Verse 57
Thou art not yet fifty years old - Some MSS. read forty. The age of our blessed Lord has never been properly determined. Some of the primitive fathers believed that he was fifty years old when he was crucified; but their foundation, which is no other than these words of the Jews, is but a very uncertain one. Calmet thinks that our Lord was at this time about thirty-four years and ten months old, and that he was crucified about the middle of his thirty-sixth year; and asserts that the vulgar era is three years too late. On the other hand, some allow him to have been but thirty-one years old, and that his ministry had lasted but one year. Many opinions on this subject, which are scarcely worthy of being copied, may be found in Calmet.
Verse 58
Before Abraham was, I am - The following is a literal translation of Calmet's note on this passage: - "I am from all eternity. I have existed before all ages. You consider in me only the person who speaks to you, and who has appeared to you within a particular time. But besides this human nature, which ye think ye know, there is in me a Divine and eternal nature. Both, united, subsist together in my person. Abraham knew how to distinguish them. He adored me as his God; and desired me as his Savior. He has seen me in my eternity, and he predicted my coming into the world." On the same verse Bishop Pearce speaks as follows: - "What Jesus here says relates (I think) to his existence antecedent to Abraham's days, and not to his having been the Christ appointed and foretold before that time; for, if Jesus had meant this, the answer I apprehend would not have been a pertinent one. He might have been appointed and foretold for the Christ; but if he had not had an existence before Abraham's days, neither could he have seen Abraham, (as, according to our English translation, the Jews suppose him to have said), nor could Abraham have seen him, as I suppose the Jews understood him to have said in the preceding verse, to which words of the Jews the words of Jesus here are intended as an answer."
Verse 59
Then took they up stones, etc. - It appears that the Jews understood him as asserting his Godhead; and, supposing him to be a blasphemer, they proceeded to stone him, according to the law. [Lev 24:16].
But Jesus hid himself - In all probability he rendered himself invisible - though some will have it that he conveyed himself away from those Jews who were his enemies, by mixing himself with the many who believed on him, ([Joh 8:30], [Joh 8:31]), and who, we may suppose, favored his escape. Pearce.
But where did they find the stones, Christ and they being in the temple? It is answered: 1st. It is probable, as the buildings of the temple had not been yet completed, there might have been many stones near the place; or, 2dly. They might have gone out so the outer courts for them; and, before their return, our Lord had escaped. See Lightfoot and Calmet.
Going through the midst of them, and so passed by - These words are wanting in the Codex Bezae, and in several editions and versions. Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, Pearce, and Griesbach, think them not genuine. The latter has left them out of the test. But, notwithstanding what these critics have said, the words seem necessary to explain the manner of our Lord's escape. 1st. He hid himself, by becoming invisible; and then, 2dly. He passed through the midst of them, and thus got clear away from the place.
See a similar escape mentioned, [Luk 4:30], and the note there.
The subjects of this chapter are both uncommon and of vast importance.
1. The case of the woman taken in adultery, when properly and candidly considered, is both intelligible and edifying. It is likely that the accusation was well founded; and that the scribes and Pharisees endeavored maliciously to serve themselves of the fact, to embroil our Lord with the civil power, or ruin his moral reputation. Our Lord was no magistrate, and therefore could not, with any propriety, give judgment in the case; had he done it, it must have been considered an invasion of the rights and office of the civil magistrate, and would have afforded them ground for a process against him. On the other hand, had he acquitted the woman, he might have been considered, not only as setting aside the law of Moses, but as being indulgent to a crime of great moral turpitude, and the report of this must have ruined his moral character. He disappointed this malice by refusing to enter into the case; and overwhelmed his adversaries with confusion, by unmasking their hearts, and pointing out their private abominations. It is generally supposed that our Lord acquitted the woman: this is incorrect; he neither acquitted nor condemned her: he did not enter at all juridically into the business. His saying, Neither do I condemn thee, was no more than a simple declaration that he would not concern himself with the matter - that being the office of the chief magistrate; but, as a preacher of righteousness, he exhorted her to abandon her evil practices, lest the punishment, which she was now likely to escape, should be inflicted on her for a repetition of her transgression.
2. In several places in this chapter, our Lord shows his intimate union with the Father, both in will, doctrine, and deed; and though he never speaks so as to confound the persons, yet he evidently shows that such was the indivisible unity, subsisting between the Father and the Son, that what the one witnessed, the other witnessed; what the one did, the other did; and that he who saw the one necessarily saw the other.
3. The original state of Satan is here pointed out - he abode not in the truth, [Joh 8:44]. Therefore he was once in the truth, in righteousness and true holiness - and he fell from that truth into sin and falsehood, so that he became the father of lies and the first murderer. Our Lord confirms here the Mosaic account of the fall of man, and shows that this fall was brought about by his lies, and that these lies issued in the murder or destruction both of the body and soul of man.
4. The patience and meekness exercised by our Lord, towards his most fell and unrelenting enemies, are worthy the especial regard of all those who are persecuted for righteousness. - When he was reviled, he reviled not again. As the searcher of hearts, he simply declared their state, [Joh 8:44], in order to their conviction and conversion: not to have done so, would have been to betray their souls. In this part of his conduct we find two grand virtues united, which are rarely associated in man, Meekness and Fidelity - patience to bear all insults and personal injuries; and boldness, is the face of persecution and death, to declare the truth. The meek man generally leaves the sinner unreproved: the bold and zealous man often betrays a want of due self-management, and reproves sin in a spirit which prevents the reproof from reaching the heart. In this respect also, our blessed Lord has left us an example, that we should follow his steps. Let him that readeth understand.
Introduction
Account of the man who was born blind, [Joh 9:1-5]. Christ heals him, [Joh 9:6], [Joh 9:7]. The man is questioned by his neighbors, [Joh 9:8-12]. He is brought to the Pharisees, who question him, [Joh 9:13-17], and then his parents, [Joh 9:18-23]. They again interrogate the man, who, vindicating the conduct of Christ, is excommunicated by them, [Joh 9:24-34]. Jesus, hearing of the conduct of the Pharisees, afterwards finds the man, and reveals himself to him, [Joh 9:35-38]. He passes sentence on the obduracy and blindness of the Pharisees, [Joh 9:39-41].
Verse 1
And as Jesus passed by - This chapter is a continuation of the preceding, and therefore the word Jesus is not in the Greek text: it begins simply thus - And passing along, και παραγων, etc. Having left the temple, where the Jews were going to stone him, ([Joh 8:59]), it is probable our Lord went, according to his custom, to the mount of Olives. The next day, which was the Sabbath, [Joh 9:14], he met a man who had been born blind, sitting in some public place, and asking alms from those who passed by, [Joh 9:8].
Verse 2
Who did sin, this man, or his parents - The doctrine of the transmigration of souls appears to have been an article in the creed of the Pharisees, and it was pretty general both among the Greeks and the Asiatics. The Pythagoreans believed the souls of men were sent into other bodies for the punishment of some sin which they had committed in a pre-existent state. This seems to have been the foundation of the disciples question to our Lord. Did this man sin in a pre-existent state, that he is punished in this body with blindness? Or, did his parents commit some sin, for which they are thus plagued in their offspring?
Most of the Asiatic nations have believed in the doctrine of transmigration. The Hindoos still hold it; and profess to tell precisely the sin which the person committed in another body, by the afflictions which he endures in this: they profess also to tell the cures for these. For instance, they say the headache is a punishment for having, in a former state, spoken irrevently to father or mother. Madness is a punishment for having been disobedient to father or mother, or to one's spiritual guide. The epilepsy is a punishment for having, in a former state, administered poison to any one at the command of his master. Pain in the eyes is a punishment for having, in another body, coveted another man's wife. Blindness is a punishment for having killed his mother: but this person they say, before his new birth, will suffer many years' torment in hell. See many curious particulars relative to this in the Ayeen Akbery, vol. iii. p. 168-175; and in the Institutes of Menu, chap. xi. Inst. 48-53.
The Jewish rabbins have had the same belief from the very remotest antiquity. Origen cites an apocryphal book of the Hebrews, in which the patriarch Jacob is made to speak thus: I am an angel of God; one of the first order of spirits. Men call me Jacob, but my true name, which God has given me, is Israel: Orat. Joseph. apud Orig. Many of the Jewish doctors have believed that the souls of Adam, Abraham, and Phineas, have successively animated the great men of their nation. Philo says that the air is full of spirits, and that some, through their natural propensity, join themselves to bodies; and that others have an aversion from such a union. See several other things relative to this point in his treatises, De Plant. Noe - De Gigantibus - De Confus. Ling. - De Somniis, etc.; and see Calmet, where he is pretty largely quoted.
The Hindoos believe that the most of their misfortunes arise out of the sins of a former birth; and, in moments of grief not unfrequently break out into exclamations like the following: - "Ah! in a former birth how many sins must I have committed, that I am thus afflicted!" "I am now suffering for the sins of a former birth; and the sins that I am now committing are to fill me with misery in a following birth. There is no end to my sufferings!"
Josephus, Ant. b. xvii. c. 1, s. 3, and War, b. ii. c. 8, s. 14, gives an account of the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject. He intimates that the souls of those only who were pious were permitted to reanimate human bodies, and this was rather by way of reward than punishment; and that the souls of the vicious are put into eternal prisons, where they are continually tormented, and out of which they can never escape. But it is very likely that Josephus has not told the whole truth here; and that the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject was nearly the same with that of the Papists on purgatory. Those who are very wicked go irrecoverably to hell; but those who are not so have the privilege of expiating their venial sins in purgatory. Thus, probably, is the Pharisean doctrine of the transmigration to be understood. Those who were comparatively pious went into other bodies, for the expiation of any remaining guilt which had not been removed previously to a sudden or premature death, after which they were fully prepared for paradise; but others who had been incorrigibly wicked were sent at once into hell, without ever being offered the privilege of amendment, or escape. For the reasons which may be collected above, much as I reverence Bishop Pearce, I cannot agree with his note on this passage, where he says that the words of the disciples should be thus understood: - Who did sin? This man, that he is blind? or his parents, that he was born so? He thinks it probable that the disciples did not know that the man was born blind: if he was, then it was for some sin of his parents - if he was not born so, then this blindness came unto him as a punishment for some crime of his own. It may be just necessary to say, that some of the rabbins believed that it was possible for an infant to sin in the womb, and to be punished with some bodily infirmity in consequence. See several examples in Lightfoot on this place.
Verse 3
Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents - That is, the blindness of this person is not occasioned by any sin of his own, nor of his parents, but has happened in the ordinary course of Divine providence, and shall now become the instrument of salvation to his soul, edification to others, and glory to God. Many of the Jews thought that marks on the body were proofs of sin in the soul. From a like persuasion, probably arose that proverb among our northern neighbors-Mark him whom God marks.
Verse 4
While it is day - Though I plainly perceive that the cure of this man will draw down upon me the malice of the Jewish rulers, yet I must accomplish the work for which I came into the world whole it is day - while the term of this life of mine shall last. It was about six months after this that our Lord was crucified. It is very likely that the day was now declining, and night coming on; and he took occasion from this circumstance to introduce the elegant metaphor immediately following. By this we are taught that no opportunity for doing good should be omitted - Day representing the opportunity: Night, the loss of that opportunity.
Verse 5
I am the light of the world - Like the sun, it is my business to dispense light and heat every where; and to neglect no opportunity that may offer to enlighten and save the bodies and souls of men. See [Joh 8:12].
Verse 6
Anointed the eyes of the blind man - It would be difficult to find out the reason which induced our Lord to act thus. It is certain, this procedure can never be supposed to have been any likely medical means to restore sight to a man who was born blind; this action, therefore, had no tendency to assist the miracle. If his eye-lids had been only so gummed together that they needed nothing but to be suppled and well washed, it is not likely that this could possibly have been omitted from his birth until now. The Jews believed that there was some virtue in spittle to cure the diseases of the eye; but then they always accompanied this with some charm. Our Lord might make clay with the spittle to show that no charms or spells were used, and to draw their attention more particularly to the miracle which he was about to work. Perhaps the best lesson we can learn from this is: That God will do his own work in his own way; and, to hide pride from man, will often accomplish the most beneficial ends by means not only simple or despicable in themselves, but by such also as appear entirely contrary, in their nature and operation, to the end proposed to be effected by them.
Verse 7
Siloam - Called also Shiloah, Silos, or Siloa, was a fountain under the walls of Jerusalem, towards the east, between the city and the brook Kidron. Calmet thinks that this was the same with En-rogel, or the fuller's fountain, which is mentioned in [Jos 15:7]; [Jos 18:16]; in [2Sam 17:17]; and in [1Kgs 1:9]. Its waters were collected in a great reservoir for the use of the city; and a stream from it supplied the pool of Bethesda.
By interpretation, Sent - From the Hebrew שלח shalach, he sent: either because it was looked upon as a gift sent from God, for the use of the city; or because its waters were directed or sent by canals or pipes, into different quarters, for the same purpose. Some think there is an allusion here to [Gen 49:10]; that this fountain was a type of Shiloh, the Christ, the Sent of God; and that it was to direct the man's mind to the accomplishment of the above prophecy that our Lord sent him to this fountain. This supposition does not appear very solid. The Turks have this fountain still in great veneration, and think the waters of it are good for diseases of the eyes. Lightfoot says that the spring of Siloam discharged itself by a double stream into a twofold pool - the upper was called שילוח shiloach - the lower שלח shelach; the one signifying απεϚαλμενος, sent, the latter, κωδιων fleeces; and that our Lord marked this point so particularly, to inform the blind man that it was not to Shelach, but to Shiloach, that he must go to wash his eyes. These two pools seem to be referred to in [Isa 7:23]; [Isa 22:9].
Verse 8
That he was blind - Ὁτι τυφλος ην: but, instead of this, προσαιτης, when he begged, or was a beggar, is the reading of ABC*DKL, seven others, both the Syriac, both the Arabic, later Persic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Sahidic, Gothic, Slavonic, Vulgate, eight copies of the Itala, and some of the primitive fathers. This is in all probability the true reading, and is received by Griesbach into the text.
Beggars in all countries have a language peculiar to themselves. The language of the Jewish beggars was the following: זבי כי Deserve something by me - Give me something that God may reward you. רכי ני זכי גר מך O ye tender-hearted, do yourselves good by me. Another form, which seems to have been used by such as had formerly been in better circumstances, was this: סכי כי מה הוינא אסתכל בי מה אנא Look back and see what I have been; look upon me now, and see what I am. See Lightfoot.
Verse 9
Some said, This is he - This miracle was not wrought in private - nor before a few persons - nor was it lightly credited. Those who knew him before were divided in their opinion concerning him: not whether the man who sat there begging was blind before - for this was known to all; nor, whether the person now before them saw clearly - for this was now notorious; but whether this was the person who was born blind, and who used in a particular place to sit begging.
Others said, He is like him - This was very natural: for certainly the restoration of his sight must have given him a very different appearance to what he had before.
Verse 11
A man that is called Jesus - The whole of this relation is simple and artless in the highest degree. The blind man had never seen Jesus, but he had heard of his name - he felt that he had put something on his eyes, which he afterwards found to be clay - but how this was made he could not tell, because he could not see Jesus when he did it; therefore he does not say, he made clay of spittle - but simply, he made clay, and spread it upon my eyes. Where a multitude of incidents must necessarily come into review, imposture and falsehood generally commit themselves, as it is termed; but, however numerous the circumstances may be in a relation of fact, simple truth is never embarrassed.