it was among " the people ; " at ix. 16, among the " Pharisees." Here it was among the " Jews," an expression in St. John's Gospel generally applied to our Lord's enemies among the Pharisees.
The special " sayings " which caused the division were proba- bly our Lord's words about His Father, His claim to have power to lay down His life and take it again, and His proclamation of Himself as "the Good Shepherd/' Words like these from a Galilean teacher of humble appearance were likely to offend the proud Pharisees of Jerusalem.
That our Lord would be a cause of division — a stone of stum- bling to some, and set for the rise and fall of many in Israel — had been foretold by Isaiah, viii. 14, and by Simeon, Luke ii. 34. Divisions among His hearers are therefore no proof that He was not the Messiah, and divisions among hearers of the Gospel in the present day are no argument against the truth of the Gospel. Even now the same Gospel is a savour of death to some, and of life to others, calls forth love in some, and hatred in others. The same fire which melts wax hardens clay.
20. — [And many of them said, etc.'] This is the sort of profane remark which we can well imagine many unconverted hearers of our Lord making: "What! a humble Galilean like this Man call Himself the only good Shepherd, and talk of having power to lay down His life and take it again, and of having a special commission from His Father in heaven. He must surely have a devil, or be out of His senses. He must be mad. Why do you waste your time in listening to Him? "—Thousands talk in this way now against Christ's servants. They would probably have talked in the same way against their Master!
Let us note what blasphemous and slanderous things were said against our Lord. True Christians, and specially ministers, must never wonder if they are treated in the same manner.
21. — [Others said, These are not, etc.'] Here we see that there were some among the Pharisees who took our Lord's part, and were disposed to believe op Him. Such probably were Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea. They defend him on the score both of His words and works. — As to His words, they argue that no one of common sense could call such words as our Lord had just spoken the words of a man possessed with a devil. The devil and his agents do not desire to do good to man, or to glorify God. The calm, solemn, loving, God-glorifying language just used, was the very opposite to that which might be expected from a demoniac— As to his works, they argue that no devil, how- ever powerful, could work such a miracle as to open the eyes of the blind. Some wonderful works the devil might do, but no such work as that of giving sight. It is worth noticing that the Jews held that to give sight to the blind was one of the special miracles which Messiah would work "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened." (Isaiah xxxv. 5.)