Page images
PDF
EPUB

ly passed by where he used to beg, being well acquainted with his form and visage, were astonished at the alteration which they observed in his countenance, by reason of the new faculty that was bestowed upon him. Wherefore, they expressed their sur prise, by asking one another, if this was not the blind man to whom they used to give alms. 9. Some said, This is he; others said, He is like him; but he said, I am he. 10. Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? 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 quashed, and I received sight. 12. Then said they unto him, Whère is he? He said, I know not *.

The cure performed upon the man that was born blind, being much talked of in Jerusalem, and the man himself being brought by his neighbours before the council, as the proper judges of this affair, who best were able to discover any cheat that might be in it, they set about examining the matter, with a firm resolution, if possible, to blast the credit of the miracle. Nevertheless, on the strictest scrutiny, they were not able to find the least fault with it; their own eyes convinced them that the man really saw, and all his neighbours and acquaintance testified with one voice, that he had been blind from his birth, see ver. 18. They fell to work therefore another way; they asked the beggar by

what

Some harmony writers are of opinion, that our Lord could not well answer the questions of his disciples about the cause of the beggar's blindhess, or perform miracles, whilst he was fleeing from the Jews, who endeavoured to stone him in the temple; and therefore they place the cure of this blind man immediately before the feast of Dedication. But the foundation on which they build their opinion will hardly support it. The power by which Christ escaped, might easily screen both him and his disciples from the hottest pursuit of their enemies. Yet we need not have recourse to any miracle here, seeing it is not said that they found the blind man immediately on their coming out of the temple, but as they were escaping; so that, for any thing we know, they may have found him at a considerable distance from the temple, perhaps on the other side of the town, as they were going into the country. Mr Whiston's opinion seems to be better founded; he thinks that the rage of the Jews being heightened by the miracle which Jesus performed as he fled from them, he found it expedient to leave Jerusalem instantly; that in his absence the council tried and excommunicated the man who was the subject of that miracle; and that Jesus did not meet with him till he came up to the feast of Dedication. This method of harmony is favoured by John x. 22 and is not contrary to chap ix. 35. In the former passage, the Evangelist seems to say, that it was the feast of Dedication when Jesus made, himself known to the man that was born blind, under the character of Messiah. In the latter he does not connect that discovery with the sentence passed upon the man by the council; and therefore, though he was excommunicated at the feast of Tabernacles, we may suppose that Jesus did not discover himself to him till the feast of Dedication, which happened about two months after the miracle was performed.

what means he had been made to see. John ix. 13. * They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. 14. And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. This phrase shews that the man's blindness proceeded not from any fault or defect in the organs of vision, but from his wanting these altogether. His eye-lids were grown together or contracted, as is the case with those who are born without eyes, Hence Jesus is said to have opened the man's eyes, to intimate that in this miracle, he made, rather than recovered his organs of vision. 15. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. They hoped to find something in the manner of the cure which would shew it to be no miracle, or at least which would prove Jesus to be a bad man. The man honestly and plainly told them the whole matter; that he had made clay, put it upon his eyes, and ordered him to go and wash in Siloam. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. On hearing this account of the miracle, the Pharisees declared that the author of it was certainly an impostor, because he had violated the sabbath in performing it. Nevertheless, others of them, more candid in their way of thinking, gave it as their opinion, that no deceiver could possibly do a miracle of that kind, because it was too great and beneficial for any evil be ing to have either the inclination or the power to perform. 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. The court being thus divided in their opinion with respect to the character of Jesus, they asked the man himself what he thought of the author of his cure. 17. They said unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him that hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet: But the Jews, hoping to make the whole turn out a cheat, would not believe that the beggar was born blind, although all his neighbours had testified the truth of it, pretending, no doubt, that it was a common trick

of

Ver. 13. They brought to the Pharisees him, &c] By the Pharisees here we are to understand the council or senate of Israel. For though the name Pharisee was the denomination of a sect, we learn from Josephus, that the people of this sect chiefly managed all public affairs. (See Jewish Antiq. Disc. I. chap. v. § 1.) That some court of judicature is meant, when we are told that they brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind, is plain from their passing the sentence of excommunication upon him, ver. 34 and that the senate or supreme court is meant, is probable from their being called the Jesus, ver 8, 22. and from their having made a decree, that whoever confessed Jesus to be the Christ should be excommunicated,

ver. 22.

+ Ver. 1. The blind man.] He is so named after having received his sight, agreeably to the Scripture phraseology. Thus, Matt. x. 3. Matthew is called the publican after he had left off that employment, and, Matt. xxvi. 6. Simon is called the leper after he was cured.

of beggars to feign themselves blind, and that this one in particular was in a combination with Jesus, to advance his reputation, (see ver. 28.) a circumstance which they urged from the favourable opinion he had expressed of him. Wherefore, they called his parents, and inquired of them, first, if he was their son; next, if he had been born blind; and then, by what means he had obtained sight. They answered, that most certainly he was their son, and had been born blind; but with respect to the manner in which he had received sight, and the person who had conferred it upon him, they could give no information, only their son being of age would answer for himself. John ix. 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. 19. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who you say was born blind? how then doth he now see? 20. His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 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. As the man that had been blind knew who had opened his eyes, without doubt he had given his parents an account, both of the name of his benefactor, and of the manner in which he had conferred the great blessing upon him; besides, having repeated these particulars frequently to his neighbours and acquaintance, who were all curious to hear him relate the miracle (ver. 11.) we can conceive no reason why he should conceal them from his parents. The truth is, they lied grossly, and were ungrateful to Jesus in concealing his name on this occasion; but they were afraid to utter the least word which might seem to favour him, because by an act of the court it was resolved, that whosoever acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ should be excommunicated. 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, 23. Therefore

said

Ver. 22. Put out of the synagogue.] The Jews had two sorts of excommunication, one was what they called Niddni, which separated the person under it four cubits from the society of others, so that it hindered him from conversing familiarly with them, (see Buxtorff. in voc Niddai, p. 1306.) but left him free at that distance, cither to expound, or hear the law expounded in the synagogue. There was another kind of excommunication called Shematta, from shem, which signifies a nume in general, but by way of eminence was appropriated to God, whose awful name denotes all possible perfection. Shematia therefore answers to the Syrian maranatta, the Lord cometh, a form of execration used by the apostle Paul, ↑ Cor. xvi. 22. and supposed to be derived from Enoch, because Jude quotes a saying of his, which begins with the word marunatta; ver. 14. Behold, the Lord cometh, with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, &c. This kind of excommunication is said to have excluded the person under

said his parents, He is of age, ask him. They refused to bear testimony unto Jesus, for fear of being excommunicated. The court finding that nothing was to be learned from the man's parents, by which the miracle could be disproved, called the man himself a second time, and tried by fair words to extort from him a confession to the disparagement of Jesus. 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. Give glory to God, in whose presence you now are, by making a full confession of your fraud and collusion with this man, for we know that he is an impostor, and have all the reason in the world to believe that you are his accomplice. See Josh. vii. 19. where the Jewish general adjures Achan in similar terms to confess his sin. 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. In this answer of the beggar, there is a strong and beautiful irony, founded on good sense; and therefore it must have been felt by the doctors, though they dissembled their resentment for a little, hoping that by gentle means they might prevail with him to confess the supposed fraud of this miracle. They desired him therefore to tell them again how it had been performed. 26. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? They had asked this question before, ver. 15. but they proposed it a second time, in order that the man, repeating his account of the servile work performed at the cure, might become sensible that Jesus had violated the sabbath thereby, and was an impostor. Thus Christ's enemies would gladly have prevailed with the subject of the miracle, to join them in the judgment which they passed upon the author of it. But their resistance of the truth appeared so criminal to him, that laying aside fear he

spoke

it from the synagogue for ever. We have the form of it, Ezra x. 7. Neh. xiii. 25. being that which was inflicted on these Jews who refused to repudiate their strange wives. It seems to have been the censure also which the council threatened against those who should acknowledge Jesus to be Messiah, and which they actually inflicted on the beggar; for the words seoaher autor, ver. 34, 35. agree better to this kind than to the other. Probably also it was the shematta that our Lord speaks of, when he said to his disciples, John xvi. 2. azocuraywsus mono8oi vuas, they shall put you out of the synagogues. Selden has treated of the word anocovafwyos at great length, De Synedriia, lib. i. cap. 7. According to him the synagogue, from which persons under this censure were excluded, was every assembly whatever, whether religious or civil, the excommunicated person not being allowed to converse familiarly with his brethren, although he was not excluded either from public prayers or sacrifices. But in this latter opinion Selden has not many followers. The excommunications of the primitive Christians seem to have resembled those of the Jews in several par ticulars; for they excluded excommunicated persons from their religious assemblies, and from all communion in sacred things; and when they restored them to the privileges of the faithful, it was with much difficulty, and after a severe and long penance.

[Sect. 78. spoke to them with great freedom. John ix. 27. He answered them, I have told you already, and you did not hear, i. e. believe, wherefore would you hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? In this answer the irony was more plain and severe. Are ye so affected with the miracle, and do ye entertain so high an opinion of the author of it, that ye take pleasure in hearing the account of it repeated, desiring to be more and more confirmed in your veneration for him? These words provoked the rulers to the highest pitch. 28. Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple, as is plain from the partiality thou discoverest towards him, but we are Moses' disciples. And with great reason, for Moses clearly demonstrated his mission from God; whereas this fellow who contradicts Moses, and breaks his laws by his pretended cures performed on the Sabbath, giving no proof of his mission, must be an impostor, and therefore deserves no credit. 29. We know that God spake unto Moses; as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The beggar replied, It is exceedingly strange that you should not acknowledge the divine mission of a teacher, who performs such astonishing miracles; for common sense declares, that God never assists impostors in working miracles. Accordingly, since the world began, no example can be given of any such person's opening the eyes of one born blind. My opinion therefore, since ye will have it, is, that if this man was not sent by God, he could do no miracle at all. 30. The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth. 32. Since the world began was it not heard that any man that is not a worshipper of God, and a doer of his will, i. e. any sinner, any impostor, opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33. If this man were not of God, were not sent of God, if he were not a prophet and messenger of God, he could do nothing. Thus the beggar, though illiterate, answered that great body of learned men with such strength of reason, that they had not a word to reply., However, the evidence of his arguments had no other effect but to put them into a passion, insomuch, that they railed at him, and excommunicated him. 34. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? Thou wicked, illiterate, impudent fellow, whose understanding continues still as blind as thy body was, and who wast born under the heaviest punishments of sin, dost thou pretend to instruct us in a matter of this kind; us, who are the guides of the people, and eminent for our skill in the law? And they cast him out, i. e. they passed the sentence of excommunica tion upon him, which was the highest punishment in their power to inflict.

From

« PreviousContinue »