The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 9

eviilcnce of the f11ot. The 1ew1 then did not made a lfuv9~""' had pledged each other and believe, or rofueecl to believe, oonoerning him, made it snfficiently known even to such that he had been blind, and received hie person~ 118 the poverty-stricken parents of sight, until they called the parents of him the bhnd beggar, that it wonld be carried that had reoeived hie eight, and asked them, out by the adequate authority in such a I ■ this your son, who ye se.y was born blind l matter-that i1 any man should confeee How then doth he now see l '£here were that he was Christ(" he" (a.u..-bv) is remark- three questions proposed after the delay able-it_ shows how full ~he thoughts of the involvecl in fetching the parents of the blind evangelist were of the Personality of Jesus), beggar. 'fhe first wae identification of the he should be put out of the synagogue ; or, blincl mlln. 'fhe second was the fact of become u.n1ynagogued. The Talmud speaks hie congenital blindness. 'fhe third was of three kinds of excommunication (cf. also the means of hie cure. Matt. v. 22), of which the first two were Ver. 20.-To the first and second questions disciplinary; the third answers to complete the parents give aflirmo.tive answers. The and final expulsion (in 'Jer. Moed. K.,' 81, identification is complete, and the astounding d, S:ipo S,:i, M1:i, Edersbeim). The general quo.lity of the cure is demonstrated. His designation was shammata, from ,oc- to parents (then) 1 answered them and said, We know that thie ie our son, and that he was destroy. The first form of it was -~lled born blind. In none of tho Gospels, and in nesephah, and did not a.mount to more than severe rebuke. It would exclude from re- no narrative of this Gospel, is more certain ligious privileges for seven or thirty days, proof given of the reality of a perfectly in- explicable phenomenon. according to the dignity of the authority by Ver. 21.-Tho third question is prudentlywhom it was pronounced (of. I Tim. v. 1). remitted back to the consciousness and The second form of shammata was called testimony of the man himself. The parents niddui, which lasted for thirty days at the had some justification for their cowardice,least, and might be repeated at the encl of They had no information beyond that which them. If these admonitions failed to pro- their son had given them. Ho had stumbled duce their right effect, it might lead to the forth as usual on the morning of that sab- third and final excommunication, called bath, o.nd had returned home in transports cherem, or ban, whose duration was in- of joy. Their son had doubtless told them definite. The second of these forms was the story (the use of o't5a.µ,v instead of accompanied by blast of trumpet and terrible curses, which deprived the snfferer of all -r,v,I,,n,oµ,v is significant). They knew by incontestable intuitive knowledge the per- kinds of so~ial intercourse. He was avoided as a leper; if he died, he was buried withont sonality and lifelong affliction of their son ; but, say they, We do not know (absolutely) funeral or monrning. The cherem was even how he now sees; or who opened hie eyes, o. more te1Tible anathema., and might last we know not. Ask him (if you want to for life. The parents of the blind man know); he is of full age, and therefore hismight easily fear such o. curse. The ban to testimony ie valid in your court. He will which this blind man was eventnally ex- speak ( concerning) for himself. " We can posed did not prevent him from movin"' only come to know from his testimony what about the city. The ban pronounced o; he tells us, ancl he can himsell speak for JeBUB led doubtless to the condemnation himself, and tell you all he has told us." issuing in his ignominy and trial for ~ Ver. 22.-The evangelist accounts for thecapital offence. It was probably the second reticence of the parents by their fear of of the three forms of anathema to which he consequences. These things said hie parents,was ultimately condemned. It was quite beoause they feared the J'ewe. Thie passaaesufficient temptation for these poor parents provides strong evidence of the technic~l to have preserved an obstinate reticence. use of the ter1n '' the Jews." Doubtless Ver. 23.-Therefore said hie parents, He is of full age ; ask him. They would not these parents were Israelites, but they were not "J ewe " in the J oho.nnine sense. The incur responsibility for the opinions of their "Jews" were the hierarchical and ecoleei- son about his Healer. They knew perfectly aetico-political o.uthoritiee. For they had well that it was the Jesus who was said to already come to the agreement (Luke xxii. be the Christ of the nation, and they would 5; Acts xxiii. 20; I Mo.cc. ix. 70) • had not implicate themselves in giving any mutually determined-it does not folio~ tho.tjudgment on hie claims. the Sanhedrin bad issuod a public order Ver. 24.--80 they(" the Jews") oo.lled a but that a formidable party of" Jews" had seoond time the man that was (had been) blind, and said unto him; no longer asking for 1 Tischendorf, L11ohme.nn, and Westcott any details of the process of the cure, they and Hort insert o~v, with ~. B, and omit sought with ingenuity to blunt the edge of the 1U1To1s1 with R.T. powerful testimonywhlch this man had borne 10 THE GOSPEL ACOOR))JNG 'l'O ST. JOHN. [011, IX, 1-41,