THE 13th MAN

They reclined around the table - there were the twelve who had been with Him for the past three and a half years -
and the 13th was --

THE SON OF MAN

THE TITLE

The title "the Son of man" stands in significant contrast with the other titles which are assigned to the Lord, and particularly with that title which in some respects is most akin to it, "the Son of David." It was essentially a new title; it was used, so far as we know, with one exception only, by the Lord and of Himself; it expresses a relationship not to a family or to a nation, but to all humanity.

THE NEW TITLE

The title was a new one. It is common to regard it as directly derived from the book of Daniel. But in reality the passage in Daniel 7:13, in which the title is supposed to be found has only a secondary relation to it. The vision of Daniel brings before him not "the Son of man," but one "like a son of man." The phrase is general (Ezekiel 2:1), and is introduced by a particle of comparison..

The Greek text represents the original exactly: and the true parallel is found in the book of Revelation 1:13, 14:14.

The thought on which John dwells is simply that of the human appearance of the being presented to him (see Daniel 10:16; Ezekiel 1:26). The force of this comparison comes out more plainly if the context be taken into account.

THE HISTORICAL OUTLOOK

The divine kingdom is being contrasted with the kingdoms of the world. These are presented under the images of beasts (Daniel 7). The brute forces symbolized them, just as man, to whom originally dominion was given, symbolized the rightful sovereignty which was to be established. "I saw," the prophet writes, "in my vision by night….and four great beasts came up from the sea. The first was like a lion,….and…a second….like a bear,….and lo another like a leopard….I saw in the night visions, and behold one like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven…." (Daniel 7:17, 27). The former rulers had come forth from the sea - the symbol of all confusion and instability - the divine ruler came from heaven.

It is true that the image of Daniel found fulfillment in the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, and so the words of the prophet, with the substitution of "the Son of man" for "one like a son of man" were applied by the Lord to Himself (Matthew 16:27; 24:30, 26:64). But He was not only "like a son of man," He was "the Son of man." The less is of necessity included in the greater; but in itself the language of Daniel furnishes no parallel to the language of the Gospels.

The same may be said of all the other passages* in which the phrases "the sons of men" or "Son of man" occur in the Old Testament.   They describe man as:

        Dependent            
        Limited
        Transitory.

                *The singular, except in Ezekiel as addressed to the prophet, is of rare occurrence;
                      and it is never found  with the article (see Psalms 8:4, 80:17).

But there can be no doubt that the image in Daniel exercised some influence upon later writing in the book of Revelation. The remarkable use of the title "Son of man" in reference to the Messiah in the Revelation.

The passages in which the title "Son of man" is found in the four Gospels may be grouped into two great classes: 

                Those which refer to the earthly work of the Lord in the time of His humility.
                Those which refer to His future coming in glory.

THE EARTHLY WORK OF THE LORD

The earthly presence of the Lord as the Incarnate Son presented a series of starling contrast:

He was to outward eyes despised            
            and yet possessing supreme authority
He lived as men live           
            and yet He was at all times busy with His Father’s work
His true nature was veiled
            and yet not wholly hidden
His mission was a mission of love
            and yet it imposed on those to whom He came heavy responsibility
To misinterpret Him was to incur judgment
            and yet the offense was not past forgiveness

He foresaw the end from the beginning, with its sorrows and glory.

   (A) He was to outward eyes despised, and yet possessing supreme authority.

    (B) He lived as men live, and Yet He was at all times busy with His Father’s work.

    (C) His true nature was veiled, and yet not wholly hidden.

    (D) His mission was a mission of love, and yet it imposed on those to whom He came heavy responsibility.

    (E) To misinterpret Him was to incur judgment, and yet the offense was not past forgiveness.

    (F) He foresaw the end from the beginning, with its sorrows and glory.

THOSE WHICH REFER TO HIS FUTURE COMING IN GLORY

Side by side with these traits of the human life of the Son of man, visions are opened of another life of glory, sovereignty, judgment:

(A) Though He had come, yet He still spoke of His coming as future.
(B) Meanwhile men are left on their trail, to which an end is appointed in a swift and unexpected catastrophe.
(C )This "presence" of the Son of man at "the consummation of the age"
            which is to be followed by:
(D) Judgment of men and nations
(E) By the gathering of the elect into a divine kingdom

These thoughts are illustrated by the following passages in which the title (the Son of Man) occurs:

    (A) Though He had come, yet He still spoke of His coming as future

    (B) Meanwhile men are left on their trail, to which an end is appointed in a swift and unexpected catastrophe.

    (C) This "presence" of the Son of man at "the consummation of the age" is to be followed by a judgment of men and nations, and by the gathering of the elect into a divine kingdom.

A consideration of these passages will enable us to seize the outlines of the teaching which is summed up in the title. The idea of the true humanity of Christ lies at the foundation of it. He was not only "like a son of man," but He was "The Son of man:" His manhood was real and not apparent. But He was not as one man among many . He was the representative of the whole race; "the Son of man" in whom all the potential powers of humanity were gathered.

Thus the expression which describes the self-humiliation of Christ raises Him at the same time immeasurably above all those whose nature He had assumed. Of no one, simply man, could it be said that he was "the man," or "the Son of man," in whom the complete conception of manhood was absolutely attained.

The teaching of Paul supplies a striking commentary upon the title when he speaks of Christ as the "second Adam" (I Corinthians 15:45. Compare Romans 5:14), who gathers up into Himself all humanity, and becomes the source of a higher life to the race.

As a necessary conclusion from this view of Christ’s humanity which is given in the title "the Son of man," it follows that He is in perfect sympathy with every man of every age and of every nation. All that truly belongs to humanity, all therefore that truly belongs to every individual in the whole race, belongs also to Him.

The thought is carried yet further. We are allowed to see, and it can only be as it were "by a mirror in a riddle" (I Corinthians 13:12), that the relation which exists in the present order of things between every man and Christ, is continued in another order. As "the Son of man" He is revealed to the eyes of His first martyr, that Christians may learn that that which is begun in weakness shall be completed in eternal majesty. (Acts 7:56).

It may well be admitted that the early disciples did not at first apprehend all that the later history of the race enables us to see in the title. Perhaps it may have been from some sense of the mysterious meaning of the term, which had not yet been illuminated by the light of the Church, that they shrank themselves from using it. But we cannot be found to measure the interpretation of Scripture by that which is at once intelligible.

The words of the Lord are addressed to all time. They stand written for our study, and it is our duty to bring to their interpretation whatever fullness of knowledge a latter age may have placed within our reach.

I don’t want the student of Scripture to think that because we are dealing here with the manhood of Jesus, who is indeed the Christ of God. That for one moment, we are not fully convinced that this same Jesus was indeed the Word of God, the creator of everything that was made. As perfect man He sacrificed (laid down) His life. As perfect God, He took it up again. As the Spirit of God, He dwells in us and gives us the power and ability to overcome.

THE MAN THAT WAS BORN BLIND RESTORED TO SIGHT

   Verse 35
"Dost thou believe"   pisteueis  (grk 4100 in Strong's Concordance)
The form of the question indicates the confident expectation of an affirmative answer. It is almost an affirmation, "you surely believe."   "you"   is in the emphatic (grk 4771 in Strong's Concordance) -
"you who have borne such bold testimony to me that they have cast you out."


THE FEAST OF DEDICATION

Another reading in John 10:22 (Then was the Feast of Dedication) suggests that John 9 and 10:1-21 is connected with the Feast of Dedication, and not, as is commonly supposed, with the Feast of Tabernacles.  John 9 begins abruptly like John 6. The contents of John 9:1-10:21 have a close affinity with John 10:22-39. The thought throughout is of the formation of the new congregation, the new spiritual Temple.

    THE SIGN (John 9:1-12)

The narrative of the healing is marked by the same kind of vivid details as we have noticed before. The occasion of the miracle, the peculiarity of the mode of cure, the reference to Siloam, are without direct parallels, and yet in perfect harmony with other narratives. The variety of opinion among the people and the mention of "the man called Jesus" belong to the experience of an immediate witness.

    AS JESUS PASSED BY  (John  9:1 )

Perhaps in the neighborhood of the temple where the man was waiting for the alms of worshippers (Acts 3:2). The narrative has been generally connected with the events of the preceding chapter.      

    HE SAW  (John 9:1)

Something in the man’s condition seems to have arrested the attention of the Lord. The word is significant. Naturally we should have expected "the disciples saw and asked."

    BLIND FROM HIS BIRTH   (John 9:1)

The miracles recorded in John’s Gospel stand out each as a type of its class. Hence stress is laid upon this special fact.

The thoughts of the controversy recorded in John 8 seem to have passed away. At once "a great calm" has come. The Lord stands in the center of His disciples, and not of an angry crowd. Yet the question of the disciples moves in the same spiritual region as the speculations on inherited religious privileges and divine Sonship. Such a question is perhaps the simplest and commonest form of inquiry into our relation to those who have gone before us

The use of the Aramaic term is characteristic of John, though it is also found in Matthew 26:25,49; Mark 9:5.

That he should be…..by the just sequence of punishment on guilt. It was assumed that the particular suffering was retributive. The only doubt is as to the person whose sin was so punished; whether it was the man himself either before birth or in some former state of existence, or the man’s parents. The latter alternative was familiar to the Jews (Exodus 20:5; Hebrews 7:10); and there are traces of a belief in the pre-existence of souls, at least in later Judaism (see Wisdom 8:20 a Jewish work).

Perhaps it is most natural to suppose that the question, which in itself belongs to a Jewish mode of thought, was asked without any distinct apprehension of the alternatives involved in it. For further information on this subject, see Lightfoot’s commentary which has a curious collection of Rabbinical passages illustrating different forms of opinion on this subject.

[Who did sin, this man, or his parents] The doctrine of the transmigration of souls appears to have been an article in the creed of the Pharisees, and it was pretty general both among the Greeks and the Asiatics. The Pythagoreans believed the souls of men were sent into other bodies for the punishment of some sin which they had committed in a pre-existent state. This seems to have been the foundation of the disciples' question to our Lord. Did this man sin in a pre-existent state, that he is punished in this body with blindness? Or, did his parents commit some sin, for which they are thus plagued in their offspring!
(from Adam Clarke Commentary)

Most of the Asiatic nations have believed in the doctrine of transmigration. The Hindus still hold it; and profess to tell precisely the sin which the person committed in another body, by the afflictions which he endures in this: they profess also to tell the cures for these. For instance, they say the headache is a punishment for having, in a former state, spoken irreverently to father or mother. Madness is a punishment for having been disobedient to father or mother or to one's spiritual guide. The epilepsy is a punishment for having, in a former state, administered poison to anyone at the command of his master. Pain in the eyes is a punishment for having, in another body, coveted another man's wife. Blindness is a punishment for having killed his mother: but this person they say, before his new birth, will suffer many years' torment in hell.

The Lord’s answer deals only with this special case (Compare Luke 13:1, and for the general idea towards which it is directed, see Acts 28:4); and that only so far as it is an occasion for action and not a subject for speculation. We are not concerned primarily with the causes which have determined the condition or circumstances of men, with the origin of evil in any of its forms, but with the remedying of that which is amiss and remediable.

It is true always, in one way or other, that for us evil is an opportunity for the manifestation of the works of God. But evil never ceases to be evil; and it may be noticed that at the proper occasion the Lord indicates the connection between sin and suffering; John 5:14; Matthew 9:2.

But he was born blind that the works of God, the works of redemptive love which He has sent me to accomplish, may be made manifest in him. Compare John 5:36  The works themselves are real even though we cannot see them: they need (from this side) manifestation only. For the emphatic but compare John 15:25. Underneath what we can see and conclude there lies a truer cause of that which perplexes us most.

The man is not treated as an instrument merely, but as a living representative of the mercy of God. His suffering is the occasion and not the appointed preparation for the miracle, though when we regard things from the divine side we are constrained to see them in their dependence on the will of God.

Another reading has it: We must work the works of Him that sent me. So the Lord associates His disciples with Himself as before in John 3:11. The truth is general and holds good of the Master and of the servants. They are sent for the manifestation of the works of God. But the obligation of the servant’s charge comes from the Master’s mission. The works are no longer regarded as "the works of God" generally, but "the works of Him that sent" the Son.

[I must work] [eme (Strong's grk 1691) dei (Strong's grk 1163) ergazesthai (Strong's grk 2038)].
The best manuscripts read [heemas]  "us," (Strong's grk 2248), instead of [eme]  "me."
Literally, "it is necessary for us to work." The disciples are thus associated by Jesus with Himself. Compare <John 3:11>         (Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament)

While the appointed time for working still remains: Psalms 104:23. "Day" and "night" are taken in their most general sense as the seasons for labor and rest in regard to the special end in view. After the Passion there was no longer the opportunity for the performance of the works characteristic of the historic Life of Christ.

Then in one sense "night" came, and in a yet fuller sense a new day dawned for new works, to be followed by another night, another close. It is not to be supposed that the "night" here describes an abiding and complete rest of Christ: it presents rest only from the works which belong to the corresponding "day."

According to the ‘Sayings of the Jewish Fathers: "R. Tarphon (Tryphon): ‘ The day is short, and the task is great, and the workmen are sluggish, and the reward is much, and the Master of the house is urgent ’ Pirke Aboth, II. 19 Talmud

The order is significant. The emphasis is laid upon the certain and monetary advance of that which ends all successful efforts in the present order: there cometh swiftly and inevitable night, when no man (one) can work. The necessary cessation of labor is expressed in its completest form.

   AS LONG AS   (John 9:5)

The Vulgate uses the word quamdiu  =  World

Whenever I am in the world…… The indefinite form of the statement suggests the thought of the manifold revelations of the Word. "Whenever" -( quamdiu) and not only during that revelation which was then in the course of being fulfilled, but also in the time of the Patriarchs, and of the Law, and of the Prophets, and through the later ages of the Church, Christ is the light of the world.

This universality of application if further brought out by the omission of the personal pronoun in both clauses of the sentence. The stress is thrown upon the character of the manifestation of the Son, and not as in the former place where the phrase occurs (John 8:12) upon the Person of the Son.

Christ is "light to the world" as well as "the one light of the world." The character is unchangeable, but the display of the character varies with the occasion. In this case it is shown in personal illumination. Bodily sight is taken as the representation of the fullness of human vision (note John 9:39).

Compare Mark 7:33, 8:23. We must suppose that the attention of the blind man was by this time fully roused, perhaps by the conversation just recorded, or by some words addressed to him.

The application of spittle to the eyes, which was considered very salutary, was expressly forbidden by Jewish tradition, on the Sabbath, also the kneading of the clay further aggravated the offense.

He anointed his eyes with the clay. At first Christ may seem to work against the end for which His help is sought. Here He sealed, so to speak, the eyes which He designed to open. It is impossible to determine why the Lord chose this method of working the cure. In the end the mode proved all-important.

[Anointed] [epechrisen (Strong's grk 2025)]. Occurs only here and <John 9:11>. The spittle was regarded as having a peculiar virtue, not only as a remedy for diseases of the eye, but generally as a charm, so that it was employed in incantations. Persius, describing an old crone handling an infant, says: "She takes the babe from the cradle, and with her middle finger moistens its forehead and lips with spittle to keep away the evil eye" ("Sat.," ii., 32, 33). Tacitus relates how one of the common people of Alexandria importuned Vespasian for a remedy for his blindness, and prayed him to sprinkle his cheeks and the balls of his eyes with the secretion of his mouth ("History," iv, 81). Pliny says: "We are to believe that by continually anointing each morning with fasting saliva (i. e., before eating), inflammations of the eyes are prevented" ("Natural History," xxviii., 7). Some editors read here [epetheeken] (Strong's grk 2007), "put upon," for [epechrisen] (Strong's grk 2025), "anointed."
(from Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament)

[Siloam]. By Rabbinical writers, "Shiloach:" Septuagint, [Silooam] (Strong's grk 4611): Vulgate and Latin fathers, "Siloe." Josephus, generally, "Siloa." In scripture always called a "pool or tank," "built," and not "natural." The site is clearly identified in a recess at the southeastern termination of Zion, near the junction of the valley of Tyropoeon with that of the Kidron. According to Dr. Thomson, it is a parallelogram about fifty-three feet long and eighteen feet wide, and in its perfect condition must have been nearly twenty feet deep. It is thus the smallest of all the Jerusalem pools. The water flows into it through a subterraneous conduit from the Fountain of the Virgin, and the waters are marked by an ebb and flow. Dr. Robinson witnessed a rise and fall of one foot in ten minutes.
(from Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament)

The idea which underlies this note of the Evangelist appears to be that in John 7:37. The stream which issued from the heart of the rock was an image of Christ. In the passage of Isaiah 8:6 "the waters of Siloah that go softly" are taken as the type of the divine kingdom of David resting on Mount Zion, in contrast with "the waters of the river [Euphrates], strong and mighty, even the king of Assyria and all his glory," the symbol of earthly power. So therefore here Christ works through "the pool," the "Sent," sent, as it were, directly from God, that He may lead the disciples once again to connect Him and His working with the promises of the prophets. Thus, in some sense, God Himself, whose law Christ was accused of breaking, was seen to cooperate with Him in the miracle. At the same time the charge tied the faith of the blind man.

The name of the pool properly indicates a discharge of waters "sent," in this case, from a subterranean channel. The pool, which still retains its old name, Birket Silwan (in 1881), is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. It lies at the mouth of the Tyropoeon Valley, south of the temple, "at the foot of Mount Moriah," in Jerome’s words. "the two pools of Siloam were probably made for the irrigation of the gardens below, and seem always to have been a favorite place for washing purposes; besides the surface drainage they received a supply of water from the Fountain of the Virgin by means of a subterranean channel. The upper pool is small" [an oblong reservoir cut in the rock, about fifty feet long, sixteen feet broad, and eighteen feet deep], "and at the south-west corner has a rude flight of steps leading to the bottom; but the whole is fast going to ruin, and the accumulation of rubbish around is very great; a little below this a dam of solid masonry has been built across the valley, forming the end of the lower and larger pool, now nearly filled up with rich soil and covered with a luxuriant growth of fig trees" (Wilson, ‘Notes on the Ordinance Survey of Jerusalem,’ page 79).

I want to add to this note by saying when I was in Jerusalem in 1972 they had cleared the mess and it was a very interesting Biblical sight to see, also a woman in our group had some trouble with her feet and she felt that if she could go down those flight of stairs and put her feet into the water of Siloam she would get her healing, that’s what she did and God met her faith and healed her.

    Note: The water has no healing properties but it was a point of contact with her faith and God.

To his own home, as it appears from the context (the neighbor’s).

No mark of time is given. This scene may belong to the following day, as verse 13, 14 seem to imply.

They which saw - used habitually to see, behold as a conspicuous object - him before that (or because) he was a beggar. The particle (a Greek language term) is capable of both means (that and/or because). In other passages (John 4:19, 12:19) John uses the phrase certainly for "see….that….;" here however "because" suits the context better: because he was a beggar in a public spot, they were familiar with his appearance.

Note:   The circumstances of the narrative which follows seems to show that the man himself related the events to the evangelist.

A man (The man, Vulgate states ille bomo) that is called Jesus] Not "that is called the Christ." He had learned the personal name of the Lord, but says nothing of His claims to Messiahship. The form of the sentence, however, points to the general attention which was directed to the Lord. It is "the man" not "a man;" the man of whom report speaks often.

That strange, unwelcome teacher, of whom we hear so much. Compare John 7:11.

Note: The question was asked half perhaps in ill-will and half in curiosity.

The examination of the man who was healed offers a typical example of the growth of faith and unbelief.
On the one side the Pharisees, who take their stand on a legal preconception, grow more determined and violent:
    Vs 16  (debate, division);
    Vs 24  (judgment);
    Vs 34  (disgraceful expulsion).

On the other side the man gains courage and clearness in his answers:
    Vs 17  (He is a prophet. Opinion);
    Vs 30  (acceptance of discipleship);

And finally he openly confesses Christ  (v. 38)

The characters thus live and move, and show marked traits of individuality. There is nothing vague, nothing conventional, in the narrative. The record includes three scenes:

The first examination of the man (13-17).

The examination of his parents (18-23).

The final examination and expulsion of the man (24-34).

The Pharisees were the recognized judges in religious questions. There were in Jerusalem two smaller courts, or Synagogue Councils, and the man was probably taken to one of these. In the later sections of the narrative, vv. 18, the general title the Jews is used.

The original phrase, according to the oldest text is remarkable. It reads literally, " It was a sabbath on the day on which,.."

The words mark the feature in the circle which technically gave offense.

The answer is more curt than before (verse 11); and there is already something of impatience in the tone of it, which breaks out afterwards in verse 27. The making of the clay and the command to go to Siloam are passed over.

Because to the legalist no other conclusion seemed to be possible. [Others (BUT others) said, how can……a sinner] It is presupposed therefore that Christ had valid authority for the apparent violation of the Sabbath. See Matthew 12:8.

As before "in the multitude" (John 7:43) and afterwards "in the Jews" (John 10:19). One party, it will be noticed, laid stress upon the fact, the others upon a preconceived opinion by which they judged of the fact.

WHAT DOST THOU SAY - we appeal to your own judgment and to the impression made upon you - What dost thou say of him, seeing that he opened thine eyes? HE SAID (AND HE SAID), He is a prophet] Compare John 4:19, (6:14), 3:2.

The examination of the parents of the man follows the examination of the man himself. They shrink with singular naturalness from incurring the displeasure of the dominant party.

THE JEWS THEREFORE……seeing that they could not reconcile a real miracle with disregard to the Sabbath. They probably suspected some collusion on the part of the man. THE JEWS represent the incredulous section of the Pharisees (v. 16). Compare v. 22

The emphatic insertion of the pronoun in the second case gives a new tern to the phrase: "we directly, of our own experience, know not, as you appeal to us, who opened his eyes."

He is of age [himself] - And therefore his answer will be valid, and he will not be slow to give it: he will speak for himself.

The question had already been publicly debated, John 7:26; though the Lord had not so revealed Himself in Jerusalem (John 10:24) as He had done in Samaria (John 4:26).

See John 12:42, 16:2. This excommunication appears to have been exclusion from all religious fellowship (compare Matthew 18:17) from "the congregation of Israel." In later times there were different degrees of excommunication:

The Curse
The Isolation

In the second examination the conflict is brought to a decisive issue. The man chooses the Savior whom he had experienced before the Moses of the schools.

We must suppose that he was dismissed after the confession in v. 17. As they could no longer question the fact, they seek to put a new construction upon it.

The phrase is a solemn charge to declare the whole truth. Compare Joshua 7:19; (I Samuel 6:5). The man by his former declaration (v. 17) had really (so they imply) done dishonor to God.

He was now required to confess his error: to recognize in the authoritative voice of "the Jews" his own condemnation, and to admit the truth of it. At the same time under this thought of the rendering of glory to God by the confession of error, lies the further idea that the cure was due directly to God, and that to Him, and not to "the man called Jesus," was gratitude to be rendered. This, however, is not the primary sense of the phrase, though it is natural so to interpret.

We, the guardians of the national honor, the interpreters of the divine will, we know……The claim is to absolute knowledge, and they give no reasons for their conclusion except that they have full knowledge.

By the violation of the Sabbath (v. 16).

The order in the Greek is remarkable: "If he is a sinner, as you assert, that I know not."  The first clause is an echo of the words of the Pharisees, and the man simply states that his knowledge furnishes no confirmation of it. Compare Luke 22:67; Acts 4:19. In I John 4:1 and elsewhere the order is different.

The words go back to the we, v. 24: ye who make the proud claims of which we have all heard, ye as well as I a poor mendicant, would ye…..Have you a real desire, if only you can yield to it, to become his disciples? The would points the idea suggested by the fresh interrogation.

By questioning his loyalty to the law, and treating him as an apostate. Compare Acts 23:4.

Literally, "that man’s disciple". Compare vv. 12,37. Christ is looked upon as separated from them by a great chasm.

This claim to knowledge is repeated (v. 24) with a bitter emphasis. "Moses" and "this man" stand at the head of the two clauses to make the contrast sharper. AS FOR (BUT AS FOR)….WHENCE HE IS, that is, with what commission, by whose authority, he comes. Compare Matthew 21:25. The converse objection is urged, John 7:27. Pilate at last asks the question, John 19:9; and the Lord claims for Himself alone the knowledge of the answer in John 8:14.

We know, not you alone, nor I, but all men alike. The simple verb is contrasted with the strong personal affirmation in vv. 24,29. IF ANY MAN BE A WORSHIPPER OF GOD AND DOETH (be devout or religious and do)……] The two phrases mark the fulfillment of duty to God and man.

John 9:34

The order is very significant: "In sins wast thou born altogether." So the Jews at once interpret and apply the question of the disciples, v. 2. Blindness was but a sign of deeper and more prevailing infirmity. TEACH US] The emphasis lies on "teach." "Dost thou, marked out as a sinner, assume the prerogative of instruction……." CAST HIM OUT] from the place of their meeting, with contempt and contumely, as unworthy of further consideration, Compare Mark 1:43. The word does not describe the sentence of excommunication, which such a body was not competent to pronounce.

The ejection of the blind man who had been healed from the council of the Pharisees furnished the occasion for the beginning of a new Society distinct from the dominant Judaism. For the first time the Lord offers Himself as the object of faith, and that in His universal character in relation to humanity, as "the Son of man."

He had before called men to follow Him: He had revealed Himself, and accepted the spontaneous homage of believers: but now He proposes a test of fellowship. The universal Society is based on the confession of a new truth. The blind who acknowledge their blindness are enlightened: the seeing who are satisfied with their sight (we know) are proved to be blind.

Now we come to the main point of using this story of the healing of the blind man.

The emphasis of the pronoun is remarkable, and may be contrasted with v. 34. Dost thou, the outcast, thou that hast received outward sight, thou that hast borne a courageous testimony, believe on the Son of Man - cast thyself with complete trust on Him who gathers up in Himself, who bears and who transfigures all that belongs to man? The thought of "the Son of man" stands in true contrast with the selfish isolation of "the Jews." The new Society, seen here in its beginning, rests upon this foundation, wide as humanity itself.