{"commentary":{"id":"adam-clarke","name":"Adam Clarke Bible Commentary","website":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Adam Clarke Bible Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"92e28c9363c876d215e296f2fe04abb3ab7e34a2aacebdf06bd62ae79c6e3dba","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":57,"totalNumberOfChapters":854,"totalNumberOfVerses":13318,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"JHN","commentaryId":"adam-clarke","name":"John","commonName":"John","introduction":"Preface to the Gospel According to St. JohnWith A Short Account of His Life John, the writer of this Gospel, was the son of a fisherman named Zebedee, and his mother's name was Salome. Compare Mat 27:56, with Mar 15:40, and Mar 16:1. His father Zebedee was probably of Bethsaida, and with his sons James and John followed his occupation on the sea of Galilee. The call of these two brothers to the apostleship is related, Mat 4:21, Mat 4:22; Mar 1:19, Mar 1:20; Luk 5:1-10. John is generally supposed to have been about 25 years of age when he began to follow our Lord. Theophylact makes him one of the relatives of our Lord, and gives his genealogy thus: \"Joseph, the husband of the blessed Mary, had seven children by a former wife, four sons and three daughters-Martha, (perhaps, says Dr. Lardner, it should be Mary), Esther, and Salome, whose son John was; therefore Salome was reckoned out Lord's sister, and John was his nephew.\" If this relationship did exist, it may have been, at least in part, the reason of several things mentioned in the Gospels: as the petition of the two brothers for the two chief places in the kingdom of Christ; John's being the beloved disciple and friend of Jesus, and being admitted to some familiarities denied to the rest, and possibly performing some offices about the person of his Master; and, finally, our Lord's committing to him the care of his mother, as long as she should survive him. In a MS. of the Greek Testament in the Imperial Library of Vienna, numbered 34 in Lambecius's Catalogue, there is a marginal note which agrees pretty much with the account given above by Theophylact: viz. \"John the evangelist was cousin to our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh: for Joseph, the spouse of the God-bearing virgin, had four sons by his own wife, James, Simon, Jude, and Joses, and three daughters, Esther, and Thamar, and a third who, with her mother, was called Salome, who was given by Joseph in marriage to Zebedee: of her, Zebedee begot James, and John also the evangelist.\" The writer of the MS. professes to have taken this account from the commentaries of St Sophronius. This evangelist is supposed by some to have been the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana in Galilee: see Joh 2:1. John was with our Lord in his transfiguration on the mount, Mat 17:2; Mar 9:2; Luk 9:28; during his agony in the garden, Mat 26:37; Mar 14:33; and when he was crucified, Joh 19:26. He saw our Lord expire upon the cross, and saw the soldier pierce his side with a spear, Joh 19:34, Joh 19:35. He was one of the first of the disciples that visited the sepulchre after the resurrection of Christ; and was present with the other disciples, when Jesus showed himself to them on the evening of the same day on which he arose; and likewise eight days after, Joh 20:19-29. In conjunction with Peter, he cured a man who had been lame from his mother's womb, for which he was cast into prison, Act 3:1-10. He was afterwards sent to Samaria, to confer the Holy Ghost on those who had been converted there by Philip the deacon, Acts 8:5-25. St. Paul informs us, Gal 2:9, that John was present at the council of Jerusalem, of which an account is given, Act 15:4, etc. It is evident that John was present at most of the things related by him in his Gospel; and that he was an eye and ear witness of our Lord's labors, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion; crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. After the ascension he returned with the other apostles from mount Olivet to Jerusalem, and took part in all transactions previously to the day of pentecost: on which time, he, with the rest, partook of the mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit, by which he was eminently qualified for the place he afterwards held in the apostolic Church. Some of the ancients believed that he went into Parthia, and preached the Gospel there; and his first epistle has been sometimes cited under the name of the Epistle to the Parthians. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Origen, and others, assert that he was a long tune in Asia, continuing there till Trajan's time, who succeeded Nerva, a.d. 98. And Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, a.d. 196, asserts that John was buried in that city. Jerome confirms this testimony, and says that John's death happened in the 68th year after our Lord's passion. Tertullian and others say that Domitian having declared war against the Church of Christ, in the 15th year of his reign, a.d. 95, John was banished from Ephesus, and carried to Rome, where he was immersed in a cauldron of boiling oil, out of which however he escaped unhurt; and that afterwards he was banished to the isle of Patmos, in the Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse. Domitian having been slain in a.d. 96, his successor Nerva recalled all the exiles who had been banished by his predecessor; and John is supposed to have returned the next year to Ephesus, being then about ninety years of age. He is thought to have been the only apostle who died a natural death, and to have lived upwards of 100 years. Some say, having completed 100 years, he died the day following. This Gospel is supposed by learned men to have been written about a.d. 68 or 70; by others, a.d. 86; and, by others, a.d. 97; but the most probable opinion is that it was written at Ephesus about the year 86. Jerome, in his comment on Galatians 6, says that John continued preaching when he was so enfeebled with old age that he was obliged to be carried into the assembly; and that, not being able to deliver any long discourse, his custom was to say, in every meeting, My dear children, love one another! The holy virgin lived under his care till the day of her death, which is supposed to have taken place fifteen years after the crucifixion. John is usually painted holding a cup in his hand, with a serpent issuing from it: this took its rise from a relation by the spurious Procorus, who styles himself a disciple of St. John. Though the story is not worth relating, curiosity will naturally wish to be gratified with it. Some heretics had privately poisoned a cup of liquor, with which they presented him; but after he had prayed to God, and made the sign of the cross over it, the venom was expelled, in the form of a serpent! Some of the first disciples of our Lord, misunderstanding the passage, Joh 21:22, Joh 21:23, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? believed that John should never die. Several in the primitive Church were of the same opinion; and to this day his death is doubted by persons of the first repute for piety and morality. Where such doctors disagree, it would be thought presumption in me to attempt to decide; otherwise I should not have hesitated to say that, seventeen hundred years ago he went the way of all flesh, and, instead of a wandering lot in a miserable, perishing world, is now glorified in that heaven of which his writings prove he had so large an anticipation, both before and after the crucifixion of his Lord. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. 24) treats particularly of the order of the Gospels, and especially of this evangelist: his observations are of considerable importance, and deserve a place here. Dr. Lardner has quoted him at large, Works, vol. iv. p. 224. \"Let us,\" says he, \"observe the writings of this apostle which are not contradicted by any. And first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the Gospel according to him, well known to all the Churches under heaven. And that it has been justly placed by the ancients the fourth in order, and after the other three, may be made evident in this manner. Those admirable and truly Divine men, the apostles of Christ, eminently holy in their lives, and, as to their minds, adorned with every virtue, but rude in language, confiding in the Divine and miraculous power bestowed upon them by our Savior, neither knew, nor attempted to deliver the doctrine of their Master with the artifice and eloquence of words. But using only the demonstration of the Divine Spirit, working with them, and the power of Christ performing by them many miracles, they spread the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven all over the world. Nor were they greatly concerned about the writing of books, being engaged in a more excellent ministry, which was above all human power. Insomuch that Paul, the most able of all in the furniture both of words and thoughts, has left nothing in writing, beside some very short (or a very few) epistles; although he was acquainted with innumerable mysteries, having been admitted to the sight and contemplation of things in the third heaven, and been caught up into the Divine Paradise, and there allowed to hear unspeakable words. Nor were the rest of our Savior's followers unacquainted with these things, as the seventy disciples, and many other beside the twelve apostles. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of our Lord, Matthew and John only have left us any memoirs: who too, as we have been informed, were compelled to write by a kind of necessity. For Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other people, delivered to them in their own language the Gospel according to him, by that writing supplying the want of his presence with those whom he was then leaving. And when Mark and Luke had published the Gospels according to them, it is said that John, who all this while had preached by word of mouth, was at length induced to write for this reason. The three first written Gospels being now delivered to all men, and to John himself, it is said that he approved them, and confirmed the truth of their narration by his own testimony; saying there was only wanting a written account of the things done by Christ in the former part, and the beginning of his preaching. And certainly that observation is very true. For it is easy to perceive that the other three evangelists have recorded only the actions of our Savior for one year after the imprisonment of John, as they themselves declare at the beginning of their history. For, after mentioning the forty days' fast, and the succeeding temptation, Matthew shows the time of the commencement of his account in these words: When he had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed out of Judea into Galilee. In like manner, Mark: Now after that John, says he, was cast into prison, Jesus came into Galilee. And Luke, before he begins the account of the acts of Jesus, gives a like hint in this manner: that Herod added yet this, above all, that he shut up John in prison. For these reasons, as is said, the Apostle John was entreated to relate, in the Gospel according to him, the time omitted by the four evangelists, and the things done by our Savior in that space, before the imprisonment of the Baptist; And they add, farther, that he himself hints as much, saying, This beginning of miracles did Jesus: as also in the history of the acts of Jesus he makes mention of the Baptist as still baptizing in Aenon, nigh unto Salem. And it is thought that he expressly declares as much, when he says, For John was not yet cast into prison. John, therefore, in the Gospel according to him, relates the things done by Christ while the Baptist was not yet cast into prison. But the other three evangelists relate the things that followed the Baptist's confinement. Whoever attends to these things will not any longer think the evangelists disagree with each other, forasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first actions of Christ, while the others give the history of the following time. And for the same reason John has omitted the genealogy of our Savior according to the flesh, it having been recorded before by Matthew and Luke; but he begins with his divinity, which had been reserved by the Holy Ghost for him, as the most excellent person.\" The whole of this chapter, with the preceding and following, may be profitably consulted by the reader. See also Lardner, Works, vol. iv. 224, and vi. 156-222. Besides the Gospel before us, John is generally reputed to have been the author of the three epistles which go under his name, and of the Apocalypse. The former certainly breathe the genuine spirit of this apostle; and are invaluable monuments of his spiritual knowledge and deep piety, as well as of his Divine inspiration: as the Gospel and Epistles prove him to have been an evangelist and apostle, his book of Revelations ranks him among the profoundest of the prophets. Learned men are not wholly agreed about the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Some think St. John wrote it in his own native tongue, the Aramean or Syriac, and that it was afterwards translated, by rather an unskilful hand, into Greek. This opinion is not supported by strong arguments. That it was originally written in Greek is the general and most likely opinion. What the design of St. John was, in writing this Gospel, has divided and perplexed many critics and learned divines. Some suppose that it was to refute the errors taught by one Cerinthus, who rose up at that time, and asserted that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was the real son of Joseph and Mary; that, at his baptism, the Christ, what we term the Divine nature, descended into him, in the form of a dove, by whose influence he worked all his miracles; and that, when he was about to suffer, this Christ, or Divine nature, departed from him, and left the man Jesus to suffer death. See Irenaeus, advers. Haereses. Others suppose he wrote with the prime design of confuting the heresy of the Gnostics, a class of mongrels who derived their existence from Simon Magus, and who formed their system out of Heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity; and whose peculiar, involved, and obscure opinions cannot be all introduced in this place. It is enough to know that, concerning the person of our Lord, they held opinions similar to those of Cerinthus; and that they arrogated to themselves the highest degrees of knowledge and spirituality. They supposed that the Supreme Being had all things and beings included, in a certain seminal manner, in himself; and that out of Him they were produced. From God, or Bythos, the infinite Abyss, they derived a multitude of subaltern governors, called Aeons; whom they divided into several classes, among which we may distinguish the following nine. Πατηρ, Father; Χαρις, Grace; Μονογενης, First-begotten; Αληθεια, Truth; Λογος, Word; Φως, Light; Ζωη, Life; Ανθρωπος, Man; and Εκκλησια, Church; all these merging in what they termed Πληρωμα, Fulness, or complete round of being and blessings: terms which are of frequent occurrence in John's Gospel, and which some think he has introduced to fix their proper sense, and to rescue them from being abused by the Gnostics. But this is not very likely, as the Gnostics themselves appealed to St. John's Gospel for a confirmation of their peculiar opinions, because of his frequent use of the above terms. These sentiments, therefore, do not appear to be tenable. Professor Michaelis has espoused the opinion, that it was written against the Gnostics and Sabians, and has advanced several arguments in its favor; the chief of which are the following. \"The plan which St. John adopted, to confute the tenets of the Gnostics and the Sabians, was first to deliver a set of aphorisms, as counterpositions to these tenets; and then to relate such speeches and miracles of Christ as confirmed the truth of what he had advanced. We must not suppose that the confutation of the Gnostic and Sabian errors is confined to the fourteen first verses of St. John's Gospel; for, in the first place, it is evident that many of Christ's speeches which occur in the following part of the Gospel, were selected by the evangelist with a view of proving the positions laid down in these fourteen verses; and, secondly, the positions themselves are not proofs, but merely declarations made by the evangelist. It is true that for us Christians, who acknowledge the Divine authority of St. John, his bare word is sufficient; but as the apostle had to combat with adversaries who made no such acknowledgment, the only method of convincing them was to support his assertion by the authority of Christ himself. \"Some of the Gnostics placed the 'Word' above all the other Aeons, and next to the Supreme Being: but Cerinthus placed the 'Only begotten' first, and then the 'Word.' Now St. John lays down the following positions: - \"1. The Word and the Only begotten are not different, but the same person, Joh 1:14. 'We beheld his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.' This is a strong position against the Gnostics, who usually ascribed all the Divine qualities to the Only begotten. The proofs of this position are: the testimony of John the Baptist, Joh 1:18, Joh 1:34; Joh 3:35, Joh 3:36; the conversation of Christ with Nicodemus, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:18, in which Christ calls himself the only begotten Son; the speech delivered by Christ to the Jews, John 5:17-47; and other passages, in which he calls God his Father. \"2. The Word was never made, but existed from the beginning, Joh 1:1. The Gnostics granted that the Word existed before the creation; but they did not admit that the Word existed from all eternity. The Supreme Being, according to their tenets, and, according to Cerinthus, the only begotten Son likewise, as also the matter from which the world was formed, were prior in existence to the Word. This notion is contradicted by St. John, who asserts that the Word existed from all eternity. As a proof of this position may be alleged perhaps what Christ says, Joh 8:58. \"3. The Word was in the beginning with God, Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2. The Gnostics must have maintained a contrary doctrine, or St. John, in confuting their tenets, would not have thought it necessary to advance this position, since God is omnipresent, and therefore all things are present with him. \"4. The Word was God, Joh 1:1. The expression, God, must be here taken in its highest sense or this position will contain nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Gnostics. For they admitted that the Word was an Aeon, and therefore a deity in the lower sense of the word. The proofs of this position are contained in the 5th, 10th, (Joh 10:30), and 14th (Joh 14:7, Joh 14:11) chapters. \"5. The Word was the creator of all things, Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10. This is one of St. John's principal positions against the Gnostics, who asserted that the world was made by a malevolent being. The assertion, that the Word was the creator of the world, is equivalent to the assertion, that he was God in the highest possible sense. In whatever form or manner we may think of God, the notion of Creator is inseparable from the notion of Supreme Being. We argue from the creation to the Creator; and this very argument is one proof of the existence of God. \"6. In the Word was life, Joh 1:4. The Gnostics, who considered the different attributes or operations of the Almighty, not as so many separate energies, but as so many separate persons, considered Life as a distinct Aeon from the Word. Without this Aeon, the world, they said, would be in a state of torpor; and hence they called it not only Life, but the Mother of the living; from this Aeon, therefore, might be expected the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. The proofs of this position are in Joh 3:15, Joh 3:21; the whole of the sixth, and the greatest part of the eighth chapter, as also Joh 14:6, Joh 14:9, Joh 14:19. But no part of St. John's Gospel is a more complete proof of this position than his full and circumstantial account of the resurrection of Lazarus, which the other evangelists had omitted.\" - See more in Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament. And, for a general account of the Logos, see John 1, at the end. Though it is likely that the Gnostics held all these strange doctrines, and that many parts in John's Gospel may be successfully quoted against them, yet I must own I think the evangelist had a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. It is more likely that he wrote for the express purpose of giving the Jews, his countrymen, proper notions of the Messiah and his kingdom; and to prove that Jesus, who had lately appeared among them, was this Christ. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive, object, and design, in writing this Gospel: These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, ye might have life through his name, Joh 20:31. This is a design as noble as it is simple; and every way highly becoming the wisdom and goodness of God.","order":43,"numberOfChapters":21,"sha256":"628ae5c4b8c08f47357bbfc7e14f738e181b4ec66ea0a55a0281818e135991b4","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/JHN/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"JHN","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":21,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/JHN/21.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"JHN","chapter":21},"totalNumberOfVerses":746},"chapter":{"number":9,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["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?\nMost 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.\nThe 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.\nThe 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!\"\nJosephus, 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":3,"content":["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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":4,"content":["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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":7,"content":["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 Sa2 17:17; and in Kg1 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.\nBy 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["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.\nBeggars 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":9,"content":["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.\nOthers 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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["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. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["Where is he? - They had designed to seize and deliver him up to the Sanhedrin, as a violater of the law, because he had done this on the Sabbath day. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["They brought to the Pharisees - These had the chief rule, and determined all controversies among the people; in every case of religion, their judgment was final: the people, now fully convinced that the man had been cured, brought him to the Pharisees, that they might determine how this was done, and whether it had been done legally. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["It was the Sabbath - Some of the ancient rabbins taught, and they have been followed by some moderns, not much better skilled in physic than themselves, that the saliva is a cure for several disorders of the eyes; but the former held this to be contrary to the law, if applied on the Sabbath. See Lightfoot's Hor. Talm. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["This man is not of God - He can neither be the Messiah, nor a prophet, for he has broken the Sabbath. The Jews always argued falsely on this principle. The law relative to the observation of the Sabbath never forbade any work but what was of the servile and unnecessary kind. Works of necessity and mercy never could be forbidden on that day by him whose name is mercy, and whose nature is love; for the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; were it otherwise, the Sabbath would be rather a curse than a blessing.\nHow can a man that is a sinner, etc. - They knew very well that though magicians and impostors might do things apparently miraculous, yet nothing really good could be performed by them. We might have safely defied all the magicians in Egypt, who are said to have been so successful in imitating some of the miracles of Moses, to have opened the eyes of one blind man, or to have done any essential good either to the body or to the soul.\nAnd there was a division among them - Σχισμα, a schism, a decided difference of opinion, which caused a separation of the assembly. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["He is a prophet - They had intended to lay snares for the poor man, that, getting him to acknowledge Christ for the Messiah, they might put him out of the synagogue, Joh 9:22, or put him to death, that such a witness to the Divine power of Christ might not appear against them. But, as the mercy of God had given him his sight, so the wisdom of God taught him how to escape the snares laid for his ruin. On all thy glory there shall be a defense, says the prophet, Isa 4:5. When God gives any particular mercy or grace, he sends power to preserve it, and wisdom to improve it. The man said, He is a prophet. Now, according to a Jewish maxim, a prophet might dispense with the observation of the Sabbath. See Grotius. If they allow that Jesus was a prophet, then, even in their sense, he might break the law of the Sabbath, and be guiltless: or, if they did not allow him to be a prophet, they must account for the miracle some other way than by the power of God; as from Satan or his agents no good can proceed - to do this it was impossible. So the wisdom of God taught the poor man to give them such an answer as put them into a complete dilemma, from which they could not possibly extricate themselves. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["But the Jews did not believe - All the subterfuge they could use was simply to sin against their conscience, by asserting that the man had not been blind; but out of this subterfuge they were soon driven by the testimony of the parents, who, if tried farther on this subject, might have produced as witness, not only the whole neighborhood, but nearly the whole city: for it appears the man got his bread by publicly begging, Joh 9:8.\nThat he had been blind, and received his sight - This clause is omitted in some MSS., probably because similar words occur immediately after. There is, however, no evidence against it, sufficient to exclude it from the test. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["He is of age - Ἡλικιαν εχει, literally, he has stature, i.e. he is a full-grown man; and in this sense the phrase is used by the best Greek writers. See Kypke and Raphelius. Mature age was fixed among the Jews at thirty years. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["Put out of the synagogue - That is, excommunicated - separated from all religious connection with those who worshipped God. This was the lesser kind of excommunication among the Jews and was termed nidui. The cherem, or anathema, was not used against the followers of Christ till after the resurrection. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["Give God the praise - Having called the man a second time, they proceeded to deal with him in the most solemn manner; and therefore they put him to his oath; for the words above were the form of an oath, proposed by the chief magistrate to those who were to give evidence to any particular fact, or to attest any thing, as produced by or belonging to the Lord. See Jos 7:19; Sa1 6:5, and Luk 17:18. But, while they solemnly put him to his oath, they endeavored to put their own words in his mouth, viz. he is a sinner - a pretender to the prophetic character, and a transgressor of the law of God: - assert this, or you will not please us. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":25,"content":["Whereas I was blind, now I see - He pays no attention to their cavils, nor to their perversion of justice; but, in the simplicity of his heart, speaks to the fact, of the reality of which he was ready to give them the most substantial evidence. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":27,"content":["I have told you already - So he did, Joh 9:15. And did ye not hear? Ye certainly did. Why then do you wish to hear it again? Is it because ye wish to become his disciples? The poor man continued steady in his testimony; and, by putting this question to them, he knew he should soon put an end to the debate. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":28,"content":["Then they reviled him - Ελοιδορησαν. Eustathius derives λοιδορια from λογος, a word, and δορυ, a spear: - they spoke cutting, piercing words. Solomon talks of some who spoke like the piercings of a sword, Pro 12:18. And the psalmist speaks of words that are like drawn swords, Psa 55:21, words which show that the person who speaks them has his heart full of murderous intentions; and that, if he had the same power with a sword as he has with his tongue, he would destroy him whom he thus reproaches.\nWe are Moses' disciples - By this they meant that they were genuine Pharisees; for they did not allow the Sadducees to be disciples of Moses. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":29,"content":["We know not from whence he is - As if they had said: We have the fullest assurance that the commission of Moses was Divine; but we have no proof that this man has such a commission: and should we leave Moses, and attach ourselves to this stranger? No. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":30,"content":["Why herein is a marvellous thing - As if he had said, This is wonderful indeed! Is it possible that such persons as you are, whose business it is to distinguish good from evil, and who pretend to know a true from a false prophet, cannot decide in a case so plain? Has not the man opened my eyes? Is not the miracle known to all the town; and could any one do it who was not endued with the power of God? \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":31,"content":["God heareth not sinners - I believe the word ἁμαρτωλων signifies heathens, or persons not proselyted to the Jewish religion; and therefore it is put in opposition to θεοσεβης, a worshipper of the true God. See the note on Luk 7:37. But in what sense may it be said, following our common version, that God heareth not sinners? When they regard iniquity in their heart - when they wish to be saved, and yet abide in their sins - when they will not separate themselves from the workers and works of iniquity. In all these cases, God heareth not sinners. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":32,"content":["Since the world began - Εκ του αιωνος, From the age - probably meaning from the commencement of time. Neither Moses nor the prophets have ever opened the eyes of a man who was born blind: if this person then were not the best of beings, would God grant him a privilege which he has hitherto denied to his choicest favorites?\nOpened the eyes of one that was born blind - It will readily appear that our Lord performed no surgical operation in this cure: the man was born blind, and he was restored to sight by the power of God; the simple means used could have had no effect in the cure; the miracle is therefore complete. That there are cases, in which a person who was born blind may be restored to sight by surgical means, we know: but no such means were used by Christ: and it is worthy of remark that, from the foundation of the world, no person born blind has been restored to sight, even by surgical operation, till about the year of our Lord, 1728; when the celebrated Dr. Cheselden, by couching the eyes of a young man, 14 years of age, who had been born blind, restored him to perfect soundness. This was the effect of well directed surgery: that performed by Christ was a miracle. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":33,"content":["If this man were not of God, etc. - A very just conclusion: God is the fountain of all good: all good must proceed from him, and no good can be done but through him; if this person were not commissioned by the good God, he could not perform such beneficent miracles as these. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":34,"content":["Thou wast altogether born in sins - Thou hast not only been a vile wretch in some other pre-existent state, but thy parents also have been grossly iniquitous; therefore thou and they are punished by this blindness: Thou wast altogether born in sins - thou art no other than a sinful lump of deformity, and utterly unfit to have any connection with those who worship God.\nAnd they cast him out - They immediately excommunicated him, as the margin properly reads - drove him from their assembly with disdain, and forbade his farther appearing in the worship of God. Thus a simple man, guided by the Spirit of truth, and continuing steady in his testimony, utterly confounded the most eminent Jewish doctors. When they had no longer either reason or argument to oppose to him, as a proof of their discomfiture and a monument of their reproach and shame, they had recourse to the secular arm, and thus silenced by political power a person whom they had neither reason nor religion to withstand. They hare had since many followers in their crimes. A false religion, supported by the state, has, by fire and sword silenced those whose truth in the end annihilated the system of their opponents. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":35,"content":["Dost thou believe on the Son of God? - This was the same with, Dost thou believe on the Messiah? for these two characters were inseparable; see Joh 1:34, Joh 1:49; Joh 10:36; Mat 16:16; Mar 1:1. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":36,"content":["Who is he, Lord? - It is very likely that the blind man did not know that it was Jesus the Christ who now spoke to him; for it is evident he had never seen him before this time; and he might now see him without knowing that he was the person by whom he was cured, till our Lord made that discovery of himself, mentioned in the following verse. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":38,"content":["And he said, Lord, I believe - That is, I believe thou art the Messiah; and, to give the fullest proof of the sincerity of his faith, he fell down before and adored him. Never having seen Jesus before, but simply knowing that a person of that name had opened his eyes, he had only considered him as a holy man and a prophet; but now that he sees and hears him he is convinced of his divinity, and glorifies him as his Savior. We may hear much of Jesus, but can never know his glories and excellencies till he has discovered himself to our hearts by his own Spirit; then we believe on him, trust him with our souls, and trust in him for our salvation. The word κυριε has two meanings: it signifies Lord, or Sovereign Ruler, and Sir, a title of civil respect. In the latter sense it seems evidently used in the 36th verse, because the poor man did not then know that Jesus was the Messiah; in the former sense it is used in this verse - now the healed man knew the quality of his benefactor. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":39,"content":["For judgment I am come - I am come to manifest and execute the just judgment of God:\n1. By giving sight to the blind, and light to the Gentiles who sit in darkness.\n2. By removing the true light from those who, pretending to make a proper use of it, only abuse the mercy of God.\nIn a word, salvation shall be taken away from the Jews, because they reject it; and the kingdom of God shall be given to the Gentiles. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":40,"content":["Are we blind also? - These Pharisees understood Christ as speaking of blindness in a spiritual sense, and wished to know if he considered them in that state. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":41,"content":["If ye were blind - If ye had not had sufficient opportunities to have acquainted yourselves with my Divine nature, by the unparalleled miracles which I have wrought before you? and the holy doctrine which I have preached, then your rejecting me could not be imputed to you as sin; but because ye say, we see - we are perfectly capable of judging between a true and false prophet, and can from the Scriptures point out the Messiah by his works - on this account you are guilty, and your sin is of no common nature, it remaineth, i.e. it shall not be expiated: as ye have rejected the Lord from being your deliverer, so the Lord has rejected you from being his people. When the Scripture speaks of sin remaining, it is always put in opposition to pardon; for pardon is termed the taking away of sin, Joh 1:29; Psa 32:5. And this is the proper import of the phrase, αφεσις των ἁμαρτιων, which occurs so frequently in the sacred writings.\n1. The history of the man who was born blind and cured by our Lord is, in every point of view, instructive. His simplicity, his courage, his constancy, and his gratitude are all so many subjects worthy of attention and emulation. He certainly confessed the truth at the most imminent risk of his life; and therefore, as Stephen was the first martyr for Christianity, this man was the first confessor. The power and influence of Truth, in supporting its friends and confounding its adversaries, are well exemplified in him; and not less so, that providence of God by which he was preserved from the malice of these bad men. The whole story is related with inimitable simplicity, and cannot be read by the most cold-hearted without extorting the exclamation, How forcible are right words?\n2. It has already been remarked that, since the world began, there is no evidence that any man born blind was ever restored to sight by surgical means, till the days of Mr. Cheselden, who was a celebrated surgeon at St. Thomas's Hospital, London. For though, even before the Christian era, there is reason to believe that both the Greek and Roman physicians performed operations to remove blindness occasioned by the cataract, yet we know of none of these ever attempted on the eyes of those who had been born blind, much less of any such persons being restored to sight. The cure before us must have been wholly miraculous - no appropriate means were used to effect it. What was done had rather a tendency to prevent and destroy sight than to help or restore it. The blindness in question was probably occasioned by a morbid structure of the organs of sight; and our Lord, by his sovereign power, instantaneously restored them to perfect soundness, without the intervention of any healing process. In this case there could be neither deception nor collusion.\n\n"]}],"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. \n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/JHN/9.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"JHN","chapter":9},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/JHN/10.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"JHN","chapter":10},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/adam-clarke/JHN/8.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"adam-clarke","book":"JHN","chapter":8},"numberOfVerses":34}