Meyer's NT Commentary
John 9:4. ἐμέ] B. D. L. א.* Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arr. Cant. Cyr. Nonn. read ἡμᾶς. Instead of the following με, L. א.* Copt. Aeth. Arr. Cyr. also have ἡμᾶς. Had the saying been changed into a general proposition, and had ἐμέ therefore been altered into ἡμᾶς, then, instead of με, ἡμᾶς must necessarily have been used in all cases alike, ἡμᾶς, which Tisch. also adopts, appears to be the original reading (instead of ἐμέ). It was changed into ἐμέ, because the plur. appeared inappropriate, and on account of the following με; this latter, on the other hand, was assimilated to ἡμᾶς in L., etc.
John 9:6. After ἐπέχρισε, Lachm. and Tisch. read αὐτοῦ; so A. B. C.** L. א. Cursives, to which also D. must be added with αὐτῷ. On the other hand, the τοῦ τυφλοῦ that follows is wanting in B. L. א. Cursives (D. has αὐτοῦ). It is put in brackets by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. We ought to read: ἐπέχρ. αὐτοῦ τὸν πηλ. ἐπὶ τ. ὀφθ. τοῦ τυφλοῦ. Αὐτοῦ was referred to the blind man; in that case, however, either this αὐτοῦ itself must be deemed out of place (on account of the following τοῦ τυφλοῦ), or τοῦ τυφλοῦ must be omitted.
John 9:7. νίψαι] bracketed by Lachm., wanting only in A.* and the Codd. of the It. A copyist’s omission after John 9:11; hence, also, A.** has supplied καὶ νίψαι after Σιλ.
John 9:8. προσαίτης] Elz.: τυφλός, in opposition to decisive authorities. A correction.
John 9:11. εἰς τὸν Σιλωάμ] Elz., Scholz: εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν τοῦ Σιλωάμ, in opposition to very weighty testimonies. Repetition from John 9:7.
John 9:14. ὅτε] B. L. X. א. 33, Codd. It. Cyr.: ἐν ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ. So Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly: the redundant expression was easily supplanted by the word ὅτε, which readily suggested itself.
John 9:16. Lachm. and Tisch.: οὐκ ἔστιν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθζ., after B. D. L. X. א. 33, 157. The position in the Elz. (οὗτ. ὁ ἄνθρ. οὐχ ἐ. π. τ. θ.) is a transposition to make the reading easier.
John 9:17. After λέγουσιν weighty witnesses require the insertion of οὖν, which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. Lachmann’s insertion of οὖν, however, after ἀπεκρ. in John 9:20, is supported solely by B. א., whereas A. and other uncials and Cursives have δέ. Both seem to be additions; as also the following αὐτοῖς, which is wanting in B. L. X. א. Cursives, Verss. Cyr.
John 9:25. καὶ εἶπεν] to be deleted, as is done by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical addition opposed by weighty witnesses.
John 9:26. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of δέ in place of οὖν (Lachm.); πάλιν, however, with Lachm. and Tisch., after B. D. א.* Verss. Nonn. Aug., is to be deleted, as an addition which would readily suggest itself.
John 9:28. After ἐλοιδ. Elz., following Cursives, Vulg. Codd. It., inserts οὖν; instead of which B. א.* Sahid. Cyr. Ambr. read καὶ ἐλ., and D. L. א.** Verss. οἱ δὲ ἐλ. Various modes of establishing the connection.
John 9:30. The reading ἓν γὰρ τοῦτο (approved by Rinck) is only found in X. Λ. and Cursives, and is on that ground alone to be rejected; at the same time, it bears witness, also, to the fact of the original position of γάρ being immediately after ἐν (Tisch.: ἐν τούτῳ γάρ, with B. L. א. Cursives, Cyr. Chrys.). The reading ἐν τούτῳ οὖν found in D. may be explained from the circumstance that the relation of γάρ presented a difficulty. Instead of θαυμ. we must, with Tisch., read τὸ θαυμ., as in B. L. א. Cursives, Cyr. Chrys. How easily might the superfluous τό be suppressed!
John 9:35. τοῦ θεοῦ] B. D. א. Aeth.: τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, because Jesus was accustomed thus to designate Himself.
John 9:36. καὶ τίς ἐστι] Elz. Lachm. do not read καὶ; the evidence for it, however, is very weighty, and it may easily have been passed over by clumsy copyists.
John 9:41. ἡ οὖν ἁμαρτ.] οὖν, bracketed by Lachm. and deleted by Tisch., is wanting in decisive witnesses. A connective addition; superfluous, and weakening the force.
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.John 9:1 f. The direct connection, by means of καί, with the preceding words ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τ. ἱεροῦ, and the correlation of παράγων therewith, makes it impossible, without arbitrariness, to take any view but this,—that the healing of the blind man, instead of not being determinable with chronological exactness (Hengstenberg), must rather be placed soon after Jesus had left the temple, whilst He was still on His way, and on the very same day, the record of whose scenes commences with John 8:21. This day was a Sabbath (John 9:14); not, however, the one mentioned in John 7:37 (Olshausen), but a later one, see on John 8:12. The objection that the calmness which marks the transaction, and the presence of the disciples, are not in keeping with the scene which had occurred shortly before (John 8:59), and that therefore another day ought to be assumed (De Wette and others), has little force; for the calmness of the bearing of Jesus is anything but a psychological riddle, and the disciples might easily have gathered round Him again.
παράγων] in passing by, namely, the place where the blind beggar was (probably in the neighbourhood of the temple, Acts 3:2). Comp. on Matthew 9:9, and Mark 2:14.
τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς.] So much the greater was the miracle; comp. Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8. The supposition, based on John 9:5, that this blind man represents the κόσμος, to which Jesus, having been spurned by the Jews, now turns (Luthardt), is the less warrantable, as the stress in that verse is laid on φῶς, and not on τοῦ κόσμου (comp. even John 8:12). This healing of the blind is not intended to have a figurative import, though it is afterwards used (John 9:39 ff.) as a figurative representation of a great idea.
τίς ἥμαρτεν, etc.] The notion of the disciples is not, that neither the one nor the other could be the case (Euth. Zigabenus, Ebrard, comp. also Hengstenberg); but, as the positive mode of putting the dilemma shows, that either the one or the other must be the case. See Baeumlein, Partic. p. 132. They were still possessed by the popular idea (comp. on Matthew 9:2, also the book of Job, and Acts 28:4) that special misfortunes are the punishment of special sins; against which view Jesus, here and in Luke 13:9 ff., decidedly declares Himself. Now, as the man was born blind, either it must have been the guilt of his parents, which he was expiating,—a belief which, in accordance with Exodus 20:5, was very prevalent (Lightfoot, p. 1048), and existed even among the Greeks (Maetzner in Lycurg. in Leocr. p. 217),—or he himself must have sinned even whilst in the womb of his mother. The latter alternative was grounded in the popular notion that even an embryo experiences emotions (comp. Luke 1:41; Luke 1:43), especially evil emotions, and that the latter predominate (see Sanhedr. f. 91. 2; Beresh. Rabba, f. 38. 1, b.; Lightfoot), comp. Wetstein. The explanation of the question from the belief (which there is also no right to assume as presupposed in Matthew 14:2) in the transmigration of souls (Calvin, Beza, Drusius, Aretius, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, and several others) is as inadmissible as the assumption of a belief in the pre-existence of souls (Cyril, De Wette, Brückner). For apart from the uncertainty of the fact whether the doctrine of the transmigration of souls was entertained by the Jews in the days of Christ (see Tholuck on the passage, and Delitzsch Psychol. p. 463 f. [E. T. p. 545 f.]), those two doctrines could not have been popularly known among the people, and therefore must not be assumed to have been held by the disciples, although it is true that the pre-existence of souls, both of good and bad, is an unquestionable article of doctrine in Wis 8:19 f., as also with Philo and the Essenes, with the Rabbins, and in the Cabbala (see Grimm on Wisdom of Solomon in the Exeget. Handb. p. 177 f.; Bruch, Lehre v. d. Prae-existenz d. Seel. p. 22). It is quite out of place, however, to refer to the heathen view of the pre-existence of souls (Isidorus and Severus in Corder. Cat). Tholuck’s suggestion, finally, that the thought, though obscurely conceived, is, that the blind man, through being born blind, is marked out as a sinner in virtue of an anticipation of punishment, both contradicts the words, and is altogether destitute of biblical support. In Luthardt’s view, the disciples, in accordance with Exodus 20:5, regarded the second of the two supposed cases as alone possible, but mentioned the first as a possibility, in order that Christ might solve the riddle which they were unable to solve. Similarly Baeumlein and Delitzsch, who looks upon the question as the mere expression of perplexity resulting from a false premiss. It is an arbitrary procedure, however, to ascribe such a difference to two cases regarding which a question is asked in precisely the same form, or to treat the possibility in the one case as posited merely in appearance. The disciples considered both cases possible, and wished to know which of them was real. At the same time, however, they deemed a third case out of the question, and this was the error in the dilemma which they put forth,—an error which Jesus (John 9:3) lays bare and corrects by setting before them the Tertium datur.
ἵνα τυφλ. γενν.] The retributive result, in accordance with the teleological connection of the divine destiny. That the man was born blind might have been previously known to those who asked the question; or the man himself might just have informed them of the fact, for the purpose of adding force to his request for alms (John 9:8).
And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.John 9:3. Οὐ παντελῶς ἀναμαρτήτους αὐτούς φησιν, ἀλλʼ ὅσον εἰς τὸ τυφλωθῆναι αὐτόν, Euth. Zigabenus.
ἀλλʼ] sc. τυφλὸς ἐγεννήθη.
τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ] the works of God, ie. what God works, was to be manifested in Him. The expression must be left in this general form (it first acquires its more exact force in John 9:4); it denotes the entire category of which such miraculous healings were a particular species; hence the works of God were set forth and brought to light in this concrete case, to wit, in the man (ἐν αὐτῷ) who experienced the divine miraculous power. In the connection of the divine decree, however, from which everything accidental, everything independent of the divine plan, is excluded, this φανέρωσις must stand in the relation of a purpose towards the sufferings which, in this particular concrete case, are miraculously removed. Hence ἵνα φανερ., etc., is a thought which contains the true nature of the Theodicy for all sufferings. According to Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 201, the ἔργα θ. are spiritual operations, namely, the enlightenment of the world, symbolically set forth by this healing of the blind. This, however, anticipates the doctrinal application which Jesus Himself makes of the work which He wrought (John 9:39).
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.John 9:4. By means of the participative ἡμᾶς (see the critical observations), Jesus includes the disciples with Himself as helpers and continuers of the Messianic activity. The further progress of the discourse is indicated by the pronoun which, for the sake of emphasis, is placed at the beginning of the sentence; the subject is thus specified through whose activity the φανέρωσις mentioned in John 9:3 is to be accomplished. “It is we who are destined by God to work His works as long as we live, and until death put an end to our activity.” There is no hint whatever in the text that Jesus wished to meet the scruples of the disciples on account of the healing which He was about to perform on the Sabbath (Kuinoel); indeed, as far as the disciples were concerned, to whom Sabbath healings by Jesus were nothing new, there was no ground for such a procedure.
τοῦ πέμψ. με] Jesus does not again say ἡμας; for His mission involved also that of the disciples, and it was He who commissioned the disciples (John 13:20, John 20:21).
ἕως] so long as, denoting contemporaneous duration, very frequently so in the classical writers subsequently to Homer, with the praes. or imperf. See Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 434.
Day and Night are images, not of tempus opportunum and importunum, nor even of αἰὼν οὗτος and ΜΈΛΛΩΝ (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Ruperti, and others); but (for Jesus was thinking of His speedy departure out of the world, John 9:5) of life and death (comp. Hom. Il. ε. 310, Λ. 356; Aesch. Sept. 385; Pers. 841; Plat. Apol. p. 40 D, and Stallbaum thereon; Hor. Od. 1. 28. 15). The latter puts an end to the activity of every one on earth (even to that of Christ in His human manifestation). By the different use made of the same image in John 11:9 f., we are not justified in regarding it as including the period of the passion (Hengstenberg). Moreover, Christ was still working whilst He hung on the cross. Olshausen’s view is wrong: ἡμέρα denotes the time of grace, which was then specially conditioned by the presence of Christ, the Light of the world; with His removal darkness assumed its sway. Against this view the general and unlimited form of the expression on ὅτι οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι (which Olshausen arbitrarily restricts by adding “for a time,” and “in spiritual matters”) is in itself a decisive objection; not to mention that Jesus regarded His death, not as the beginning of spiritual darkness, but as the very condition of greater enlightenment by the Spirit (John 17:7, John 15:26, John 14:26, al.). With Olshausen agrees substantially B. Crusius; comp. also Grotius, Bengel, and several others. Luthardt also refers day and night to the world, whose day-time coincided with the presence of Christ in the world, and whose night began when He departed out of the world; as soon as He should leave the world, no other could occupy His place in the accomplishment of redemption; from that time onward, there would be no longer a redemptive history, but merely an appropriation of redemption. But apart from the hair-splitting character of the distinction thus drawn, the grounds adduced against Olshausen hold substantially good against this explanation also, especially that ἐργάζεσθαι—which here has no determining object, as in the previous case—and ΟὐΔΕΊς are quite general; and accordingly, ἜΡΧΕΤΑΙ ΝῪΞ
ἘΡΓΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ must be regarded as a commonplace. Godet finds in ΝΎΞ the thought of the evening rest, which Christ was to enjoy in His heavenly state. This is incorrect, however, because it is not evening but night that is mentioned, and because δύναται would then be inappropriate.
 Which Ewald prefers in opposition to his own translation. But see the critical note.
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.John 9:5. A more precise description of His earthly vocation, characteristically expressed in relation to the sight which was to be bestowed on the blind man. Ὅταν, however, is neither quamdiu (as it usually is) nor quandoquidem (so Lücke and Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 86),—which latter usage is foreign to the N. T., and is only apparently found in passages such as Thuc. 1. 141. 5, 142. 1,—but: When (quando, at the time in which) I am in the world, I am the Light of the world. It expresses the necessary contemporaneity of the two relations. He cannot be in the world, says Christ, without at the same time enlightening the world. Thus, also, did it behove Him to show Himself in the case of this blind man. φῶς is employed, it is true, in a spiritual sense, as in John 1:5 ff., John 8:12, but also with a significant reference to the sight which was to be restored to the blind man. In healing him, that enlightening activity of Jesus by which those who did not see were to be made to see (see John 9:39), is set forth in a transaction which, though primarily sensuous, was also suggestive of spiritual enlightenment (John 9:37 f.). In itself the first clause of the verse
Ὅταν … ὦ—might have been dispensed with (John 8:22); its utterance, however, in connection with John 9:4, was occasioned by the consciousness that He was soon to depart from the world, and that after His departure the present mode and action of the φῶς εἶναι, which were bound up with His corporeal earthly career, must come to an end. Then Christ would work through the Paraclete and through the vehicles of the Paraclete, as the Light of the world.
When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,John 9:6 f. For what reason Jesus anointed the eyes of the blind man with clay John does not inform us; but this does not justify us in leaving the question unanswered (Brückner). The procedure was certainly not adopted for the purpose of defying the hierarchy (Ewald) because it was the Sabbath, according to which view it would have had nothing to do with the healing itself. At the same time, it was equally far from being of a medicinal nature; for often as spittle was applied in the case of diseases of the eye (see Wetstein and Lightfoot), the means employed bore no proportion to the rapidity with which the cure took place, especially considering that the man was born blind; the same remark applies also to Mark 7:32; Mark 8:23. To treat the anointing with the clay as merely a means of awakening faith (comp. Lücke), or as a test of faith (Calvin), and, consequently, as having a purely psychological effect, is to represent the entire procedure as adopted solely with an eye to appearances, to making an impression on the blind man. On this view, accordingly, the ointment of clay had in itself nothing to do with the cure performed, which is scarcely reconcilable with the truthfulness and dignity of Jesus. Regard for this latter rather compels the assumption that the ointment was the real medium of the cure, and formed an essential part of the act; and that, accordingly, the spittle was the continens of the objective healing virtue, by means of which it came into, and remained actively in contact with, the organism. Comp. Tholuck and Olshausen, who characterize the spittle as the conductor of the healing virtue; Lange also, who, however, conjoins therewith the psychological action referred to above; and even Nonnus, though he draws a very arbitrary distinction, terming the spittle λυσίπονον, and the πηλός, φαεσφόρον. There is nothing against this mode of viewing the matter, in the fact that Jesus used a medium in so few of His miracles of healing, and in so many others employed no medium at all (as also in the case of the blind men of Jericho, Matthew 20:20 ff.; Mark 10:46 ff.); for He must Himself have known when it was necessary and when not, though no clearer insight into the causal connection between the means and the result is vouchsafed to us. We have no authority for attributing to John a view of miracles which regarded them as mysteries, and which prevailed at a later date (De Wette, comp. B. Crusius); for with his christology he, least of all, would find occasion for its adoption; besides, that the procedure followed in the case of this miracle was unique, and thus its speciality was carefully substantiated by the judicial investigation which grew out of the occurrence. According to Baur (comp. Ewald, as above), the miracle was performed in this circumstantial way in order that it might wear the appearance of a work done on the Sabbath; the supposition, however, is incorrect, if for no other reason, because the healing by itself, apart altogether from the circumstances attending it, was a breaking of the Sabbath. Baur, indeed, regards the whole narrative, notwithstanding the remarkable circumstantiality and naive liveliness which mark it, as an invention; so also Strauss, Weiss, comp. the note after John 9:41. In harmony with his view of the figurative design of the entire healing, Luthardt (comp. also Godet) interprets the anointing with clay to mean: “He must become blind who wishes to receive sight” (the sending to the pool of Siloam being intended to typify the ἔρχεσθαι πρὸς αὐτόν, John 3:20 f.). But interpretations of this sort have no warrant in the text, and furnish at the same time unintentional support to the unhistorical view of those who treat the narrative as the mere vehicle of an idea,—a remark which holds good against Hengstenberg, who, like Erasmus and others, regards πηλός, after Genesis 2:7, as the symbol of creative influence, although in this case we have only to do with an opening of the eyes (John 9:10; John 9:14), and that by means of a subsequent washing away of the πηλός.
καὶ ἐπέχρισεν αὐτοῦ τ. πηλὸν ἐπὶ τ. ὀφθ. τ. τυφλοῦ] According to this reading (see the critical note), ΑὐΤΟῦ must be referred to the spittle of Jesus; He rubbed the ointment made of it and the clay on the eyes of the blind man.
εἰς τὴν κολυμβ.] not dependent on ὝΠΑΓΕ (comp. on Matthew 2:23), which is not connected with ΝΊΨΑΙ even by a ΚΑΊ (against Lücke and Winer), but: Into the pool of Siloam, so that the πηλός is washed away into the pool by the process of cleansing which takes place on the edge of the basin. Comp. on the pregnancy of this mode of expression, Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 10; Winer, p. 387 [E. T. p. 517]).
On the Pool Siloam (Fountain, Isaiah 8:6; Luke 13:4 : Pool, Nehemiah 3:15) and its doubtful situation,—which, however, Robinson (II. p. 142 ff.), following Josephus, re-discovered at the entrance of the Tyropoeum Valley, on the south-east side of Zion,—see Tobler, d. Siloahquelle u. d. Oelberg, 1852, p. 1 ff.; Rödiger in Gesen. Thes. III. p. 1416; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p. 371 ff. The expression κολυμβ. τοῦ Σιλ. denotes the pool formed by the fountain Siloam (ὁ Σιλ., Luke 13:4; Isaiah 8:6).
The washing in the pool of Siloam is no more to be regarded as a medicinal prescription than the application of the πηλός (the Rabbinical traces of a healing virtue of the water relate to the digestive organs, see Schoettgen), but was required by Jesus for the purpose of allowing the clay the necessary time for producing its effect, and, at the same time, this particular water, the pool of Siloam, was mentioned as being nearest to the scene of the action (in the vicinity of the temple, John 8:59, John 9:1), and as certainly also well known to the blind man. According to Lange, L. J. p. 635, the intention of Jesus, in prescribing the sacred fountain of the temple, was to set manifestly forth the co-operation of Jehovah in this repeated Sabbath act. But neither John nor the discussion that follows in John 9:13 ff.—in the course of which, indeed, the pool is not once mentioned—betray the slightest trace of this supposed mystery. This also in answer to the meaning imported by Godet into the text, that Siloam is represented as the type of all the blessings of which Christ is the reality, so that, in the form of an action, Christ says, “Ce que Siloé est typiquement, je le suis en réalité.” This does not at all harmonize with the narrative; in fact, on such a view, the confused notion would result, that the true Siloam sent the blind man to the typical Siloam in order to the completion of his cure,—that the Antitype, in other words, sent him to the Type!
ἀπεσταλμένος] The name שִׁילוֹחַ (which even the LXX. and Josephus give in Greek as ΣΙΛΩΆΜ) denotes originally missio (sc. aquarum), i.e. outflow; but John, adopting a typical etymology, renders it directly שָׁלוּחַ, missus, which in itself was grammatically allowable, either after the analogy of יִלּוֹד (see Hitzig on Isaiah 8:6), so that the word would be a strengthened particip. Kal with a passive signification, or, in virtue of the resolution of the dagesh forte in the particip. Piel into yod (see Tholuck, Beiträge zur Spracherklär. p. 120 ff.; Ewald, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. §156 a.). He thus finds, namely, in the name of the pool, a noteworthy typical reference, not indeed to Christ, the messenger of God, the true Siloam (as Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Corn. a Lapide, and many other earlier commentators, also Schweizer, Ebrard, Luthardt, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Hengstenberg, Brückner, Godet maintain), but to the circumstance that the blind man was sent to this pool by Christ. The pool of שלוח has the “nomen et omen” of this sending away. The context naturally suggests nothing further than this. Nonnus aptly remarks: ὝΔΩΡ ΣΤΕΛΛΟΜΈΝΟΙΟ ΠΡΟΏΝΥΜΟΝ ἘΚ ΣΈΟ ΠΟΜΠῆς. Comp. Euth. Zigabenus: ΔΙᾺ ΤῸΝ ἈΠΕΣΤΑΛΜΈΝΟΝ ἘΚΕῖ ΤΌΤΕ ΤΥΦΛΌΝ. It is arbitrary with Wassenberg and Kuinoel to pronounce the entire parenthesis spurious (it is absent only in Syr. and Pers. p.), a view to which Lücke also inclined, out of regard for John. But why should a fondness for typical etymologies have been foreign to John? Comp. the much more peculiar example of Paul in Galatians 4:25. Such things leave the pneumatic character of the evangelist unaffected.
ἈΠῆΛΘΩΝ] which he, being well acquainted with the neighbourhood, was able to do without any one to take him by the hand, ΤΥΦΛῷ ΠΟΔΊ (Eur. Hec. 1050), as, indeed, many blind men are able in like manner to find their way about alone.
ἦλθε] namely, to his dwelling, as is indicated by the words οἱ οὖν γείτονες which follow. Jesus did not meet him again till John 9:35.
 Erasmus, Paraphr.: “paternum videlicet ac suum verius opificium referens, quo primum hominem ex argilla humore macerata finxerat. Ejusdem autem erat auctoris restituere quod perierat, qui condiderat quod non erat.” So substantially, also, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, and several others. Comp. also Iren. 5. 15.
 Note the naive, attractive circumstantiality which is characteristic of the entire narrative.
 Not to the fact that in ἀπεσταλμ., which would denote “freely flowing, streaming,” a deliverance from certain evils was found, as Ewald supposes. It is quite a mistake to suppose any allusion to the water of baptism (Calovius, after Ambrose, Jerome, and others); as also to identify the name with שלה in Genesis 49:6 (Grotius). The simple and correct view is taken also by Bengel, De Wette, and several others; by Baeumlein with hesitation.
And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?John 9:8-12. Καὶ οἱ θεωροῦντες, etc.] And they who before had seen him that he was a beggar, the previous eye-witnesses of his being a beggar. The καί gives the force of universality: and in general; the partic. praes. has the force of the imperfect.
ὁ καθημ. κ. προσαιτ.] who is accustomed to sit there and beg. They had known him for a long while as occupied in no other way than in begging.
The peculiarly vivid and detailed character of what follows renders it probable that John derived his information from the lips of the man himself after he had become a believer.
John 9:11. ἄνθρωπος λεγομ. Ἰησοῦς] “nescierat caecus celebritatem Jesu,” is the opinion of Bengel and others. But he must surely have learnt something more regarding his deliverer than His mere name. The quondam blind man conducts himself rather throughout the whole affair in a very impartial and judicious manner, and for the present keeps to the simple matter of fact, without as yet venturing on a further judgment.
ἀνέβλεψα] may signify, I looked up (Mark 16:4; 2Ma 7:25; Plat. Pol. vii. p. 515 C; Ax. p. 370 C; Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 9). So Lücke; but this meaning is inadmissible on account of John 9:15; John 9:18, which require, I became again seeing, visum recepi. Comp. Matthew 11:5; Tob 14:2; Plat. Phaedr. p. 243 B. As regards the man born blind, indeed, the expression is inexact, but rests on the general notion that even one born blind has the natural power of sight, though he has been deprived of its use from his very birth, and that he recovers it through the healing.
That the man is able to give, at all events, the name of his benefactor, is intelligible enough from the inquiries which he would naturally institute after he had been healed. But the circumstance that whilst at the outset he expresses no opinion regarding the person of Jesus (see previously on ἄνθρ. λεγ. Ἰησ.), he notwithstanding afterwards declares Him to be a Prophet (John 9:17), and One sent of God (John 9:33), though he was first brought by Jesus Himself to believe in Him as the Messiah in John 9:35 ff., is entirely in keeping with the gradual nature of the development through which he passed. Such a gradation is, indeed, natural and necessary in some cases, whereas others differently constituted are at once carried to the goal by the force of the first impression received. This in opposition to Baur’s supposition that the narrator designedly so framed his account that the miracle should be viewed as an ἔργον θεοῦ primarily in its pure objectivity.
εἰς τὸν Σιλωάμ] here the name of the pool; hence, the Rec. has εἰς τ. κολυμβ. τ. Σιλ.,—a correct gloss.
 Comp. Grotius: “Nec male recipere quis dicitur, quod communiter tributum humanae naturae ipsi abfuit.” In Pausanias, also (Messen. iv. p. 240), we read of one who was born blind and received sight, ἀνέβλεψε. Comp. Evang. Nicod. 6, where the man born blind who there speaks says: ἐπέθηκε τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ τ. ὀφθαλμούς μου, καὶ ἀνέβλεψα παραχρῆμα.
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
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 washed, and I received sight.
Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.John 9:13 f. Ἄγουσιν] These belong still to the persons designated in John 9:8. They act thus because the healing had taken place on the Sabbath (John 9:14), the violation of which they, in their servile dependence, believed it to be their duty not to conceal from the guardians of the law who ruled over the people. It does not, however, follow, from the fact that there were no sittings of the courts on the Sabbath, that the man was not brought on the day of the healing (so Lücke and several others suppose), but that by πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισ. is meant neither the Sanhedrim (Tholuck, Baeumlein), nor a synagogal court (Lücke, Lange), of which, moreover, the text contains no notice (comp. John 7:45, John 11:47). Especially must it be remembered that in John the Sanhedrim is never simply designated οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (not even John 7:47), but always οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κ. οἱ Φαρισ., or (John 7:32) in the reverse order. The Pharisees as a corporate body are meant, and a number of them might easily have come together at one of their houses to form a kind of sitting.
τὸν ποτὲ τυφλ.] A more precise definition of αὐτόν; see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 342 [E. T. p. 400].
John 9:14 assigns the reason why they bring him.
τὸν πηλόν] the clay in question.
 Of such subordinate courts with twenty-three members there were two in Jerusalem. See Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 601.
And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.John 9:15-16. Πάλιν] Glancing back at the same question asked by others (hence καὶ οἱ Φαρ.) in John 9:10.
πηλὸν, etc.] a clay He laid on mine eyes (μου ἐπὶ τ. ὀφθ.), etc. Comp. on John 11:32. Note how the man only states what he himself felt; hence there is no mention of the spittle. Compare already John 9:11.
ὅτι τὸ σάββ. οὐ τηρεῖ] A Rabbinical precept specially forbids the anointing of the eyes with spittle on the Sabbath. Maimonides Schabb. 21. Even if this were not yet in existence or recognised as binding, still the general principle was admitted that healing should take place on the Sabbath solely in case of danger to life (Schoettgen and Wetstein ad Matthew 12:9).
ἄλλοι] who judged more candidly and conscientiously. Grotius well remarks: “Qui nondum occaluerant.” They conclude from the miraculous element in the healing, so far as it implied a special divine help, which would not be vouchsafed to a sinner who disregarded God’s commands, that there must be something peculiar in this action performed on the Sabbath, rendering it unfair to pass the judgment in question on its performer without further consideration.
The Hyperbaton in the position, οὐκ ἐστὶν οὗτος παρὰ θεο͂ ὁ ἄνθρ., serves to lay stronger emphasis first on οὗτος, and then on παρὰ θεοῦ. Comp. in general Bernhardy, p. 460.
σχίσμα] comp. John 7:43.
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.
They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.John 9:17. As there was such a difference of views among those who were assembled, they feel it to be of importance to ascertain the opinion of the man who had been healed. It might lead to further light being thrown on the affair. The subject of λέγουσιν is οἱ Φαρισ., neither the hostile among them merely (Apollinarius and many others), nor the well-wishers alone (Chrysostom and his followers).
πάλιν] a repetition of the question after John 9:15.
ὅτι] εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι; see on John 2:18. Theodore of Mopsuestia well remarks: ὑπὲρ ὧν.
προφήτης] who had shown Himself to be such by this miracle. Comp. John 3:2, John 4:19, John 6:14, al. Thus the faith of the man became clear and confirmed by the controversy of the Pharisees. And he makes confession of what he up to this time believes.
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.John 9:18. Observe that the mere verb is not again employed, nor even οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, but οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, i.e. the hostile hierarchical party among the assembled Pharisees, which now carries on further proceedings. Comp. John 9:22.
οὐκ ἐπίστ. placed emphatically at the beginning of the verse.
οὖν as the healed man had declared Him to be a prophet. They now suspected the existence of a fraudulent understanding between the two.
ἕως ὅτου] till they called, etc. Then first, after these had come and made their declaration, were they unable any longer to call the cure in question (John 9:26; John 9:34).
αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναβλέψ.] of him who had himself again become seeing, concerning whom his own parents must surely know best.
And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?John 9:19-21. To the two questions put in John 9:19 exactly corresponding answers are returned in John 9:20-21; the second, however, twice nesciendo.
ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε] opposed to the personal unbelief of the questioners; ὅν as in John 6:71.
πῶς] how does it happen that?
οὖν] as it is alleged that he was born blind.
John 9:20. πῶς δὲ ἄρτι βλέπει, ἀγνοεῖν λέγουσι, φοβούμενοι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους. Ἔξω κινδύνου καθιστῶντες ἑαυτοὺς, ἐπὶ τὸν τεθεραπευμένον παραπέμπουσι τὴν ἐρώτησιν, ὡς ἀξιοπιστότερον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ ζητήματι, Euth. Zigabenus.
ἡμεῖς] opposed to the αὐτός … αὐτόν … αὐτός, afterwards thrice repeated, and asyndetically, with passionate emphasis. ἡλικίαν ἔχει] he himself is of full age; comp. Herod. 3. 36, 7. 18; Thuc. 8. 75; Polyb. 9. 23. 9, al. See Kypke, I. p. 387; Loesner, p. 150.
αὐτὸς περὶ αὐτοῦ] he will himself speak concerning himself. αὐτοῦ with the Spir. lenis. Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 97 f. [E. T. p. 112]).
His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
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.
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.John 9:22. ʼΉδη γὰρ συνετέθ.] for—so great cause had they for that fear—the Jews had already agreed, had already come to an understanding with each other; conspiraverant, Vulgate. Comp. Luke 22:5; Acts 23:20; Thuc. 4. 19; 1Ma 9:70; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 340. The context does not justify the assumption of a decree of the Sanhedrim to that effect. The hope, however, was cherished of being able without difficulty to convert the arrangement in question into a decree of the Sanhedrim; and the parents of the blind man might easily have come to know of this. We can easily understand that they should prefer exposing their son rather than themselves to this danger, since they must have been certain that he would not for the sake of his benefactor refuse to make the dangerous confession.
ἵνα] that which they had agreed on is conceived as the intention of their agreement. Comp. ἀξιοῦν ἵνα in Dem. de Cor. 155 (see Dissen on the passage), and Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 62, ed. 3.
ἀποσυνάγ. γέν.] Exclusion from the fellowship of the synagogue, and in connection therewith from the common intercourse of life, was probably at this time the sole form of excommunication. See on Luke 6:22.
Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
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.John 9:24-25. Δὸς δόξαν τ. θεῷ] “Speciosa praefatio,” Bengel; for they expect a declaration prejudicial to Jesus, such as the man had hitherto refused to make, and therefore employ this sacred and binding requirement to declare the truth, by which God would be honoured, inasmuch as to speak the truth was to show reverence to Him. Comp. Joshua 7:19; Esr. John 10:11; John 3 Esr. John 9:8.
ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, etc.] This assertion of hierarchical authority (ἡμεῖς with emphasis) was intended to overawe the man, and give a bias to his judgment. In vain. With cautious reticence he prudently refers them simply to what had actually happened; this alone was known to him (comp. Soph. O. C. 1103: οὐκ οἶδα πλὴν ἕν); but not whether, etc.
τυφλὸς ὤν] being blind, namely, in his natural state, from birth. Comp. John 3:13.
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.
Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?John 9:26-27. As they are unable to attain their end, they return to the question as to the How? (comp. John 9:15) in order conclusively to establish the fact in the course of this second examination of the man. He, however, with his straightforward, honest mind (ἀνὴρ ἀδόνητος, Nonnus), becomes irritated, and even embittered, at this repeated interrogation.
καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε] is taken as a declaration: and ye have not listened thereto (taken heed). It would correspond better, however, to the naive character of the man, and to the liveliness of his irritation, as also to the succeeding ἀκούειν, which denotes simply “hear,” if we were to take it as a question: And have you not heard it?
τί] why, as you surely must have heard it.
μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς] surely not you also, like others. To the θέλειν, etc., would correspond the effort to be convinced of the reality of the miracle that had been performed. Chrysostom, Bengel, and several others, consider that καί indicates that the blind man confessed himself to be one of His disciples, or that it was his intention to become one. His development, however, had not yet advanced so far. See John 9:35-36. But that his benefactor had disciples about Him (John 9:2), he must certainly have learnt from others.
He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.John 9:28-29. Ἐλοιδόρ.] as preliminary to the following words. Passionate outburst in an unrighteous cause.
σὺ εἶ μαθʼ ἐκ.] They had been unable to get out of him any declaration against Jesus, and regarded his behaviour, therefore, as a taking part with Christ. Bengel aptly remarks on ἐκείνου: “Hoc vocabulo removent Jesum a sese.” Comp. on John 7:11.
John 9:29. ἡμεῖς] once again with proud emphasis.
Μωϋσῇ] has the emphasis in opposition to τοῦτον, which thus receives the more contemptuous a meaning (John 6:42, and often).
πόθεν ἐστιν] i.e. by whom he is sent. Comp. John 8:14.
We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
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.John 9:30-33. The passionateness of the Jews now emboldens the man to make a further confession (John 9:17).
ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ τὸ (see the critical notes) θαυμ. ἐστιν] Why, herein (in this state of the case) is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence He is, and (that) He hath opened mine eyes. The force of the θαυμαστόν lies in καὶ ἀνέῳξε, etc., in virtue of the groundless nature of that ignorance to which actual testimony was thus borne; see John 9:31-33. Concerning a man who has done that, ye ought surely to know, etc. γάρ, “respicit ad ea, quae alter antea dixerat, et continet cum affirmatione conclusionem, quae ex rebus ita comparatis facienda sit,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 242. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 11:22. It is often thus used, especially when “miratio rei aut aliorum incredulitatis adsignificatur,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 332. Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 6.
ὑμεῖς] Ye people, who ought to know this best.
John 9:31. The man now proves to them, onwards to John 9:33, how clearly it is evident from the act of Jesus that He is no sinner (John 9:16), but a pious man, yea, a man sent of God. He begins his proof with a major premiss, which he postulates as universally conceded and known (οἴδαμεν, Job 27:9; Job 35:13; Psalm 66:18; Psalm 109:7; Proverbs 15:29; Isaiah 1:15), and which rests on the idea that miracles are answers to prayer (comp. John 11:41 ff.; Mark 7:34). A sufficient reason for not assuming that Jesus actually pronounced a prayer aloud in performing the miracle (as Ewald thinks), is the silence of John, who would scarcely have omitted this detail from a narrative so minute as this. John 9:32. Minor premiss; then in John 9:33, conclusion, both in popular form.
οὐδέν] effect nothing—is restricted by the connection to miraculous deeds such as the one here recorded.
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.John 9:34. Thou wert born with thy whole nature laden with sin, so that nothing in thee is pure from sins; but thou art entirely, through and through, a born reprobate. They entertain the same prejudice regarding sinfulness before birth (not of the parents) to which the disciples had previously given expression (John 9:2), and make here a spiteful application thereof. Comp. on ὍΛΟς, John 13:10. The notion of “heightened original sin” (Hengstenberg, after Psalm 51:7) is not appropriate to the connection, as the inference from being born blind implies ἁμαρτίας committed before birth.
Note the contemptuous emphasis of the ΣΎ … ΣΎ.
ΔΙΔΆΣΚ. ἩΜ.] The emphasis rests here, not on ΔΙΔΆΣΚ., but on ἩΜᾶς: dost thou comport thyself as our teacher?
ἐξέβαλ. αὐτ. ἔξω] not a designation of excommunication (Olshausen, De Wette, Tholuck, Baeumlein, and many older commentators), as no sitting of the Sanhedrim had taken place; and, besides, how indefinite a mode of designating the matter would it be! although ἐκβάλλειν is frequently used by Thucydides, Xenophon, and others to denote exile. Comp. also 3 John, John 9:10. As the context suggests nothing else, and as there is not a hint of a sentence of excommunication, which might perhaps have been pronounced a few days later in the synagogue (Ewald), we must simply explain: they cast him out. Significant enough as the final result of the hostile and passionate discussion. Comp. Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Theophylact, who, however, transfers the scene to the temple. The remark of Maldonatus is correct: “ex loco, in quo erant.” Comp. Bengel, Dem. 1366. 11; Acts 7:58.
 Nonnus: σύγγονος ἀμπλακίησιν ἐμαιώθης ὅλος ἀνήρ.
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?John 9:35-36. The inner connection is formed, not by the thought that Jesus, when He had heard, etc., wished to confer on the man rich compensation (Chrysostom and several others); but, as the question πιστεύεις, etc., shows (thou believest on the Son of God? which presupposes an affirmative reply), Jesus heard of his being cast out, inferred therefrom that the man had confessed Him to be the Messiah, and therefore asked when He met him, etc. The conclusion which Jesus arrived at was substantially correct; for he who had been born blind had confessed regarding Him that He was παρὰ θεοῦ, although the man did not yet consciously associate with this more general predicate a definite reference to the Messiah. Lücke finds in πιστεύεις merely the inclination to believe; were this, however, its force, we must have had θέλεις πιστεύειν, or some other similar mode of expression. Like πιστεύω in John 9:38, πιστεύεις here also denotes actual faith, namely, in the manifested Messiah.
The words τὸν υἱὸν τ. θεοῦ must be taken, not in their metaphysical (Olshausen, Ebrard), but simply in their theocratic signification (comp. John 1:50), as the man who had been born blind, to whose notions Jesus had to accommodate Himself, could and did only understand this at the time. That Jesus, however, on His side, and for Himself, entertained the higher view, must be taken for granted.
John 9:36. Surprised by this question, and quickly taking it as a point of connection, the man puts a counter-question, which was designed to show that he is unable as yet to believe in the Messiah, though ready to do so as soon as he shall know Him. With regard to καὶ τίς ἐστι, comp. John 14:22, and on Mark 10:26.
ἵνα] Design of the inquiry, as in John 1:22.
 τ. υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (see the critical notes) Jesus could not have expected the blind man to understand, as included in this question.
He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.John 9:37-38. Καὶ … καὶ] thou hast actually seen Him, and, etc. Comp. on John 6:36. The substantial meaning of the second clause is: and hearest Him speak with thee; but it has a more concrete and lively turn.
ἑώρακας] refers to the present interview, not to a former one; for he had not seen Jesus whilst the act of healing was being performed, and he had not returned to Him from Siloam (see on John 9:7). The use of the perf. as the present, of completed action (thou hast a view of Him), need not surprise (Bernhardy, p. 378).
ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν] ἐκεῖνος is not predicate (Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift, 1859, p. 416); but, as John’s very favourite manner is, subject, demonstratively comprehending the foregoing participial designation of the same, as in John 1:18; John 1:33, John 5:11. Comp. 2 Corinthians 10:18. So also in the Classics, although they more frequently use οὗτος in this way (see Krüger on Thuc. 2. 15. 4). The connection alone, then, shows whether the person intended is some one else, or, as in this case, and in John 9:35, the speaker himself, who presents himself objectively as a third person, and thus introduces himself to the individual addressed with special emphasis. At the same time, the force of ἐκεῖνος is not thus transformed into that of idem or ipse.
κύριε] “jam augustiore sensu ita dicit, quam dixerat,” John 9:36, Bengel.
προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ] John uses προσκυνεῖν solely of divine worship, John 4:20 ff., John 12:20. The man was seized by the feeling—as yet indeed vague and indistinct—of the divine δόξα, the bearer of which, the Messiah, the object of his newly awakened faith and confession, stands before him. The higher conception of ὁ υἱὸς τ. θεοῦ has struck him.
 In relation to the erroneous assertion that ἐκεῖνος in John 19:35 betrays an author different from the Apostle John (see on the passage), the Johannine use of the word was discussed at length by Steitz in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 497 ff.; Buttmann in the same journal for 1860, p. 505 ff.; and then again by Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1861, p. 368 ff. These controversial discussions (see, finally, Steitz in Hilgenfeld’s ZeitsChr. 1862, p. 264 ff.) were in so far unnecessary, as the use of ἐκεῖνος in John does not deviate from the genuine Greek usage; and as the context of John 19:35 shows, as clearly as that of the present passage that the person who speaks is pointed to, being presented objectively as though he were a third person.
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.John 9:39. An Oxymoron, to which Jesus (comp. 1 Corinthians 1:18 ff.), seeing at His feet the man born blind, and now endued not only with bodily, but also with spiritual sight, gives utterance with profound emotion, addressing Himself, moreover, not to any one particular person (hence εἶπεν without the addition of a person, comp. John 1:29; John 1:36), but to those around Him in general. From among these the Pharisees then (John 9:40) come forward to reply. The compact, pregnant sentence is uttered irrespectively of the man who had been blind, who also in a higher sense appears in John 9:36 as still μὴ βλέπων, and in ver 38 as βλέπων.
εἰς κρῖμα] telically, i.e. to this end, as is clear from the more exact explanation ἵνα, etc., that follows. This κρῖμα is an end, though not the ultimate end, of the appearance of Jesus. He came to bring about, as a matter of fact, a judicial decision; He came, namely, in order that, by means of His activity, those who see not might see, i.e. in order that those who are conscious of the lack of divine truth (comp. the poor in spirit in Matthew 5:3) might be illumined thereby, and they who see might become blind (not merely: appareant caeci, as Grotius and several others explain), i.e. those who fancy themselves to be in possession of divine truth (comp. Luke 11:52; Matthew 11:25; Romans 2:19; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 3:18), might not become participators therein; but (comp. Isaiah 6:9 f.) be closed, blinded, and hardened against it (like the self-conceited Pharisees). The point of the saying lies in this: that οἱ μὴ βλέποντες is subjective, and βλέπωσι objective; whereas οἱ βλέποντες is subjective, and τυφλοὶ γένωνται objective.
κρῖμα is neither merely separation (Castalio, Corn. a Lapide, Kuinoel, De Wette, and several others), nor equivalent to κατάκρισις (Ammonius, Euth. Zigabenus, Olshausen); but what Christ here says regarding Himself is a matter of fact, a retributive judicial arrangement, affecting both sides according to the position they take up relatively to Him. Hence there is no contradiction with John 3:17, John 8:15, John 12:47. Comp. also Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 186 f. If, with Godet, we understand οἱ μὴ βλέποντες and ΟἹ ΒΛΈΠΟΝΤΕς of those who have not and those who have the knowledge of the Jewish law, we must refer ΒΛΈΠΩΣΙ and ΤΥΦΛΟΊ to the divine truth which Christ reveals. A twofold relation is thus introduced, to which the words λέγετε ὅτι βλέπομεν, John 9:41, are also opposed.
 On this accentuation of κρῖμα, see Lobeck, Paral, p. 418; comp., however, Lipsius, grammat. Unters. I. p. 40.—The word itself is used by John only in this place. It denotes, not the trial which is held, the judicial procedure (κρίσις), but its result, the judicial sentence which is pronounced, the decision of the court, what is judicially measured out, etc. Hence κρῖμα λαμβάνειν, βαστάζειν, etc.
 It is true, indeed, that the μὴ βλέποντες are susceptible, and the βλέποντες unsusceptible; but this was not determined by the consideration that the former believed without seeing, whilst the latter refused to believe, notwithstanding all they had seen of Jesus (see Baur, p. 179); on the contrary, the susceptibility of the one and the unsusceptibility of the other were rooted in their inner relation to Christ, which is necessarily moral, and the result of free self-determination. Indeed, against the view now controverted, ver. 41 alone is decisive, apart even from the mysterious designation of the matter by a circumstance occurring in connection with it. Comp. Delitzsch, Psych. p. 162.—On μὴ βλέπειν, to be blind, comp. Soph. O. C. 73; O. R. 302; see also Xen. Mem. i. 3. 4. On τυφλός in the figurative sense, see Soph. O. R. 371.
And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?John 9:40. Pharisees were no doubt in His company, whose object was to mark all the more carefully His further behaviour after the performance of the miracle, not apostate disciples of Jesus (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), or adherents of a Pharisaic spirit (Lange). See John 10:6; John 10:21. They imagine that, in conformity with the opinion which Jesus entertains regarding them, He must needs reckon them among the μὴ βλέποντες; and they fail altogether to perceive that, according to the sense in which He used the expression,—which, however, they do not understand,
He must include them among the βλέποντες. That they, the wise men of the nation, should be μὴ βλέποντες or τυφλοί (comp. Matthew 15:14), seems to them, in their conceit, so astonishing and singular, that they ask: But we also are surely not blind? The Pharisees did not understand Jesus to be speaking of physical blindness (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others), because otherwise they would certainly not have put such a question.
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.John 9:41. Alas! Jesus intends to say, Ye are not blind. Were ye blind (as I intended the μὴ βλέποντες in John 9:39), that is, people who are conscious of being destitute of the true knowledge, then ye would be without sin, i.e. your unbelief in me would not be sinful, just because it would involve no resistance to divine truth, but would simply imply that ye had not yet attained thereunto, a result for which ye were not to blame. But now ye assert we see (profess to be possessors of divine truth); the consequence whereof is, that your sin remaineth (is not removed), i.e. that your unbelief in me not only is sinful, but also this, your sin continues to exist, remains undestroyed (ἀνεξάλειπτος μένει, Theodoret, Heracleon), because your conceit is a perpetual ground for rejecting me, so that you cannot attain to faith and the forgiveness of sin. “Dicendo videmus, medicum non quaeritis,” Augustine. “Si diceretis: caeci sumus, visum peteretis et peccatum jam desiisset,” Bengel. According to Lücke (so also substantially Baeumlein), whom J. Müller follows (Lehre v. d. Sünde, I. p. 286, ed. 5), the meaning is: “Were you blind, i.e. without the capability of knowledge, there would be no sin (guilt) in your unbelief; you would then be unable to believe with knowledge. But so long as you say, notwithstanding all your blindness, We see, and therefore do not put away your conceited self-deception, so long your unbelief cannot depart, but must remain.” Against this view are the following objections: 1. Τυφλοί, because answering to ΜῊ ΒΛΈΠΟΝΤΕς in John 9:39, cannot denote incapacity for knowledge; 2. The antithesis λέγετε ὅτι βλέπ. suggests for ΤΥΦΛΟΊ, not the objective, but the subjective meaning; 3. ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ is thus taken in different senses in the two halves. Other imported meanings are: Were you blind, like the multitude which you regard as blind, perhaps you would have no sin, etc. (Ewald, as though besides ἄν John had written also ΤΆΧΑ or ἼΣΩς); or (Hengstenberg), if ye suffered merely from the simple blindness of the human race, which is blind from birth, ye would have no sin of decisive significance, no unpardonable sin; as though there were the slightest reference to anything of the kind! Substantially correct are Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, and several others; comp. Luthardt and Ebrard; still ΟὐΚ ἊΝ ΕἼΧ. ἉΜ. ought not to be transposed into, “then would your sin forgive you.” The explanation of Godet is a natural consequence of his interpretation of John 9:39, but founders on the words λέγετε ὅτι βλέπομεν.
 Not, physically blind, as Nonnus, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others here, as well as in ver. 40, after the example of Chrysostom, wrongly understand.
 Not, “The sin remains yours” (Ewald). Comp. John 15:16.
 “S’ils appartenaient à la multitude ignorante, leur incrédulité à l’égard de Jésus pourrait n’être qu’une affaire d’entraînement (it would be merely a sin against the Son of man); mais éclairés, comme ils le sont, par la connaissance de la parole de Dieu, c’est sciemment, qu’ils rejettent le Messie” (this is a sin against the Holy Ghost). In this case, however, Jesus must have said: νῦν δὲ βλέπετε, not νῦν δὲ λέγετε ὁτι βλέπομεν, which Godet, it is true, regards merely as an allusion to the question in ver. 40; whilst in reality it is the key to the correct understanding of the entire passage.
The absence from the Synoptics of the miracle performed on the man born blind ought to have found its explanation simply in the circumstance that it did not take place in the (Galilean) sphere of the synoptic narrative, and ought not to have been made the ground of an attack on its historical credibility, as was done by Strauss (who compares the healing of Naaman in 2 Kings 5:10); by Weisse (who derives the narrative, by means of a misunderstanding, from John 9:39); and by Baur (who regards this story as the intensified expression of the healings of the blind recorded by the synoptists, p. 245 f.); whilst Gfrörer, on the contrary, content with asserting the presence of unhistorical additions, comes to a conclusion disadvantageous to the synoptists.
According to Baur (p. 176 ff.), the narrative of the miracle was definitely and intentionally shaped, so as to set forth faith in its pure objectivity, the susceptibility to the divine as it is affected by the pure impression of the divine element in the ἔργα θεοῦ, even when it is not yet aware who is the subject of these ἔργα. “It clings to the thing itself; and the thing itself is so immediately divine, that in the thing, without knowing it, one has also the person.” In such wise are arbitrary, and not even relevant (see Brückner), abstractions from history converted into the ground of history. Ammon makes the occurrence a natural healing of an inflammation of the eyes! a counterpart to the converse travesty of some of the Fathers, who express the opinion that the blind man lacked eyes altogether, and that Jesus formed them out of the πηλός, as God at first formed man from the earth (see especially Irenaeus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nonnus); comp. on John 9:6 f.