rwp - John:9:13-34

rwp@John:9:13 @{They bring him} (\agousin auton\). Vivid dramatic present active of \ag\. These neighbours bring him. {To the Pharisees} (\pros tous Pharisaious\). The accepted professional teachers who posed as knowing everything. The scribes were usually Pharisees. {Him that aforetime was blind} (\ton pote tuphlon\). Simply, "the once blind man."

rwp@John:9:14 @{Now it was the sabbath} (\n de sabbaton\). Literally, "Now it was a sabbath" (no article). To the Pharisees this fact was a far more important matter than whether or how the thing was done. See Volumes I and II for discussions of the minute Sabbath regulations of the rabbis.

rwp@John:9:15 @{Again} (\palin\). Besides the questioning of the neighbours (verses 8,9|). {Therefore} (\oun\). Since he has been brought to the Pharisees who must make a show of wisdom. {Also asked him} (\rtn auton kai\). Inchoative imperfect active of \erta\, "began also to question him." {How he received his sight} (\ps aneblepsen\). No denial as yet of the fact, only interest in the "how." {He put} (\epethken\). Genuine here, but see verse 6|. {And lo see} (\kai blep\). That is the overwhelming fact.

rwp@John:9:16 @{Because he keepeth not the sabbath} (\hoti to sabbaton ou trei\). This is reason (causal \hoti\) enough. He violates our rules about the Sabbath and therefore is a Sabbath-breaker as charged when here before (5:10,16,18|). Hence he is not "from God" (\para theou\). Songs:some. {How can a man that is a sinner do such signs?} (\Ps dunatai anthrpos hamartlos toiauta smeia poiein;\). This was the argument of Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee and one of the Sanhedrin, long ago (3:2|). It was a conundrum for the Pharisees. No wonder there was "a division" (\schisma\, schism, split, from \schiz\) as in strkjv@7:43; strkjv@10:19|.

rwp@John:9:17 @{Unto the blind man again} (\ti tuphli palin\). The doctors disagree and they ask the patient whose story they had already heard (verse 15|). {In that he opened thine eyes} (\hoti neixen sou tous ophthalmous\). Causal use of \hoti\ and triple augment in the first aorist active indicative of \anoig\. They offer the excuse that the man's experience particularly qualified him to explain the "how," overlooking the fact he had already told his story and also trying to conceal their own hopeless division of opinion. {He is a prophet} (\prophts estin\). The man will go that far anyhow.

rwp@John:9:18 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). Probably the incredulous and hostile section of the Pharisees in verse 16| (cf. strkjv@5:10|). {Did not believe} (\ouk episteusan\). The facts told by the man, "that he had been blind and had received his sight" (\hoti n tuphlos kai aneblepsen\), conflicted with their theological views of God and the Sabbath. Songs:they refused belief "until they called the parents" (\hes hotou ephnsan tous goneis\). Usual construction of \hes hotou\ ( = until which time, like \hes\ alone) with aorist active indicative of \phne\, old verb from \phn\ (voice, sound). They called out loud for his parents to throw light on this grave problem to cover up their own stupidity.

rwp@John:9:19 @{Is this your son who ye say was born blind? how doth he now see?} (\Houtos estin ho huios humn, hon humeis lgete hoti tuphlos egennth; ps oun blepei arti;\). It was shrewdly put with three questions in one in order to confuse the parents if possible and give the hostile Pharisees a handle.

rwp@John:9:20 @{We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind} (\Oidamen hoti houtos estin ho huios hmn kai hoti tuphlos egennth\). These two questions the parents answer clearly and thus cut the ground from under the disbelief of these Pharisees as to the fact of the cure (verse 18|). Songs:these Pharisees made a failure here.

rwp@John:9:21 @{But how he now seeth we know not} (\ps de nun blepei ouk oidamen\). Concerning the third question they profess ignorance both as to the "how" (\ps\) and the "who" (\tis\). {Opened} (\noixen\). First aorist active indicative with single augment of \anoig\, same form as \neixen\ (triple augment) in verse 17|. They were not witnesses of the cure and had the story only from the son as the Pharisees had. {He is of age} (\hlikian echei\). "He has maturity of age." He is an adult. A regular classical phrase in Plato, etc. The parents were wholly right and within their rights.

rwp@John:9:22 @{Because they feared the Jews} (\hoti ephobounto tous Ioudaious\). Imperfect middle, a continuing fear and not without reason. See already the whispers about Jesus because of fear of the Jews (7:13|). {Had agreed already} (\d sunetetheinto\). Past perfect middle of \suntithmi\, to put together, to form a compact (7:32,47-49|). {If any man should confess him to be Christ} (\ean tis auton homologsi Christon\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and first aorist active subjunctive of \homologe\ and predicate accusative \Christon\. Jesus had made confession of himself before men the test of discipleship and denial the disproof (Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Luke:12:8|). We know that many of the rulers nominally believed on Jesus (12:42|) and yet "did not confess him because of the Pharisees" (\alla dia tous Pharisaious ouch hmologoun\), for the very reason given here, "that they might not be put out of the synagogue" (\hina m aposunaggoi genntai\). Small wonder then that here the parents cowered a bit. {That he should be put out of the synagogue} (\hina aposunaggos gentai\). Sub-final use of \hina\ with second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\. \Aposunaggos\ (\apo\ and \sunagg\) is found in N.T. only here and strkjv@12:42; strkjv@16:2|. A purely Jewish word naturally. There were three kinds of excommunication (for thirty days, for thirty more, indefinitely).

rwp@John:9:23 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." Reason enough for due caution.

rwp@John:9:24 @{A second time} (\ek deuterou\). He had given the Pharisees the facts the first time (9:15|). It was really the third time (see \palin\ in strkjv@9:17|). Now it was like a joke unless the Pharisees meant to imply that his previous story was untrue. {Give glory to God} (\dos doxan ti thei\). Second aorist active imperative of \didmi\ (cf. \sches, hes\). This phrase does not mean gratitude to God as in strkjv@Luke:17:18|. It is rather an adjuration to speak the truth (Joshua:7:19; strkjv@1Samuel:6:5|) as if he had not done it before. Augustine says: "_Quid est Daniel:gloriam Deo? Nega quod accepisti._" Is a sinner (\hamartlos estin\). They can no longer deny the fact of the cure since the testimony of the parents (9:19|) and now wish the man to admit that he was lying in saying that Jesus healed him. He must accept their ecclesiastical authority as proving that Jesus had nothing to do with the cure since Jesus is a sinner. They wish to decide the fact by logic and authority like all persecutors through the ages. Recall the Pharisaic distinction between \dikaios\ (righteous) and \hamartlos\ (sinner).

rwp@John:9:25 @{One thing I know} (\hen oida\). This man is keen and quick and refuses to fall into the trap set for him. He passes by their quibbling about Jesus being a "sinner" (\hamartlos\) and clings to the one fact of his own experience. {Whereas I was blind, now I see} (\tuphlos n arti blep\). Literally, "Being blind I now see." The present active participle \n\ of \eimi\ by implication in contrast with \arti\ (just now, at this moment) points to previous and so past time. It must be borne in mind that the man did not at this stage know who Jesus was and so had not yet taken him as Saviour (9:36-38|).

rwp@John:9:26 @{What did he do to thee?} (\Ti epoisen soi;\). Another cross-examination, now admitting that Jesus opened his eyes and wishing again (9:15,17|) to know "how."

rwp@John:9:27 @{I told you even now} (\eipon humin d\). In verses 15,17,25|. {Would ye also become his disciples?} (\M kai humeis thelete autou mathtai genesthai;\). Negative answer formally expected, but the keenest irony in this gibe. Clearly the healed man knew from the use of "also" (\kai\) that Jesus had some "disciples" (\mathtai\, predicate nominative with the infinitive \genesthai\) and that the Pharisees knew that fact. "Do ye also (like the Galilean mob) wish, etc." See strkjv@7:45-52|. It cut to the bone.

rwp@John:9:28 @{They reviled him} (\eloidorsan auton\). First aorist active indicative of \loidore\, old verb from \loidoros\ (reviler, strkjv@1Corinthians:5:11|), in N.T. only here, strkjv@Acts:23:4; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:12; strkjv@1Peter:2:23|. {Thou art his disciple} (\su mathts ei ekeinou\). Probably a fling in \ekeinou\ (of that fellow). He had called him a prophet (9:17|) and became a joyful follower later (9:36-38|). {But we are disciples of Moses} (\hmeis de tou Muses esmen mathtai\). This they said with proud scorn of the healed beggar. All orthodox rabbis so claimed.

rwp@John:9:29 @{We know that God hath spoken unto Moses} (\hmeis oidamen hoti Musei lelalken ho theos\). Perfect active indicative of \lale\, so still on record. See strkjv@Exodus:33:11|. For \lale\ used of God speaking see strkjv@Hebrews:1:1|. They are proud to be disciples of Moses. {But as for this man, we do not know whence he is} (\touton de ouk oidamen pothen estin\). "This fellow" they mean by "\touton\" in emphatic position, we do not even know whence he is. Some of the people did (7:27|), but in the higher sense none of the Jews knew (8:14|). These Pharisees neither knew nor cared.

rwp@John:9:30 @{Why, herein is the marvel} (\en touti gar to thaumaston estin\). This use of \gar\ (\ge + ara\, accordingly indeed) to bring out an affirmation from the previous words is common enough. "Why in this very point is the wonder" (\thaumaston\, old verbal adjective from \thaumaz\ as in strkjv@Matthew:21:42|). The man is angry now and quick in his insight and reply. You confess your ignorance of whence he is, ye who know everything, "and yet (adversative use of \kai\ again) he opened my eyes" (\kai noixen mou tous ophthalmous\). That stubborn fact stands.

rwp@John:9:31 @{God does not hear sinners} (\ho theos hamartln ouk akouei\). Note genitive case with \akouei\. This was the argument of the Pharisees in strkjv@9:16|. It is frequent in the O.T. (Job:27:9; strkjv@Psalms:66:18; strkjv@Isaiah:1:15; strkjv@59:2|, etc.). The conclusion is inevitable from this premise. Jesus is not \hamartlos\. {If any man be a worshipper of God} (\ean tis theosebs i\). Condition of third class with \ean\ and present active subjunctive \i\. \Theosebs\ (\theos\, God, \sebomai\, to worship) is an old compound adjective, here alone in the N.T. {And do his will} (\kai to thelma autou poiei\). Same condition with present active subjunctive of \poie\, "keep on doing his will."

rwp@John:9:32 @{Since the world began} (\ek tou ainos\). Literally, "from the age," "from of old." Elsewhere in the N.T. we have \apo tou ainos\ or \ap 'ainos\ (Luke:1:70; strkjv@Acts:3:31; strkjv@15:18|) as is common in the LXX. {Of a man born blind} (\tuphlou gegennmenou\). Perfect passive participle of \genna\. This is the chief point and the man will not let it be overlooked, almost rubs it in, in fact. It was congenital blindness.

rwp@John:9:33 @{If this man were not from God} (\ei m n houtos para theou\). Negative condition of second class with imperfect indicative. Assuming that Jesus is not "from God" (\para theou\) as some argued in strkjv@9:16|, "he could do nothing" (\ouk dunato poiein ouden\). Conclusion of the second-class condition with imperfect indicative (double augment in \dunato\) without \an\ as is usual in conditions of possibility, propriety, obligation (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 920,1014). The man has scored with terrific power in his use of Scripture and logic.

rwp@John:9:34 @{Thou wast altogether born in sin} (\en hamartiais su egennths holos\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\. "In sins thou wast begotten (or born) all of thee." \Holos\ is predicate nominative and teaches total depravity in this case beyond controversy, the Pharisees being judges. {And dost thou teach us?} (\kai su didaskeis hmas;\). The audacity of it all. Note emphasis on \su\ (thou). It was insufferable. He had not only taught the rabbis, but had utterly routed them in argument. {And they cast him out} (\kai exebalon auton ex\). Effective second aorist active indicative of \ekball\ intensified by the addition of \ex\. Probably not yet expulsion from the synagogue (9:22|) which required a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, but certainly forcible driving of the gifted upstart from their presence. See strkjv@6:37| for another use of \ekball ex\ besides strkjv@9:35|.