years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Ver

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the tem

t

r I am.

Ex. 3. 14; Isa. 43. 13; chap. 17. 5, 24; Col. 1. 17;

næus inferred that Jesus was near fifty years old. Others have inferred that he seemed prematurely old, either from the marks of enduring sorrow in his features, or from his apparent precocious maturity of mind. He was not yet thirty-three; and the fifty here named is simply an even sum to measure off the intervening centuries. Seen Abraham-Jesus had not said that he had seen Abraham, or that Abraham had seen him, but simply that Abraham had seen his day. They, however, in trying to exaggerate his words into absurdity, really elevate them into a higher truth. Jesus, as he will soon declare, had seen Abraham.

58. Before Abraham was- Before Abraham became, or came into being. The Greek term was, as applied to Abraham, is wholly different from the AM claimed by Christ to himself. I am -The permanent present of the verb of existence. Present, before Abraham was; present to-day, yesterday, and forever. Biblical scholars of all ages have seen in this sublime word the I am that I am of the eternal Jehovah. Thus does Jesus, threading through all the intricacies of Jewish gainsaying, wind up with this grand climax of selfaffirmed eternity!

59. Took they up stones-Upon the climax follows an explosion. For the honour of Abraham and all the prophets, this professed giver of life shall die. This claimant to an eternity of existence shall come to a speedy end. However Socinian in their sentiments these angry Jews may themselves have been, they put no Socinian interpretation on Jesus's words. Stones to cast-To the query how should stones be lying in the temple court, the plausible reply is, they may have been there for temple repairs. Hid himself There is no indication that his disciples, as some think, formed a

Rev. 1.8.8 Ch. 10. 31, 39, & 11. 8.- Luke 4. 30.

covert to defend his person. Such a movement on their part could hardly be unmentioned. While the Jews were in the act of selecting the fatal stones, Jesus probably moved away by a route which interposed protecting objects between him and them, and so escaped from the temple. The closing phrases, going through the midst of them, and so passed by, are the same Greek as Luke iv, 30, improperly transferred to this place.

CHAPTER IX.

$84.-RESTORATION OF THE BLIND-BORN AND FOURTH DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, ix, 1—x, 21. The event here narrated, with its appended discourse, must, in order to be understood in its completeness, be taken into one reading from ix, 1 to x, 39. It takes place at the Feast of Taber nacles. Through chapter ix the spirit ual lords of Jerusalem show themselves false shepherds, as the blind-born is a true representative sheep; and through x, 1-21 Jesus contrasts the true shepherd with the false. Three months after, at the Feast of Dedication, (2239,) Jesus takes occasion to resume the same thread of discourse, and the angry Jews, in resentment for his rebukes, drive him from their capital.

The immediate narrative exhibits a thorough hostile sifting of one of our Lord's miracles by the exciting authorities. First, it was the case of one born blind; a kind of case never curable (verso. 32) by natural means. Second, the reality of the blindness was notorious, and yet was thoroughly examined by the authorities. Third, there was no escape from the conclusion of the reality of the miracle. It was attested by the man himself, by his parents, by his neighbours, by Jesus and his disci ples. It was finally undenied by the Lord's enemies. It was moreover at

CHAPTER IX.

this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

answered,

tested and recorded by John, our Evangelist, himself an eye and ear witness of the whole transaction.

After the performance of the miracle, 1-7, the case is examined by the neighbours, 8-12; the man is brought before the authorities and examined a first time, 13-17; the parents are brought before them and examined, 18-23; the man is recalled and re-examined and cast out, 24-34. Jesus finds and receives him, passing condemnation on his rejecters, whom in the next chapter he contrasts with the good Shepherd.

1. As Jesus passed by-Did this take place as Jesus passed from the excited scene at the close of the last chapter? Or is there an interval of some days, and the opening of a new event? In favour of the former view is the obvious sense of the language implying no break, and the fact that the temple where that scene took place was an ordinary place for the beggar to post himself for alms. On the contrary, however unexcited Jesus may have been, the disciples could scarce at such a moment have been in a mood for proposing a dry speculative question upon the first object they meet. Nor is it natural to understand the Sabbath-day of verse 14 as any other than the weekly Sabbath. We hold, therefore, that John here gives a separate narrative, of a very illustrative kind, of an event which occurred probably the Sabbath after the scene which closes the last chapter. From his birth-And therefore the cure was beyond human power, and so supernatural and miraculous.

2. Who did sin?-We have here a bit of speculative theology. The disciples assume the prevalent doctrine as true, that special calamities are the result of special sinfulness. If they had

parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

b Chap. 11. 4.

assumed that the race is liable to miseries because the race is depraved, there would have been no error. It is also true that many sins entail particular sufferings upon posterity, physical, moral, and political. Nevertheless, special sufferings are not absolute proof of special guilt. This man, or his parents-But how could the apostles conceive that this man had sinned before his birth? Some commentators have held that they imagined that the man's soul may have sinned in a previous body. That would imply the doctrine of metempsychosis or transmigration, by which the same soul is supposed to inhabit different bodies; and so the soul may have sinned in a former body and be punished in this. There is no clear proof that this doctrine was prevalent among these Jews. Others hold that they believed that the child in the womb, before its birth, could be guilty of wicked impulses and motions. Others, that the disciples asked a confused question without distinctly perceiving the implications it contained. But, note, this may have been the very difficulty they desired the Lord ultimately to explain; namely, how this man's birth-blindness could have been the result of his own sin. On the popular supposition that suffering was the result of a sin, they desire to know of whose sin this man's suffering is the consequence. Was it his parents' sin or his own? And if Jesus had replied his own, the next question would have been, If his own, how?

3. Neither...this man...nor his parents-Our Lord does not deny that they had sinned, but that they had sinned as the cause of his being born blind. Works of God-We do not understand our Lord to say that the single

blind? How were his eyes opened? Where is his restorer? The first two questions were amply answered by the man himself. The third remained as yet unanswered.

8. He that sat and begged-The notoriety of his case explains how it was that the apostles knew him to be born blind. Verse 2.

9. Like him-This was doubtless the desperate solution of some who, like certain modern would-be philosophers, adopt any supposition rather than admit a miracle. He said, I am he-A man is generally the best judge of his own identity.

11. A man...called Jesus-The excitement produced by the miracles and preaching had not reached, as yet, the blind beggar. He knew his benefactor only by name. Made clay-The man's recital of the instrumentalities clearly indicates the impression they were intended to produce, (see our note on verse 6,) and their obvious inadequacy demonstrated the miracle.

12. Where is he? - The motive for asking was not hostility, but a natural interest to see and know the author of such a work. I know not-The man had heard the voice but had never seen the person of his benefactor, until revealed. Verse 37. So we have not seen our Saviour; nor will, until his final coming.

The man's first examination before the court, 13-17.

That this was an authoritative body appears from their power to send for the different parties, (verses 18, 24,) and from their expelling from the synagogue, 34. It was probably the lesser Sanhedrim, called the Pharisees, as being mainly composed of that sect.

13. They brought to the Pharisees We see no proof of hostility to Jesus (attributed by some commentators) in their thus referring to the proper examiners so extraordinary a fact. The humble neighbours were perfectly willing that its author should be pronounced a prophet.

14. Sabbath day-The Evangelist here prepares us for the ground upon which the Pharisees will seek to invalidate the miracle.

15. Again-In addition to the previous questioning by the neighbours. The man doggedly reiterates the methods which formed the body, and the supernatural effect which formed the soul, of the miracle. He evidently sees that there is a demand for firmness, and he braces himself for the trial. Nothing shall induce him to deny his benefactor's mercy. Thus there may be a heroic and martyr-like spirit of faith before the object of faith is clearly dis covered and made known.