Bible Commentaries
John 9

Verse 1

1 The appearance of a man would not indicate how long he had been blind, hence they had other information concerning this case.

Verse 2

2 The question the disciples asked Jesus could only have been on the theory known as the "transmigration of souls." This notion is explained at Mat 14:2. Jesus did not endorse the theory, because it was untrue and foolish, but he did not take time to deal with every kind of error he met. However, both he and the apostles sometimes used the popular notions to illustrate a point or expose some inconsistency among the people. The present instance is one of them, which was used by Paul when he spoke of "eternal judgment" in Heb 6:2. And being "baptized for [in place of] the dead in 1Co 15:29, is another instance where the apostle used an erroneous practice without endorsing it, but to expose the inconsistency of those who did it.

Verse 3

3 No special act of God had been done to cause this man to be born blind. However, the misfortune will furnish the Lord an opportunity of manifesting divine power. Jesus was always able to turn unfavorable conditions into good account.

Verse 4

4 Day and night are used figuratively as we will see in the next verse.

Verse 5

5 As long as I am in the world. This phrase is directly connected with the words while it is day in the preceding verse. This would mean that night as used in the present instance refers to death. It was never intended that man should work day and night to make a living. Therefore, when language is used figuratively, day (the proper time for work) is likened to a life on earth, because that is the only period in which a man can work for the Lord. It is appropriate that we often sing, "Work, for the night is coming." But Jesus did not mean to teach that after he left this world all spiritual light would cease. He was considering only that light which he personally could shed upon the human beings with whom he came into contact.

Verse 6

6 Sometimes Jesus used certain things in connection with his miracles that could have no logical effect in the case. There was an important point in such performances. Had something been used that might have a physical relation to the result desired and obtained, it might have been claimed that such was the cause. But since these things could have nothing to do with the actual problem, the conclusion is clear that the result was obtained through divine power.

Verse 7

7 Jesus never needed the help of any man in accomplishing his work, but it was well to teach the lesson of cooperation between man and God. Hence Jesus required the people to feed the daughter of Jairus (Mar 5:43), and directed others to remove the cover from the tomb of Lazarus (Joh 11:39). Had this blind man not washed the clay from his eyes he would not have been healed of his blindness.

Verse 8

8 In the mean time, Jesus had moved on out of the throng, and when the man was returning from the pool with his sight given to him, the people were surprised at his appearance. The absence of eyesight often makes more difference in a man's general appearance than may be thought. Yet in spite of the change wrought by the restoring of that function, some thought they recognized the former blind man.

Verse 9

9 Some of the people seemed to be very certain of the man's identity, while others professed only to see a resemblance. But the man settled the discussion by informing them that he was the man who had been blind.

Verse 10

0 This question was asked for the simple purpose of information, as they were not present at the time Jesus talked with the man.

Verse 11

1 A. man that is called Jesus. All this blind man knew was what he heard, for he was blind and had to get his information by hearing only. Hence this verse is a statement of facts, without any reasoning or conclusions upon those facts.

Verse 12

2 While the man was going to the pool, Jesus passed on, so that up to the time of this questioning he had never seen his benefactor. The method Jesus took in this case served a purpose other than requiring the man to go wash in the pool and thus cooperate in his favor of being healed. It left him free to reason on the case without being prejudiced favorably by the appearance and personal presence of the one who had healed him. Under the circumstances, it was all the man could do to say he did not know where the person was then. We should bear in mind that all this conversation was between the man and the people who had no prejudice especially in the case, it not having been called to the attention of the Pharisees.

Verse 13

3 The text does not tell us why the man was brought to the Pharisees. We know, however, that they were the leading sect of the Jews, and were supposed to be interested in anything especially pertaining to miracles. The man said he was directed in his case by the one called Jesus, to go wash at the pool, with the result that he was made able to see. So it was logical that the case should be taken to these religious leaders since the very name Jesus brought up the subject for religious consideration.

Verse 14

4 There is no evidence in the life of Christ that he made any distinction between days, when he had opportunity for working a beneficial miracle. But John knew what was coming up over this case, and made the statement of this verse as an explanation beforehand, of the disturbance soon to be thrust into the work of Jesus. Made the clay was a manual act, and that was sufficient to give the Pharisees an excuse for their quarrel with the man for whom the work had been done.

Verse 15

5 The Pharisees asked this man how he received his sight, and were given the same answer that the people had received. We should note that the man said I washed, which was as much of a manual act as what Jesus had done. But in all of the controversy over this case, not one word will be said against the man for what he did on the sabbath day. This shows the Pharisees were not caring anything about the holy day, but were showing their hatred of Jesus and took this circumstance as a means of repeating their old hypocritically-inspired complaints.

Verse 16

6 This division was between the friends and enemies of Jesus. The former reasoned rightly, that if Jesus were a "sinner," (which means one of that particular class as listed in those days), he would be unable to work miracles, for God would not grant miraculous power to such a character. The others were merely using the question of the sabbath as an excuse for their hatred of Jesus.

Verse 17

7 The blind man did not have any more positive knowledge in the case than did the others, for he had not even seen Jesus up to this time. But the crowd wished to get him to commit himself on the subject; es pecially that part of the group which was Jews. Had the man expressed an unfavorable opinion of Jesus, it would have been used by the Jews as a significant circumstance. If the very man who had been benefitted by the performance was unfavorably impressed with Jesus, then surely there must have been a reason for it. But he replied with a direct and favorable verdict, He is a prophet. That meant not only that Jesus was a good man, but one endowed with supernatural talents to be able to do such a miracle as the one at hand.

Verse 18

8 The Jews failed to get any satisfaction from the man who had been blind. Their next move was to show that the whole thing was a fraud; that the man had never really been blind. Perhaps the parents can help them in their wicked design.

Verse 19

9 They asked the parents two questions concerning their sort. One of them pertained to fact and the other to theory.

Verse 20

0 They answered the first question very positively, saying we know, etc. It would have been useless for them to deny the facts, for such as the birth of a child without eyesight, and suffering that handicap for all the years up to manhood, would be too well known to be denied.

Verse 21

1 The parents could literally say we know not on the question of how their son was healed as far as personal knowledge was concerned. But if they had been willing to show friendliness for Jesus, they would at least have referred to the case as it was reported by eyewitnesses. They therefore evaded that point for the reason mentioned in the next verse and told them to ask the son himself. Of age is from a Greek term defined by Thayer, "Adult age, maturity."

Verse 22

3 Put out of the synagogue is all from APOSUNAGOGOS, and Thayer defines it, "Excluded from the sacred assemblies of the Israelites; excommunicated." The privilege of assembling with the Jews in their religious gatherings was indeed a valuable one. For that reason it was a strong means of punishing a man who became objectionable to the Pharisees, to cast him out of the synagogue and withdraw the fellowship from him. (See chapter 16:2.) The parents of this man chose rather to deny to Jesus the credit due him, than lose their privilege of entering the synagogue. They took the cowardly way out of the embarrassment by referring the question to their son.

Verse 24

4 The Jews did not accomplish what they expected from the parents, so they thought they would make another effort with the son. But this time they did not trust the case to an unbiased question, but tried to prejudice him beforehand by framing the answer for him. It was similar to a case of our day where a judge will deliver a "directed verdict" instruction to a jury, when that jury had been sworn to decide the case themselves according to the evidence as they understood it.

Verse 25

5 But this blind man was not one to betray his conscience as a jury sometimes does. He did not pretend to decide for the present whether his benefactor belonged in the class known as "sinners," but he was not afraid to affirm what he did know. That statement was the simple truth that he was blind but now was able to see.

Verse 26

6 This question was entirely unnecessary if the Jews were honestly seeking information. The blind man had already stated all the facts in the case as he understood them, and had nothing more in that line that he could say.

Verse 27

7 The useless question caused the blind man to realize that his questioners were not sincere in their inquiries. Or if they were, it was just their way of pressing the investigation further in order to learn what they could of. Jesus. As a means of testing whether that caused their persistence, he asked them if they were interested in becoming the disciples of Jesus.

Verse 28

8 The Jews realized they had committed themselves a little farther than was intended. They showed their bitterness by accusing the man of being a disciple of Jesus. That would not have been anything of which to be ashamed, but his remarks were purely logical and could have been properly uttered regardless of his personal feelings or intentions. The Jews showed their ignorance of the very document and writer they pretended to respect. Any true disciples of Moses -could be disciples of Jesus also, for Moses prophesied favorably of Him. (See Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18.)

Verse 29

9 Jesus had shown fully as much evidence of having been inspired of God as did Moses. Therefore the statements made by these Jews were unfair and amounted to a false accusation against the doer of this good deed to the blind man.

Verse 30

0 The man thought it was strange they did not know from where or whom Jesus had come. He thought they ought to have known the kind of source that produced him, judging by the works he was doing. It is a law of cause and effect that is recognized by everybody, that a tree is known by its fruit. Here is a man who has given sight to a man born blind, a feat equal in principle to a creative act, and the Jews pretended not to have any evidence by which they could figure out the background of his operations and general work among mankind.

Verse 31

1 This verse has been misused by many well-meaning disciples. They may be discussing the question of "who has the right to pray," and they will quote this passage to show that only the children of God have that right. That sinners are outside the family of God and hence are not on "praying ground" before God. All such statements are true and are abundantly taught in the New Testament, but this passage cannot be used as a proof text. This man was uninspired and could not speak with authority, therefore his words cannot be used to prove the idea stated above. But the man could make the statement as an argument, just as one of us could do, knowing that the Word of God teaches it in various places.

Verse 32

2 This verse is a statement of truth that is backed up by the history of mankind, but it did not require inspiration to say it, for any person could say the same thing on the strength of history.

Verse 33

3 Since these were all statements of truth that could not be denied, the blind man could freely make them in his argument against the Jews. And on such a basis, he reasoned that this man (Jesus) must have come from God, else he could not do the wonderful things accredited to him and which were known to the public in general.

Verse 34

4 The truth of history agreed with the statements of this man, or the Pharisees would have confronted him with some case of healing that had been done. They knew they could not do that, so they tried to dodge the issue and call in question his right even to reason on the truth. Born in sins was a phrase that the Jews used to show their contempt for a truth which they could not otherwise meet. Referring to the theory of "Transmigration of souls" (see at verse 2), they wanted to weaken the force of the man's teaching by implying he was of a low origin among men. On the pretense that such a person was unworthy of their fellowship, they cast him, out. This phrase means they excommunicated him as explained in the comments at verse 22.

Verse 35

5 This verse gives the first meeting of Jesus and the man after receiving the use of his eyes. The man had been insisting with the Jews that his benefactor must have been a man of God, but that was as definite as he professed to understand it. The question Jesus asked him was for the purpose of advancing him in his spiritual growth. His reasoning with the Jews before they cast him out, was evidence that he would appreciate a fuller insight pertaining to Jesus.

Verse 36

6 This question asked by the man is clear when we remember that he had not seen Jesus, and hence did not recognize his person. In other words, he evidently had learned that the one talking to him was a good and great man, but did not know of his Sonship with God.

Verse 37

7 The conversation had continued far enough for Jesus to make his claim. Thou bast both seen!him must have been a thrilling reminder for one who had been blind all of his life until that day. How gracious it was in Jesus to seek for the man on whom he had bestowed the blessing of sight, and make it a point that among the first, if not the first, real friend he was enabled to see, was the very One who had healed him and who was his Lord in the form of man.

Verse 38

8 The man who had been blind made the good confession. The miracle of opening his eyes convinced him that his benefactor was a man of God, and that would mean that any claim he would make would be true. Now that they have met personally and Jesus claims to be the Son of God, the man sincerely confessed his faith. We are not told in what manner he worshipped Jesus, and since that word has such a wide range of meaning, it, will be well to see the note in connection with Mat 2:2.

Verse 39

9 A man who has been blind physically all his life and then been given sight, would certainly be a good subject to address concerning spiritual light. In this verse Jesus speaks of both kinds. After the man had been enabled to see physically, he gladly accepted the opportunity to see spiritually, which he manifested when he professed his faith in Christ. The last sentence of the verse refers to the Jews who had normal sight physically, but their stubbornness against the spiritual light made them as blind spiritually as the man had been physically.

Verse 40

0 The Pharisees felt the force of the teaching of Jesus and knew it applied to them. Are we blind also? This is in the form of a question, but Jesus knew it was their way of denying being blind. It could have been indicated either by the tone of their voice, or it was what they were thinking in their heart. Whichever it was, Jesus was able to read their motives and so expressed it in the next verse.

Verse 41

1 If ye were blind . . . no sin. Jesus is not teaching that ignorance of one's duty will justify him in sin; the general teaching of the New Testament is against that. (See Act 17:30.) But if a person is actually uninformed on the matter of his duty, he would not be guilty of "sinning against light and knowledge," which is the sin Jesus meant these Jews might not have been guilty of. Ye say, we see. These Jews were really blind to the truths they so much needed, but their pride of self-importance kept them from giving the spiritual light a chance to shine into their heart. That caused them to be just as responsible for the obligations imposed by the spiritual enlightenment as if they actually possessed the knowledge of it.