Page images
PDF
EPUB

God walls the sea with sand. God warms the earth with snow.

opposite of what is to be done. God clears the air with storms. 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 jaw-bone 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, wash...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 sentence. It is naturally asked, -Why is this parenthetical explanation inserted by St. John? Why are we specially told that the word Siloam 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.' the view of Chrysostom and Augustine.

"This is

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 manu

scripts 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 templegate 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 temple-gate." The miracle of healing seems to have taken place in the act of washing in Siloam.

66

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.

Scott remarks that the immediate power of using the eyes was no small part of the miracle. When people recover sight now after surgical operations, it requires a considerable time to learn the use of the newly-acquired sense.

8.-[The neighbours.] This would seem to show that he " came "to his own house as soon as he was healed of his blindness. The word before us naturally means the people who lived near to him.

[They which before had seen...blind.] This expression includes all persons in Jerusalem who knew the blind man by sight, though

they did not live near him, but had often seen him near the temple and become familiar with his appearance. There are generally blind beggars in the chief thoroughfares of large cities, and near large public buildings, whom all residents know well by sight. The slow, uncertain, feeble gait of a blind man always makes him conspicuous.

[Is not this he that sat and begged.] This question seems to settle that the blind man was one of the poorest and humblest class of Jews. None are so likely to come to poverty and be dependent on charity as the blind, who of course cannot work for their own support.

9.-[Some said, This is he.] This probably was the saying of the blind man's neighbours, who naturally knew him best.

[Others said, He is like him.] This was probably the saying of people living in Jerusalem, who knew the blind man by sight, but did not live near him, and were not therefore so familiar with his appearance. The difference between the look and demeanour of the man before and after his miraculous cure would necessarily be very great. One can quite understand that some would hardly know him again. Augustine remarks, "The opened eyes had altered his looks." Musculus observes how much the expression of a face depends on the eyes.

[He said, I am he.] This was the saying of the man when he heard people doubting his identity and looking at him with hesitation. "I assure you," he says, "that I am he who used to sit at the temple gate and beg."

10.-[Therefore said they, etc.] Those who asked this question appear to have been the people who came together round the blind man, when he returned from the pool of Siloam with his sight restored. Some were his neighbours, and others were inhabitants of Jerusalem, drawn together by the miracle. The inquiry was the natural one that such a wonderful cure would first call forth.

11.—[He answered and said, etc.] This verse is a simple unvarnished account of the facts of the cure. How the blind man knew that our Lord's name was "Jesus," does not appear. It is not unlikely that some of the bystanders, when our Lord first told him to go to the pool of Siloam, told him that Jesus of Nazareth, the person whose preaching was making such stir in Jerusalem, was the speaker. We cannot doubt that our Lord was well known by this time to all dwellers in Jerusalem. Yet there is no proof that the

[ocr errors]

beggar recognized Him as anything more than "a man called Jesus. The accuracy with which he recites all the facts of his cure, is well worthy of notice. "He first put clay on my eyes; then He bid me go and wash in Siloam ;—I went: I was cured." 12. [Then said they...where is He?.. He...know not.] The desire to see the worker of this wonderful miracle was natural, but the question, " "Where is He?" was probably asked with a mischievous intention. Those who asked it wished to lay hands on our Lord, and bring Him before the rulers. The man's answer certainly seems to show that he did not return to the place where he had sat and begged, but to his house. Had he gone back to the temple gates, he might have replied, that Jesus was here only a short time before, and was probably not far off. The questioners seem to suppose that the worker of such a miracle and the subject of it, could not be far apart. They did not understand that our Lord always avoided, rather than courted public notice.

JOHN IX. 13-25.

13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

19 And they asked them, saying, Is

this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him; he shall speak for himself.

22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age: ask him.

24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

THESE verses show us, how little the Jews of our Lord's time understood the right use of the Sabbath day.

We

read that some of the Pharisees found fault because a

blind man was miraculously healed on the Sabbath. They said, "This man is not of God, because He keepeth not the Sabbath day." A good work had manifestly been done to a helpless fellow-creature. A heavy bodily infirmity had been removed. A mighty act of mercy had been performed. But the blind-hearted enemies of Christ could see no beauty in the act. They called it a breach of the Fourth Commandment!

These would-be wise men completely mistook the intention of the Sabbath. They did not see that it was "made for man," and meant for the good of man's body, mind, and soul. It was a day to be set apart from others, no doubt, and to be carefully sanctified and kept holy. But its sanctification was never intended to prevent works of necessity and acts of mercy. To heal a sick man was no breach of the Sabbath day. In finding fault with our Lord for so doing, the Jews only exposed their ignorance of their own law. They had forgotten that it is as great a sin to add to a commandment, as to take it away.

Here, as in other places, we must take care that we do not put a wrong meaning on our Lord's conduct. We must not for a moment suppose that the Sabbath is no longer binding on Christians, and that they have nothing to do with the Fourth Commandment. This is a great mistake, and the root of great evil. Not one of the ten commandments has ever been repealed or put aside. Our Lord never meant the Sabbath to become a day of pleasure, or a day of business, or a day of travelling and idle dissipation. He meant it to be "kept holy" as long as the

« PreviousContinue »