. 39 εἰς κρίμα ἐγὼ εἰς τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον There is a double idea here: 1) discrimination; 2) allotment of reward or punishment. There is no discernment at present between those who are blind and those who see, the one are mistaken for the other. But in Christ’s judgment, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. This separation of the sheep from the goats, this winnowing of the chaff from the grain is Christ’s work.
οἱ μὴ βλέποντες A double meaning as is so frequently the case in St. John’s Gospel: 1) the physical, as in the case of the blind man; 2) the spiritual, as symbolized by the physical. Whether in service to Him to say ‘thy sins are forgiven’ or to say ‘take up your bed and walk.’