Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

1. — [And as Jesus passed by.'] The Greek word rendered " passed by," is the same as the word so rendered in the preceding verse, at the end of the last chapter. — Some think, from this repetition, that the miracle recorded here took place immediately after the events of the last chapter, without the least break or interruption; and that it was as our Lord was retiring from the temple, after the attempt of the Jews to stone Him, that He saw the blind man. — Others, however, think that an interval of time must have elapsed, partly because it seems improbable that our Lord and His disciples would all be able to withdraw themselves quietly from an angry mob, and calmly stand still near the scene of attempted violence to attend to a blind man, and partly because it is the manner of St. John's Gospel to pass from one event to another, sometimes without intimating that there is any change of time or place. Thus, John v. 19; yi. 25, 43,59; vii. 28—33. The point, however, is not one of any practical importance.

Chemnitius holds strongly that an interval of two months comes iu here, and that our Lord spent that time in a visitation of the towns and villages of Judaea, as related in Luke xiii. 22. He thinks that He thus occupied the two months after the feast of tabernacles, and that He returned to Jerusalem shortly before the feast of dedication, in winter. The main objection to this theory seems to be, that it is not the natural conclusion we should draw from the text.

Gualter, Ferus, Ecolampadius, and Musculus maintain, on the other hand, that there is a close and intentional connection between this chapter and the preceding one. They think that oar Lord desired to show, by deed as well as word, that He was

" the Light of the world." (John viii. 14.) Bucer says, u This chapter is a sermon in act and deed, on the words, ' I am the Light of the world.' "

In the miracle which occupies the whole of this chapter, the following special circumstances deserve notice: (1) It is onlyrelated by St. John. (2) Like each of the few miracles in St. John, it is described with great minuteness and particularity. (3) It is one of the four miracles wrought in Judasa, or near Jerusalem, mentioned in St. John. He records eight great miracles altogether: four in Galilee,— turning the water into wine, healing the nobleman's son, feeding the multitude, and walking on the water, (chap, ii., iv., and vi.;) and four in Judaea, — purifying the temple, healing the impotent man, restoring sight to the blind, and raising Lazarus. (Chap, ii., v., vi., and ix.) (4) It is one of those miracles which the Jews were especially taught to expect in Messiah's time: " In that day shall the eyes of the blind see out of obscurity." ( Isai. xxix. 18.) (5) It is one of those signs of Messiah having come, to which Jesus particularly directed John the Baptist's attention: "The blind receive their sight." (Matt. xi. 5.) (6) It was a miracle worked in so public a place, and on a man so well known, that it was impossible for the Jerusalem Jews to deny it.

It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to bid any well-instructed Christian observe the singularly instructive and typical character of each of the eight miracles which John was inspired to record. Each was a vivid picture of spiritual things.

Hengstenberg observes that three of the four great miracles wrought by Christ in Judcea exactly represent the three classes of works referred to in Matt. xi. 5, " The lame walk, the blind see, the dead are raised up." (John v.; ix.; xi.)

\_He saw a man... blind from 7iis birth.'] The man was probably sitting near the temple gateway, to attract the notice of worshippers going to and fro, like the man described in Acts. (Acts iii. 2.) From blindness he would naturally be dependent on charity. The Jewish law specifies the blind as peculiarly deserving of attention. (Levit. xix. 14; Deut. xxvii. 18.) To give sight to one who had not lost the use of his eyes by disease or accident, but had never seen at all, was of course a mighty miracle.

Let it be noted, that our Lord "saw" the blind man, and healed him of His own free will, unasked, and unexpectedly. As in the case of the impotent man, (John v. 6,) He did not wait to be entreated, but was Himself the first to move. Let it however be noted at the same time, that if the man had not been by the wayside, our Lord would not have seen him.

Chrysostom observes, that when the Jews " would not re-

ceive our Lord's sayings, and tried to kill Him, He went out of the temple, and healed the blind, mitigating their rage by His

absence; and by working a miracle, both softening their hard* ness, and proving His affections. And it is clear that He proceeded intentionally to this work on leaving the temple, for it was He who saw the blind man, and not the blind man who came to Him."

Gualter observes, that this passage shows how the eyes of the Lord are in every place, and how He sees His own people, even when they think not of Him.

Alford thinks it possible that the blind man was constantly proclaiming that he had been born blind, to excite pity.

Burgon observes: " More of our Saviour's miracles are recorded as having been wrought on blindness than on any other form of human infirmity. One deaf and dumb man is related to have had speech and hearing restored to him; one case of palsy, and one of dropsy, find special record; twice was leprosy, and twice was fever expelled by the Saviour's word; three times were dead persons raised to life; but the records of His cures wrought on blindness are four in number, at least, if not

five." (See Matt. xii. 22.) Isaiah seems to foretell the recovery of sight by the blind, as " an act of mercy specially symbolical of Messiah's day." (Isai. xxix. 18; xxxii. 3; xxxv. 5; xlii. 7.)

I. — [And his disciples asked him.'] This expression seems to show that our Lord was surrounded and accompanied by His usual followers, and favours the idea that there was some break or interval between the beginning of this chapter and the end of the last. Though He by Divine power could hide Himself and go through the midst of His enemies, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that within a few minutes He would be surrounded again by His disciples. Yet it is of course possible.

[Master, who did sin, this man... parents... blind?'] This curious question has given rise to much unprofitable discussion. It is repeatedly asked, — Why did the disciple say this? What put it into their minds to start the inquiry?

(a) Some think that the Jews had imbibed the common Oriental notion of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls from one body to another, and that the disciples supposed that in some previous state of existence this blind man must have committed some great sin, for which he was now punished.

(6) Some think that the question refers to a strange notion current among some Jews, that infants might sin before they were born. In support of this view, they quote Gen. xxv. 22, and Gen. xxxviii. 28, 29.

(c) The most probable view is, that the question arose from a misapplication of such passages of Scripture as the Second Commandment, where God speaks of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, " (Exod. xx. 5,) and from a forgetfulness of Eze. xviii. 20, etc. There are few notions that men seem to cling to so naturally, as the notion that bodily sufferings, and all afflictions, are the direct consequences of sin, and that a diseased or afflicted person must necessarily be a very wicked man. This was precisely the short-sighted view that Job's three friends took up when they came to visit him, and against which Job contended. This was the idea of the people at Melita, when Paul was bitten by a viper, after the shipwreck: "This man is a murderer." (Acts xxviii. 4.) This appears to have been at the bottom of the question of the disciples: "There is suffering; then there must have been sin. Whose sin was it?"

Chrysostom thinks that the disciples remembered our Lord's words to the paralytic whom He healed (chap. v. 14): " Thou art made whole; sin no more; " and asked now to what sin this man's blindness might be traced. This, however, seems very improbable, considering the length of time between the two miracles.

Hengstenberg observes that the fallacy of supposing that special afflictions are the result of some special sins, "commends itself to low and common spirits by its simplicity and palpableness. It has the advantage of rendering it needless to weep with them that weep. It saves a man from the obligation, when he sees heavy affliction, of smiting on his breast, and saying ' God be merciful to me a sinner.' It gives the natural man the comfortable feeling that he is so much the better than the sufferer, as he is more fortunate."

Those who wish to go more deeply into the subject will find it fully discussed by the great Dutch diviue, Gomarus.

3. — [Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned...parents.'] This first part of our Lord's answer is elliptical. The sense of course must be supplied from the context. Our Lord did not mean that neither this blind man nor his parents had committed any sin at all, but that it was not any special sin of his or theirs which had caused his blindness. Nor yet did our Lord mean that the sins of parents could never entail disease on children; but that the case before Him, at any rate, was not such a case. Of course he did not mean us to forget that sin is the great primeval cause of all the evils that are in the world.

[But that the icorlcs of G<<d... manifest in him.'] The meaning of this must be, that the man's blindness was permitted and overruled by God, in order that His works of mercy in healing him might be shown to men. This blindness was allowed and ordained by God, not because he was specially wicked, but in order to furnish a platform for the exhibition of a work of Divine mercy and power.

A deep and instructive principle lies in these words. They 6urely throw some Light on that great question, — the origin of evil. God has thought fit to allow evil to exist, in order that He may have a platform for showing His mercy, grace, and compassion. If man had never fallen, there would have been no opportunity of showing Divine mercy. But by permitting evil, mysterious as it seems, God's works of grace, mercy, and wisdom in saving sinners, have been wonderfully manifested to all His creatures. The redeeming of the Church of elect sinners is the means of " showing to principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God." (Ephes. iii. 10.) Without the fall we should have known nothing of the cross and the Gospel.

Melancthon, on this verse, suggests no less than ten reasons why God permits evil to come on the Church, which contain much food for thought. Brentius and Chemnitius also say many excellent things on the same theme.

Bucer remarks that this verse should teach us to bear ills patiently and cheerfully, since all that happens to us tends, in some way, to the glory of God.

Gualter remarks, that even wicked men like Pharaoh subserve the glory of God, (Rom. ix. 17;) much more may men's afflictions and diseases.

Ecolampadius remarks, that God allows nothing whatever to happen without some good reason and cause.

Henry observes: " The intention of Providence often does not appear till a great while after the event, perhaps many years after. The sentences in the book of Providence are sometimes long, and you must read a great way before you understand the meaning."

Jones, of Nayland, on this text remarks: " The best way to

answer the great question of the origin of evil, is to consider the end of it, ' what good comes out of it?' this makes the subject plain and useful. Why was this man born blind? That the works of God might appear, and Christ might cure him. — Why did man fall? That God might save him. — Why is evil permitted in the world? That God may be glorified in removing it. — Why does the body of man die? That God may raise it up again. — When we philosophize in this manner we find light, certainty, and comfort. We have a memorable example of it in the case before us."

Barnes remarks that "those who are afflicted with blindness, deafness, or any deformity, should be submissive to God. It is His appointment, and is right and best. God does no wrong; and when all His works are seen, the universe will see and know that He is just."

4.— [I must work the works, etc.'] The connection between this verse and the preceding one seems to be in the word "works." It it as though our Lord said,— "Healing the blind man is one of the great « works ' which God has appointed for Me to do, and I must do it during the ' day,' or short period of My ministry. This blindness was ordained by My Father to be a means of showing forth My divine power."

The expression " while it is day," and "the night cometh," must probably be interpreted with special reference to our Lord's ministry upon earth. While He was with His disciples speaking, teaching, and working miracles, it was comparatively " day." His little Church basked in the full sunlight of His Divine presence, and saw and learned countless wonderful things. When He ascended up on high it became comparatively "night." Just as in night " no man can work," so when Christ left the world the visible proof of His Divine mission, which the disciples had so long enjoyed and seen, could no longer be given. The proverbial saying, "No man can work in the night," would be verified.

These limits to the application of the figure must be carefully remembered. Of course our Lord did not mean that the Church, after His ascension, would not enjoy far more spiritual light than it did before He came; nor yet that the disciples, after the day of Pentecost, would not see many truths far more clearly even than when Christ was with them. But the words "clay and night " here have a special reference to our Lord's bodily presence with His Church. As long as He was visibly'with them it was " day." When He left them it was "night." It is well to remark that St. Paul uses the same figures when comparing time present with time to come, at the second advent. He says, " The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." (Rom, xiii. 12.) There the night is Christ's bodily absence, and the day Christ's bodily presence.

Melancthon points out what an example Christ supplies to Christians in this place. The hatred, opposition, and persecution of the world, and the failures and infirmities of professing Christians, must not make us give way to despondency. Like our Master, we must work on.

Calvin observes: " From these words we may deduce the universal rule, that to every man the course of his life may be called his day."

Beza and others think that there is a primary prophecy here of the withdrawal of light and privilege from the Jews, which was in the mind of our Lord, as well as the general principle that to all men day is the time for work and not night.

5. — [As long as lam in the world, etc'] This verse seems to be a general broad assertion of our Lord's purpose in coming into the world, and His position while in it. "I came into the world to be its S in and spiritual Guide, and to deliver men from the natural darkness iu which they are; and so long as I am in the world I wish to be its Light in the fullest sense, the Deliverer of men's souls and the Healer of men's bodies."

Coccems suggests, that in these words our Lord had respect to the fact that He was going to work a work on the Sabbath, and that it would be disapproved by the Jews, as a breach of the Sabbath. Foreseeing this, He defends what He is about to do, by reminding His disciples that during the short time of His earthly ministry He must seize every opportunity of doing good.

Alford observes, that just as Jesus said before He raised Lazarus, "I am the Resurrection and the Life," so here, before giving sight to the blind, he said, " I am the Light."

, — [Wlien... thus spoken... spat... anointed... clay. ~] The action here used by our Lord is the same that we find used on two other occasions, — once when He healed one deaf and dumb, (Mark vii. 33;) once when He healed a blind man. (Mark viii. 23.) The making of the " clay," however, is quite peculiar to this miracle. The reason why our Lord used the action we cannot tell. There is, of course, no special virtue either in spittle, or in clay made from spittle, which could cure a man born blind. Why, then, did Jesus use this means? Why did He not heal the man with a word or a touch?

The only answer to such inquiries is, that our Lord would teach us, by His peculiar mode of proceeding here, that He is not tied to any one means of doing good, and that we may expect to find variety in His methods of dealing with souls, as well as with bodies. May He not also wish to teach us that He can, when He thinks fit, invest material things with an efficacy which is not inherent in them? We are not to despise Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because water, bread, and wine are mere material elements. To many who use them, no doubt they are nothing more than mere material things, and never do them the slightest good. But to those who use the sacraments rightly, worthily, and with faith, Christ can make water, bread, and wine, instruments of doing real good. He that was p'eased to use clay in healing a blind man, may surely use material things, if He thinks fit, in His own ordinances. The water in Baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, while they are not to be treated as idols, ought not to be treated with irreverence and contempt. It was, of course, not the clay that healed the blind man, but Christ's word and power. Nevertheless the clay was used. So the brazen serpent in itself had no medicinal power to cure the bitten Israelites. But without it they were not cured.

The selection of clay for anointing the blind man's eyes is thought by some to be significant, and to contain a possible reference to the original formation of man out of the dust. He that formed man with all his bodily faculties out of the dust could easily restore one of those faculties, even sight, when He thought fit. He that healed these blind eyes with clay was the same Being who originally formed man out of the clay.

Ecolampadius thinks that the spittle was the emblem of Christ's Divinity, and the clay of His humanity, and that the union of the two represented the union of the two natures in Christ's person, whereby healing came to a sin-sick world. To say the least, this seems fanciful.

Barradius suggests that our Lord actually formed new eyes for the man, as He at first formed man's body out of the dust. This, however, seems needlessly improbable.

Poole thinks that our Lord used spittle to make clay, simply because there was no water nigh at hand to make it with.

Wordsworth observes that Christ's manner of working the miracle was " tenderness to the Jews. They would see the clay on the man's eyes, and see him going to Siloam."

He also observes, " Cod loves to effect His greatest works by means tending under ordinary circumstances to produce the very opposite of what is to be done. God walls the sea with sand. God clears the air with storms. God warms the earth with snow. So in the world of grace. He brings water in the desert, not from the soft earth, but the flinty rock. He heals the sting of the serpent of fire by the serpent of brass. He overthrows the wall of Jericho by ram's horns. He slays a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass. He cures salt water with salt. He fells the giant with a sling and stone. And thus does the Son of God work in the Gospel. He cures the blind man by that which seemed likely to increase his blindness, by anointing his eyes with clay. He exalts us to heaven by the stumbling-block of the cross."

7. — And said...Go, to ash... Siloam.'] The direction here given to the blind man would remind any pious Jew of Elisha's directions to Naaman, " Go, wash in Jordan." (2 Kings v. 10.) The water of this pool had no inherent healing efficacy any more than other water. But the command was a test of faith, and in obeying, the blind man found what he wanted. It is the great principle which runs through Scripture,— " Believe and obey, and all will be right."

The pool of Siloam was a well-known reservoir, or artificial pond, in a valley close to Jerusalem, remarkable for a supply of water from an intermittent spring. It is pointed out in the present day, and there seems no reason to doubt that it is the same pool that was so called eighteen hundred years ago. It is first mentioned in Nehemiah iii. 15, and afterwards in Isaiah viii. 6.

Lightfoot asserts that the pool of Bethesda and the pool of Siloam were both supplied from one spring.

[Which is by interpretation, Sent.~] There is undeniable difficulty about this seutence. It is naturally asked, — Whv is this parenthetical explanation inserted by St. John? Why are we specially told that the word Siloara means Sent, or He that was sent? — The most probable answer seems to be, that the name of the fountain was meant to refer the blind man's mind to the Messiah, whom God had " sent." All pious Jews would understand the expression which so frequently occurs in John's Gospel, " He whom God hath sent," to point to Messiah. When therefore Jesus said, " Go, wash in Siloam,'' the naming of that particular fountain would be a silent hint that He who gave the command was the Sent One of God, the great Healer of all diseases. St. John's parenthesis would then mean, when expounded: " This was a most suitable and proper pool for Jesus to name. It was fitting that He who was ' Sent of God ' should work a miracle in the pool called ' Sent."' — This is the view of Chrysostom and Augustine.

It is impossible to help feeling that the clause looks very much like the insertion of some ignorant early copyist, who wished to show his own knowledge of etymology, and perhaps found it in an old copy as a marginal gloss. The Syriac and Persian versions do not contain the clause. Yet it certainly is found in most manuscripts and versions.

Hutcheson thinks that John inserted this clause for no other end than to remind readers that this fountain was a special gift " sent" by God, among the hills near Jerusalem, for the benefit of the Jews.

Hengstenberg says: "As Jesus represents Himself and His Church as the real Pool of Bethesda, in chap, v., so here He declares Himself the real Sent One, or Siloam, the Fountain of blessings."

[He went...washed...came seeing.'] The blind man, as is often the case with people born blind, was probably able to find his way about Jerusalem without trouble, and the road from the temple-gate to the pool of Siloam was likely to be much frequented. His implicit faith and obedience contrast favourably with the conduct of Naaman, when told to go and wash in Jordan. (2 Kings v. 14.) The word "came" must either mean " to his own home," or simply "came back to the tempie-gate." The miracle of healing seems to have taken place in the act of washing in Siloam.

Let us remember that the blind man's conduct is meant to be a pattern to us. He did not stumble at Christ's command, but simply obeyed; and in obeying he was healed. We must do likewise.

Melancthon thinks it likely that a crowd of curious and jeering spectators accompanied the man to Siloam to see the result of our Lord's prescription.

one which the Pharisees felt to be unanswerable. Silenced before the whole council they turn on the speaker with auger and abuse. " Thou art a miserable, wicked creature, entirelyborn in sin, and dost thou pretend to know better than us, and to teach us?" They then proceeded at once to excommunicate him. The expression, " they cast him out," must surely mean much more than merely turning him out of the room or place where they were assembled. To my mind it means nothing less than a formal expulsion from the commonwealth of Israel, and the consequent degradation of the man. It must be admitted that Maldonatus and some others tlynk it only means that " they turned him out of the room " where they were. But this does not agree with the context, and almost all commentators think "excommunication" is meant.

It is held by many that the expression, " born in sin," was used with special reference to the healed man's old infirmity of blindness. " Thy very blindness shows thee to have been a very wicked man. It is God's stamp on thy wickedness. Body and soul are both polluted by sin." There may be a latent reference to the vulgar error referred to at verse 2, that blindness was an evidence of God's special displeasure.

The expression, " Dost thou teach us?" is precisely one of those which wicked people in possession of place, rank, dignity, and income, are fond of using about Reformers of the Church and independent thinkers. — " How can such an ignorant person as you pretend to know better than us, and teach us? We are high in office, and must know better than you."

Let us note that this resort to personal abuse and violent language is often a sure mark of a failing cause in religion. Inability to reply to argument is often the true cause of ill-temper ry and personalities. Truth can afford to be patient; error cannot.

Let us note that persecution and excommunication are common weapons with the enemies of spiritual religion. When men cannot answer arguments, they often try to silence and intimidate those who use them.

The dread of excommunication with a Jew was second only to the dread of death.

Calvin remarks: " It is certain that those who are not subject to Christ are deprived of the lawful power of excommunicating. Nor ought we to dread being excluded from their assemblies, since Christ, our Life and Salvation, was banished from them."

Musculus observes that this excommunication could not have been without the vote of the majority of the council. Truth is too often with minorities.

Pellican remarks that " to be shut out from the communion of the wicked is no dishonour or loss."

Ferus, a Romanist, says that this verse should teach the leaders of Churches not to be hasty in excommunicating people, lest they commit as great mistake as the Pharisees.

Barradius, a Portuguese Romanist, makes strong remarks here on the great sin of unjust excommunication. He quotes the text in Samuel which says that the sons of Eli made men " abhor the offering of the Lord; " and applies to the same point the text in Cauticles where the bride complains that the keeper and watchmen, who ought to have helped, " smote and wounded

Quesnel remarks that wicked pastors are always impatient that any one should remind them of their duty.

Lightfoot observes that this man was the first confessor who / suffered for Christ's sake, as John the Baptist was the first martyr.

Trench observes that the Pharisees in their rage forgot " that the two charges, — one, that the man had not been born blind and was an impostor; the other, that he bore the mark of God's anger in blindness reaching back to his birth, — will not agree together."

35.— [Jesus heard... cast him out.~\ An interval of time most probably elapsed between the last verse and the present one. Where our Lord was, at Jerusalem or elsewhere, and what He was doing during the interval, we are not told. We can hardly suppose that the events related in the present and following verses, and the former part of the tenth chapter, took place on the same day that the blind man was cured. There must have been a break. Moreover the very expression before us shows that the excommunication had had time to be reported and known in Jerusalem. Making every allowance for the public notoriety of everything done by the Sanhedrim, we can hardly suppose that in a day when there was no newspaper, the treatment of the blind man would be public news and reported without some interval of time.

As God, our Lord doubtless knew all that happened to the sufferer, but He did nothing till his excommunication was publicly reported.

Burkitt observes:" O happy man! Having lost the synagogue, he finds heaven."

Wordsworth observes: " If those who sit in Moses' seat teach things contrary to the law of Moses, and proceed to impose their false doctrines as terms of communion; if they will not receive Him of whom Moses wrote, and threaten with excommunication those who confess Jesus to be the Christ, then no desire of unity, no love of enemies, no fear of separation from parents, and spiritual superiors, no dread of spiritual censures and penalties, must deter the disciples of Christ from confess-

Ing Him. Our Lord Himself has set the seal of His Divine sanction on these principles."

[And lohen he had found, etc.'] We should note in this sentence our Lord's kindness and compassion. As soon as His people suffer for His name's sake He is ready to visit them and speak words of comfort and give special consolation. We see too an example of His zeal to turn temporal trials to spiritual gain. Like Him, we should be ready to say to sufferers, " Dost thou believe on the Son of God? The world fails thee. Turn to Christ, and seek rest."

Chrysostom remarks: " They who for the sake of the truth and confession of Christ suffer anything and are insulted, these are especially honoured. So it was here with the blind man. The Jews cast him out of the temple, and the Lord of the temple found him. He was dishonoured by those who dishonoured Christ, and was honoured by the Lord of angels."

We should note that this is one of the very few occasions on which our Lord called Himself directly " the Son of God." (See John iii. 18; v. 25; x. 36; xi. 4.)

86. — [He answered and said, etc.] This is the language of a mind ignorant of many things, yet willing to be instructed. It is like Saul crying, " Who art Thou, Lord? " and the jailer saying, "What must I do?" When a man begins to inquire about Christ, and ask who He is, it is always a hopeful symptom of his stnte of soul.

It inay be doubted whether "Lord" here would not have been setter rendered " Sir."

37. — [And Jesus said, etc.] We should carefully notice the extraordinary fulness of the revelation which our Lord here made of Himself. In no case but this, and that of the Samaritan woman, clo we find Him so unreservedly declaring His own Divinity and Messiahship. So true is it that "the meek He will guide in judgment,'1 and that things "hid to the wise and prudent are revealed to babes." The poor and despised and friendless among mankind are often those whom He favours with special revelations of His kindness and mercy. (John iv. 26] Matt. v. 10—12.)

38. — [And he said, Lord, I believe.] This immediate profession of faith seems to indicate that the man's mind had been prepared by the Holy Ghost during the interval of time since His cure. The more he thought over his miraculous healing, and the Person who had wrought it, the more ready he was to believe in Him as the Messiah.

"We must not perhaps estimate too highly the extent of this man's faith. At any rate, it had the germ and nucleus of all justifying faith about it, a belief in oar Lord as the Messiah.

[And he worshipped Him.'] This seems to have been something more than an action of respect and reverence to a man. It looks like the worship given to One who was felt to be very God. Our Lord accepts it, and says not one word to check it. We cannot suppose that Paul or Peter or John would have allowed a fellow-man to give them "worship." (See Acts x. 25, 26, and xiv. 14, 15; Rev. xix. 10, and xxii. 9.)

Chrysostom remarks how few of those whom our Lord miraculously healed, worshipped Him as this man did.

Cocceius remarks that when we consider that this act of worship follows immediately on a full profession of faith in Jesus as the " Son of God," it cannot be lightly passed over as a mere mark of respect.

Ferus observes that there is a thing said of this worshipper which is said of no one else who "worshipped" Christ. He said, " I believe," before he did it, and I believe in the " Son of God."

Poole observes that " although the word ' worshipped ' in the Greek be a word used sometimes to signify that civil respect which men show to their superiors, yet it cannot be so interpreted in this place, considering what went before."

39.— {And Jesus said, For judgment, etc.] We must not suppose that there is any contradiction between these words and those in John iii. 17, and xii. 47.* It was quite true that our Lord had not come into the world to be a Judge, but a Saviour. Yet He had come to produce a judgment, or distinction, or division between class and class of characters, and to be the cause of light breaking in on some minds which before His coming could not see, and of blindness covering other minds which before His coming flattered themselves that they were full of light. In that the expression is very parallel to that of Simeon, (Luke ii. 35.) " The thoughts of many hearts were revealed by his coming." Humble-minded, ignorant people had light revealed to them. Proud, self-righteous people were given over to judicial blindness. (See Matt. xi. 25.)

And is not this judgment a common consequence of Christ's Gospel coming to a place or a people for the first time? Minds previously quite dead receive sight. Minds previously self-satisfied and proud of their own light are given over to utter darkness and left behind. Those who once saw not see. Those who fancied themselves clear-sighted are found blind. The same fire which melts wax hardens the clay.

Let it be noted that the Greek word rendered " might be made " would be more literally translated "might become." I do not mean to say that in no case does God ever give over people to blindness, by a kind of judgment, on account of tbeif hardness and impenitence. But we should carefully observe how rarely Scripture speaks of it as God's act. Thus here it is not literally true that He "makes" them blind, but that they "6ec«?»e" blind.

Augustine remarks: " Who are those that see? Those who think they see, who believe they see." He also says:" The judgment which Christ hath brought into the world is not that wherewith He shall judge the quick and the dead in the end of the world. It is a work of diserimkvition rather, by which He discerneth the cause of them whicn believe from that of the proud who think they see, and therefore are worse blinded."

Zwingle remarks: " Judgment is here taken for discrimination, or separation into classes." Ferus says much the same.

Cheranitius thinks that our Lord spoke these words with special reference to the false and unjust judgment of excommunication which the Pharisees had just passed. It is as though He would say, " True judgment, a right discrimination into classes, is My prerogative. The excommunication of a Pharisee is worthless."

Musculus and Gualter, think that "judgment" here means, the eternal decree of God. " I came into the world to carry out God's eternal purposes, which are that the wise and prudent should remain in darkness, truth should be revealed to babes;" but this seems far-fetched.

Poole says: "The best notion of 'judgment' here is theirs who interpret it of the spiritual government of the world, committed to Christ, and managed by Him with perfect rectitude and equity. One eminent part of this was His publishing the Gospels, the law of faith. The result of which is, that many spiritually blind, and wholly unable to see the way to eternal life, might be enlightened with saving knowledge, and that many who think they see, should by their obstinate infidelity become more blind than they were from their birth. Not that I cast any such evil influence on them, but this happeneth through their own sore eyes."

Whitby remarks that the Greek conjunction here rendered " that " is not causal, but only consequential; as when Christ said, " I came not to send peace, but a sword," meaning, the consequence and result of My coming will be to send a sword, and not the object of My coming. He also thinks that the verse has a wide application to the Gentiles sitting in darkness, being enlightened by Christ's coming, while the Jews were blinded.

Hengstenberg says: " Those that see are the Jews, in contradistinction to the Gentiles."

Burgon remarks: " Judgment is not used here in an active sense It is the condemnation implied bj severing men into

good and bad, which was one consequence (not the purpose) of Christ's coming into the world. — When Christ came into the world, men promptly showed themselves to belong to the state of darkness or of light, and by their arranging themselves in two great classes, anticipated their own final sentence." — " The blind (that is, simple and ignorant, yet meek and faithful men) saw; while the seeing (that is, vain pretenders to discernment, proud, presumptuous persons) were made blind."

40. — [And some...Pharisees...heard words.'] This sentence literally rendered would be, "Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard." It seems to show that here, as on all other occasions, some of the party of the Pharisees were in the crowd which hung round our Lord, narrowly watching all he said and did, and eagerly catching at anything which might give them an advantage against Him. It ought to make us feel the immense difficulty of our Lord's position. He was always attended by enemies, and spoke and acted under the eyes of people desiring to do Him harm. It also teaches us that we must not cease from efforts to do good, because many of our hearers are unbelieving.

[And said...Are ice blind also?'] This question cannot possibly be taken as a humble, anxious inquiry. It is rather the sarcastic, sneering inquiry of men whose consciences were pricked by our Lord's words, and who felt that He was condemning them: "And in what class do you place us? Are we among those whom you call blind? Do you mean to say that we who are doctors of the law, see and understand nothing? " — St. Paul's words to the unbelieving Jew should be remembered here: " Thou art confident that thou art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness." (Rom. ii. 17.) Blindness was probably the last thing which the Pharisees would allow could be predicated of them.

Augustine remarks: "There are many, who according to common usage, are called good people, good men, good women, harmless, honouring their parents, not committing adultery, doing no murder, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and in a sort observing the other duties commanded in the law, and yet are not Christians. And these commonly give themselves airs like the Pharisees here, saying, ' Are we blind also? ' "

Ferus observes: " This is just the ancient arrogance of the Jews."

Lord, the sight of this man who had been blind from birth, and deliver us from the blindness of his judges, who had been learning all their lives, and yet knew nothing. And if the world should cast us out, let us be found of Thee, whom the world crucified."

sees is a very remarkable and elliptical one. It may be thus paraphrased: '{ Well would it be for you. if you were really blind and ignorant. If you were really ignorant, you would be far less blameworthy than you are now. If you were really blind, you would not be guilty of the sin of wilful unbelief as you are now. But, unhappily, you say that you know the truth, and see the light, and are not ignorant, even while you are rejecting Me. This self-satisfied state of mind is the very thing which is ruining you. It makes your sin abide heavily on you."

It is needless to say that our Lord did not mean that ignorance makes a man entirely free from guilt. He only meant that a really ignorant man is much less guilty than one who has light and knowledge, but does not improve and use them. No man's case is so hopeless as that of the self-confident man, who says that he knows everything, and wants no light. Such a man's sin abides on him, and, unless repented of, will sink him into the pit.

Let us note what a heavy condemnation this text contains for those professing Christians who are constantly comforting themselves by saying, " We know," " We are not ignorant," "We see the truth," while yet they lazily sit still in irreiigion and make no attempt to obey. Such persons, however little they think it, are far more guilty before God than the poor heathen who never hear truth at all. The more light a man has, the more sin, if he does not believe.

To infer the salvation of all the unconverted heathen from this text would be unwarrantable, and going much too far. The worst heathen man has sufficient light to judge and condemn him at last, and far more than he lives up to. But it is not too much to say that an ignorant heathen is in a far more hopeful condition than a proud, self-satisfied, self-righteous, unconverted Christian.

Brentius thinks that the expression, " if ye were blind," means " if ye would confess your blindness;" and that " to say we see," is equivalent to a "refusal to acknowledge ignorance and need."

Chemnitius observes, that the expression of this verse teaches that there are two sorts of sinneis in this world, — those who sin from ignorance and infirmity, and those who sin against light and knowledge, and that they must be regarded and dealt with accordingly.

Musculus remarks, that nothing seems to gall men so much as the imputation of ignorance and want of knowledge of the truth. The very men who are unmoved if charged with immoral actions, such as simony, adultery, gluttony, or misuse of ecclesiastical property, are furious if told that they are dark and blind about doctrine.

The expression, " your sin remaineth," is very worthy of notice. It teaches the solemn truth that the sins of impenitent and unconverted people are upon them, uuforgiven, and not taken away. It condemns the modern idea that all sins are already forgiven and pardoned on account of Christ's death, and all men justilied, and that the only thing required is to believe it and know it. On the contrary our sins are upou us, and remain upon us until we believe. Ferus calls it " a terriole saying."

Tholuck remarks on the whole chapter: " The narrative of

this miracle has a special value in apologetics. How often do we hear the wish expressed, that Christ's miracles had been put on documentary record, and had been subjected to a thorough judicial investigation. Here we have the very thing that is desired; judicial personages, and these, too, the avowed enemies of Christ, investigate a miracle in repeated hearings, and yet it holds its ground. A man blind from his birth was!

made to see! " — No wonder that German sceptics, like Strauss and Bauer, are driven to assert that the whole narrative is a fabrication.

In leaving this chapter, it is worth remembering that this is that one of our Lord's miracles about which nearly all commentators have agreed that it has a spiritual signification, and is emblematic of spiritual truth. Lampe remarks, that even those writers who are ordinarily most averse to spiritualizing | And accommodating, admit that the healing of this blind man is a picture of the illumination of a sinner's soul. His healing is a lively figure of conversion.

It is curious that we hear no more of this man who was healed. It is pleasant; however, to bear in mii^the thought that there were many who believed in Christ and were true disciples, whose names and lives have never come down to us. We must not suppose that there were none saved but those whose histories are recorded in the New Testament. The last day, we may well believe, will show that this man was only a type of a large class, whose names were written in the, Book of life, though not recorded for our learning by the in- Bpired writers.

1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2 But he that entereth in by tho door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calloth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

4 And when ho putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and

the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

The chapter we have now begun is closely connected with the preceding one. The parable before us was spoken with direct reference to the blind teachers of the Jewish Church. The Scribes and Pharisees were the persons our Lord had in view, when He described the false shepherd. The very men who had just said " We see," were denounced with holy boldness, as " thieves and robbers."

We have, for one thing, in these verses, a vivid picture of a false teacher of religion. Our Lord says that he is one who" enters not by the door into the sheep fold, but climbs up some other way."

The " door," in this sentence, must evidently mean something far more than outward calling and commission. The Jewish teachers, at any rate, were not deficient i#fchis point: they could probably trace up their orders in direct succession to Aaron himself. Ordination is no proof whatever that a man is fit to show others the way to heaven. He may have been regularly set apart by those who have authority to call ministers, and yet all his life may never come near the door, and at last may die nothing better than " a thief and a robber."

The true sense of the "door" must be sought in our Lord's own interpretation. It is Christ Himself who is " the door." The true shepherd of souls is he who enters the ministry with a single eye to Christ, desiring to glorify Christ, doing all in the strength of Christ, preaching Christ's doctrine, walking in Christ's steps, and labouring to bring men and women to Christ. The false shepherd of souls is he who enters the ministerial office with little or no thought about Christ, from worldly and self-exalting motives, but from no desire to exalt Jesus, and the great salvation that is in Him. Christ, in one word, is the grand touchstone of the minister of religion. The man who makes much of Christ is a pastor after God's own heart, whom God delights to honour. The minister who makes little of Christ is one whom God regards as an impostor, — as one who has climbed up to his holy office not by the door, but by " some other way."

The sentence before us is a sorrowful and humbling one. That it condemns the Jewish teachers of our Lord's time all men can see. There was no " door" in their ministry. They taught nothing rightly about Messiah. They rejected Christ Himself when He appeared, — but all men do not see that the sentence condemns thousands of so-called Christian teachers, quite as much as the leaders and teachers of the Jews. Thousands of ordained men in the present day know nothing whatever about Christ, except His name. They have not entered u the door" themselves, and they are unable to show it to others. Well would it be for Christendom if this were more widely known, and more seriously considered! Unconverted ministers are the dry-rot of the Church. " When the blind lead the blind " both must fall into the ditch. If we Mould know the value of a man's ministry, we must never fail to ask, Where is the Lamb? Where is the Door? Does he bring forward Christ, and gives Him his rightful place?

We have, for another thing, in these verses, a peculiar •picture of true Christians. Our Lord describes them as sheep who " hear the voice of a true Shepherd, and know His voice; " and as " sheep who will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for the}' know not the voice of strangers."

The thing taught in these words is a very curious one, and may seem " foolishness " to the world. There is a spiritual instinct in most true believers, which generally enables them to distinguish between true and false teaching. When they hear unsound religious instruction, there is something within them which says, " This is wrong." When they hear the real truth as it is in Jesus, there is something in their hearts which responds, " This is right." The careless man of the world may see no difference whatever between minister and minister, sermon and sermon. The poorest sheep of Christ, as a general rule, will " distinguish things that differ," though he may sometimes be unable to explain why.

Let us beware of despising this spiritual instinct. Whatever a sneering world may please to say, it is one of the peculiar marks of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. As such, it is specially mentioned by St. John, when he says, " Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." (1 John ii. 20.) Let us rather pray for it daily, in order that we may be kept from the influence of false shepherds. To lose all power of distinguishing between bitter and sweet is one of the worst S3Tmptoms of bodily disease. To be unable to see any difference between law and gospel, truth and error, Protestantism and Popery, the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of man, is a sure proof that we are yet dead in heart, and need conversion.

We have, lastly, in these verses, a most instructive picture of Christ Himself. He utters one of those golden sayings which ought to be dear to all true Christians. They apply to people as well as to ministers. "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."

We are all by nature separate and far off from God. Sin, like a great barrier-wall, rises between us and our Maker. The sense of guilt makes us afraid of Him. The sense of His holiness keeps us at a distance from Him,

Born with a heart at enmity with God, we become more and more alienated from Him, by practice, the longer we live. The very first questions iu religion that must be answered, are these: "How can I draw near to God? How can I be justified? How can a sinner like me be reconciled to my Maker? "

The Lord Jesus Christ has provided an answer to these mighty questions. By His sacrifice for us on the cross, He has opened a way through the great barrier, and provided pardon and peace for sinners. He has " suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God." He has opened a way into the holiest, through His blood, by which we may draw near to God with boldness, and approach God without fear. And now He is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him. In the highest sense He is " the door." No one " can come to the Father " but by Him.

Let us take heed that we use this door, and do not merely stand outside looking at it. It is a door free and open to the chief of sinners: " If any man enter in b}^ it, he shall be saved." It is a door within which we shall find a full and constant supply for every want of our souls. We shall find that we can "go in and out," and enjoy liberty and peace. The day comes when this door will be shut forever, and men shall strive to enter in, but not be able. Then let us make sure work of our own salvation. Let us not stand tarrying without, and halting between two opinions. Let us enter in and be saved.