John Chapter 9 verse 17 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 17. - They; i.e. the Pharisees, divided in opinion, though probably united in their interrogation. Those, on the one hand, who believed in the miracle, and held that it carried Divine approbation of the conduct of Jesus, and, on the other hand, those who were so satisfied of the moral fault involved in the transaction, that they held that the miracle itself, if not a piece of deception or collusion, might even indicate some demonic source, rather than a Divine one, say therefore unto the blind man again - the πάλιν points to the virtual repetition of inquiries already made (ver. 15) - What dost thou say concerning him, seeing that he opened thine eyes? "What explanation hast thou to offer? What view dost thou entertain of the Man himself? Some of us think that his trifling with the sabbatic law puts out of court the idea of any Divine aid having enabled him to work this marvel. Other some, as you see, declare that the fact which has occurred is proof that Jesus must have had God's approval, and be sustained by Divine grace. But what dost thou, the healed man, say? What conclusion hast thou adopted? Seeing that he has opened thine eyes, what sayest thou of Jesus?" There is a bare chance that the man might give a vague answer, or one which would minimize the miracle. It is obvious that, while the Pharisees were contradicting each other and in danger of open collision, the faith of the blind man who had received his sight became stronger. The light was dawning on him. The answer, so far as it went, boldly took the side of Jesus, and perhaps its cue from the language of those who had said, "How can a bad man do such signs as these?" And he said, He is a Prophet (cf. John 4:19; John 6:14). Prophets, as divinely sent men, are even more authoritative than learned rabbis. If Jesus has broken through some of these restrictions by which they have "placed a hedge about the Law," surely he had a prophetic right to do it. The healing marks a Divine commission, and the healed man owned and freely confessed to so much as this: "He is a Prophet." Maimonides (quoted by Dr. Farrar) shows that the idea was current that a prophet might, on his own ipse dixit, alter or relax even the sabbath law, and that then the people were at liberty to obey him.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(17) They say unto the blind man again.--The question is not asked by either of the parties, for this must have been noted, but by the assembly generally. They who questioned him in John 9:15, question him again now. They have differed among themselves, and they ask what impression the fact of the miracle had left upon him who was the object of it, with regard to the person of Him who had performed it.What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes?--Stress is laid on the pronoun. What sayest thou? He ought to know better than any one, seeing that his eyes had been opened and this they admit, while the nature of his witness is uncertain; but immediately that is given they disbelieve the fact of the miracle, and soon reject with scorn him they question now (John 9:34).The English reader should observe the punctuation here, which rightly makes the question one. It is sometimes read as though it were, "What sayest thou of Him? that He hath opened thine eyes?" It is not, however, the fact which is here questioned, but the opinion of the man, based upon the fact, for the present assumed as true, which is called for.He is a prophet.--The education of the man has been doing its work, and he is convinced that the power which has healed him is direct from God, and that the person who has exercised it is a messenger from God. His words are uttered in the brevity and calmness of clear conviction, and they are the direct negative to the statement of the Pharisees, "This man is not from God." (Comp John 3:2; John 4:19; John 6:14.) It is important to note, that even in the language of the ordinary people, the word "prophet" did not mean simply a predictor of events in the future, but one who was as the representative of God. He was not only or chiefly a "fore-teller," but a "forth-teller," declaring God's truth, revealing His will and character, bearing the witness of divine works; but as the future is ever present to the divine counsels, prophecy, in the narrower sense, may be part of the work of the true prophet. . . .