João 9
John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin
João 9
MacArthur - His trust illustrates the truth that though divinely initiated, salvation is never apart from a faith response.....Acts 13:48+ sums up the interplay of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation.....He exemplified the principle Jesus enumerated in Jn 7:17+: “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (See John Commentary)
João 9
MacArthur - To reject Jesus’ peace is to receive His punishment; to reject His grace is to receive His justice; to reject His mercy is to receive His wrath; to reject His love is to receive His anger; to reject His forgiveness is to receive His judgment. While Jesus came to save, not to condemn (cf. 12:47; Luke 19:10), those who reject His gospel condemn themselves, and subject themselves to judgment (John 3:18, 36). (See John Commentary) John
João 9
MacArthur - Some connect the phrase as He passed by with the previous narrative, and place this healing immediately after Jesus left the temple (Jn 8:59). The wording, however, is general enough that the precise time and location of the healing cannot be determined. Since Jesus sent the blind man to wash at the pool of Siloam (v. 7), the incident must have taken place in Jerusalem. The temple was a prime location for beggars (cf. Matt. 21:14; Acts 3:1-10), since people coming there to worship would be more likely to give them alms. The temple was also a place where large crowds gathered. Possibly, then, the Lord encountered this man near the temple grounds. (See John Commentary) Jesus hid himself from people with sight, but revealed himself to people without sight. -- D L Moody David Owen - Blindness was an all too common occurrence in the ancient world (cf. Lev. 19:14; 21:18; Deut. 27:18; 28:29; 2 Sam. 5:6, 8; Job 29:15); and the uncared-for blind were reduced to begging (cf. Mark 10:46). As Isaiah 42:7 predicted that the Messiah would do, Jesus gave sight to the blind on several occasions (Matt. 9:27-28; 11:5; 12:22; 15:30-31; 20:30-34; 21:14; Mark 8:22-25; Luke 4:18). Adrian Rogers applies this passage reminding us that this man's physical blindness "is an illustration of a man without the Lord Jesus Christ....he is now depraved, dead, and darkened, because he doesn’t have the Lord in him any more. Does that make sense to you? That’s what it means to be lost....Jesus says to every man, every woman, you’re blind....Jn 3:3+ He said to Nicodemus, ‘Except a man be born again he cannot SEE the kingdom of God.’” Now, he might see physical material things, but he can’t understand spiritual things. What does Ephesians 4:18+, say of every man, woman, boy, and girl without Christ? “Having the understanding darkened,”—not the eyes, but the understanding darkened—“being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their heart.” Now, there’s more than one kind of blindness. There’s the blindness of the of the eyes. There’s the blindness of the heart. And so, this man was blind.
João 9
MacArthur - Having finished His dialogue with the disciples, the Lord spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to the blind man’s eyes, and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” Jesus had earlier used His saliva in the healing of a deaf and mute man (Mark 7:33) and a blind man (Jn 8:23), but only here did He make clay of the spittle. Why He did so is not stated. Some of the early church fathers interpreted Jesus’ actions in light of Genesis 2:7. In that case, making the clay would symbolize the Lord’s creating a new, functioning pair of eyes to replace those which had never seen. But as Leon
João 9
MacArthur on Sent - John’s parenthetical note calls attention to the significance of the name Siloam, which transliterates a Hebrew word that means Sent. The name probably originated because of the water sent into the pool (via Hezekiah’s tunnel) from the Gihon spring. But, as its use in the Feast of Tabernacles suggests, the name also symbolized the blessings God sent to Israel. Here it symbolizes God’s ultimate blessing to the nation: Jesus the Messiah, the One sent from God. … Sadly, just as their ancestors “rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah [Siloam]” (Isa. 8:6), so also did the people reject Jesus, the true Siloam, the One sent by God to save lost sinners. (See John Commentary) So (oun) - Therefore. Term of conclusion. In light of Jesus' commands. The "conclusion" of the commands is obedience to the commands! Delayed obedience is complete disobedience. One thinks of an OT man named Naaman who objected to Elisha's call to wash in the Jordan River (2Ki 5:10-14). 'At the Pool of Siloam' Harold Copping (1863-1932) He went away and washed (nipto) - It is easy to read over this too quickly and fail to notice that he obeys without question or hesitation, doing exactly what Jesus had commanded. Clearly, we see the juxtaposition of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Notice secondly that Jesus does not (at least John records nothing) give him any specific motivation to go and wash. In other words, Jesus did not actually promise the man that he would receive his sight if he obeyed the commands. Nevertheless, the man obeyed. We learn later that he did know it was Jesus Who had commanded him (Jn 9:11). What did he know about Jesus? Did he know Jesus had performed signs and wonders? Had he heard the story about the lame man Jesus had healed in a previous trip to Jerusalem? (Jn 5:6-9+) These are possibilities but the text does not allow us to be dogmatic. One thing we can say is the man walked by faith and not by sight (pun intended! Cf 2Cor 5:7+), because he had no sight! Why do I say he walked by faith? Because faith is invariably coupled with obedience and his obedience indicates that he had some degree of belief in Jesus' words, even though it is not clear he understood what the end result would be! So while he manifested some degree of faith, it was not yet saving faith. And as the narrative unfolds we see this man eventually manifested genuine saving belief in Jesus (Jn 9:36-38+), so that not only was his physical blindness healed, but more importantly, his spiritual blindness was healed! The progression of this man's faith would suggest that often faith is a process. Recall that in John 8 we encountered Jews who had some degree of faith in Jesus (Jn 8:30-31+), but their subsequent actions (e.g., Jn 8:59+) proved their faith had not progressed to genuine saving faith. As we follow the progression of this blind man's faith, note that the radical contrast of the Jews picking up stones to throw at Jesus (Jn 8:59+), with this man throwing himself down before Jesus in worship (Jn 9:38+)! It is interesting
João 9
MacArthur - The Pharisees were noted chiefly for their strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and their oral traditions. Though few in number (about 6,000 at the time of Herod the Great according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus), they were the dominant religious influence among the Jewish people. With the exception of Nicodemus (Jn 3:1ff.; Jn 7:50–51; 19:39–40), the Pharisees are always hostile to Jesus in John’s gospel (Jn 4:1; 7:32, 45–52; 8:13; 9:13–16, 40–41; 11:46–53, 57; 12:19, 42; 18:3). (Later, some would come to believe in Him [cf. Acts 15:5]—most notably the zealous Pharisee [Acts 23:6; Gal. 1:14] Saul of Tarsus.) The Pharisees viewed Jesus’ popularity with alarm. They feared both losing their influence with the people, and retaliation by the Romans if Jesus’ followers started a revolt (John 11:47–48; cf. Jn 6:15). (See John Commentary) After the resettling of the Jewish people in Judea on their return from the Babylonian captivity, there were two religious groups among them. One party contented themselves with following only what was written in the Law of Moses. These were called Zadikim, the righteous. The other group added the constitutions and traditions of the elders, as well as other rigorous observances, to the Law and voluntarily complied with them. They were called Chasidim or the pious. From the Zadikim the sects of the Sadducees and Karaites were derived. From the Chasidim were derived the Pharisees and the Essenes. In I Mac2:42, among the persons who joined Mattathias against Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), about 167 b.c., are named the Asideans (Asidaíoi), who are described as voluntarily devoted to the law. The Asideans are mentioned also in I Mac 7:13; II Mac14:6. In the time of our Lord, the Pharisees were the separatists of their day, as well as the principal sect among the Jews. The Pharisees considered themselves much holier than the common people (Lu 18:11, 12). They wore special garments to distinguish themselves from others. PRINCIPLE TENETS OF PHARISEES: In opposition to those of the Sadducees, and the former group maintained the existence of angels and spirits and the doctrine of the resurrection (Acts 23:8), which the latter party denied (Mt 22:23; Mk 12:18; Lu 20:27). The Pharisees made everything dependent upon God and fate (Josephus, The Jewish Wars, ii.8.14). However, they did not deny the role of the human will in affecting events (Josephus Antiquities 18.1.3). ZEAL FOR TRADITION: The Pharisees distinguished themselves with their zeal for the traditions of the elders, which they taught was derived from the same fountain as the written Word itself, claiming both to have been delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai (Mt 15:1-6; Mk 7:3-5). See also parádosis (3862), tradition, and éntalma (1778), a religious precept versus entole (1785), commandment. (See more detailed notes from William Barclay) NIDNTT - See Page 810 - OT Pharisaioi is the Hellenized form of the Aram. word peršayyā’ (Heb. pārûš; from pāraš, to divide, separate), and means “the separated ones”. It denotes the representatives of an influential religious group in Judaism. The designation is only attested in Hellenistic Judaism up till the time of the NT, but not at all in the LXX. Rabbinic literature provides the first attestation of the word in the Aramaic-speaking world, although it is frequently found in a negative sense. The word was used in the Gk. form by Josephus and in the NT. The date of the appearance of the designation can no longer be precisely fixed. The first occurrences are from the time of Hyrcanus I (c. 135 B.C.). From the 1st cent. B.C. (under the reign of Alexandra [76–67 B.C.]) onwards, however, the Pharisees were in the public esteem, the most respected and thus the leading group of Judaism. Larry Richards - DEVOTIONAL One Thing We Know (John 9:13–25) People who are far more intelligent than we scoff at faith in Jesus. They speak with great superiority of comparative religions, of evolution, or of the latest scholarly reinterpretation of Bible history. Or they claim that Jesus never saw Himself as Son of God. That was just foisted off on the church by the Apostles. In short, they take the role of the Pharisees of John 9, as Jesus’ critics. There the Pharisees tried so hard to ignore Jesus, and discredit the blind man’s story. But every time the man responded with a truth so obvious that the foolishness of the Pharisees’ position was exposed. “We know this Man is a sinner” (v. 24), the Pharisees announced. “We know.” The blind man just shrugged and refused to be drawn into that kind of argument. “One thing I do know. I was blind, but now I see.” The Pharisees could say whatever they wanted about Jesus. But they had to face the fact that He gave sight to a man born blind. Today too people can pass any judgment they wish on Jesus. But if they are honest they have to face the fact that millions testify to Jesus’ transforming work in their lives. John Newton, once a slave trader, in personal bondage to the most vile practices, experienced a transformation expressed in this hymn he later wrote: Amazing grace! How sweet the sound— That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost but now am found, Was blind but now I see. ’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved; How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed. One thing we know. Once we were blind. Now we can see. Once we were in bondage to sin. Now we love and serve Jesus Christ. No argument that the Pharisees or scholars of this world can marshall against our faith can stand before our experience of this reality. Personal Application -- We do not merely hope. We know. Quotable -- “I’ve never gotten over the wonder of it.”—Gipsy Smith (BORROW The 365 day devotional commentary) Steven
João 9
MacArthur adds "Contrary to what they told the Pharisees, the man’s parents evidently did know that Jesus had healed their son. Had they not known that, there would have been no reason for them to be afraid that the Jews might put them out of the synagogue because of Jesus. The term aposunagogos, unknown to secular writers, meant to be excommunicated or put under a ban and a curse, a banishment that meant being cut off from the religious and social life of Israel; it was therefore a dreaded punishment (cf. Jn 12:42; Jn 16:2)." (See John Commentary) Marcus Dods on ex-communication - Of excommunication there were three degrees: the first lasted for thirty days; then followed ‘a second admonition,’ and if impenitent the culprit was punished for thirty days more; and if still impenitent he was laid under the Cherem or ban, which was of indefinite duration, and which entirely cut him off from intercourse with others. He was treated as if he were a leper.” Marvin Vincent on put out of synagogue - The literal rendering cannot be neatly given, as there is no English adjective corresponding to ἀποσυνάγωγος, which means excluded from the synagogue: as nearly as possible—that He should become banished from the synagogue. The adjective occurs only in John's Gospel—here, Jn 12:42; 16:2. Three kinds of excommunication were recognized, of which only the third was the real cutting off, the other two being disciplinary. The first, and lightest, was called rebuke, and lasted from seven to thirty days. The second was called thrusting out, and lasted for thirty days at least, followed by a "second admonition," which lasted for thirty days more. This could only be pronounced in an assembly of ten. It was accompanied by curses, and sometimes proclaimed with the blast of the horn. The excommunicated person would not be admitted into any assembly of ten men, nor to public prayer. People would keep at the distance of four cubits from him, as if he were a leper. Stones were to be cast on his coffin when dead, and mourning for him was forbidden. If all else failed, the third, or real excommunication was pronounced, the duration of which was indefinite. The man was to be as one dead. No intercourse was to be held with him; one must not show him the road, and though he might buy the necessaries of life, it was forbidden to eat and drink with him. These severer forms appear to have been of later introduction, so that the penalty which the blind man's parents feared was probably separation from all religious fellowship, and from ordinary intercourse of life for perhaps thirty days. (John 9 Commentary) Agreed (4934) suntithemi from sun = together + tithemi = to place, put) means literally to put together side by side. The three uses in the NT (Lk. 22:5; Jn. 9:22; Acts 23:20) are all in the middle voice which conveys the meaning "to agree with," to work out a joint arrangement or as the KJV renders it "to covenant with," which suggests the coming together ("side by side") of two parties to form a pact or agreement. Confessed (acknowledged, professed, admitted) (3670) homologeo from homos = one and the same or together with+ lego = to say; confess from con = together, fateor = to say.) literally means to say the same thing as another and so to agree in one's statements with, to acknowledge, to admit the truth of (an accusation).
João 9
MacArthur adds that "Their exhortation to the blind man, Give glory to God, can also be understood as a charge to stop lying by saying that Jesus healed him and tell the truth, in the same manner as Joshua’s charge to Achan, “My son, I implore you, give glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and give praise to Him; and tell me now what you have done. Do not hide it from me” (Josh. 7:19+). Such a confession on the man’s part would equal agreement with the leaders’ conviction that Jesus was a sinner and not at all empowered by God (cf. John 8:52+). (See John Commentary) Mounce notes another interpretation of Give glory to God - Since it is contextually difficult to relate the statement (interpreted as a Jewish oath) with the remark that follows, some have taken it to mean, “Give glory to God, not to this man Jesus.” In this case the reason is clear: “we know this man is a sinner.” And according to their interpretation of the law, Jesus was technically a sinner, since he had broken the Sabbath by working (read “healing”) on that day. (See John Commentary)
João 9
MacArthur adds "They saw Jesus as a deranged (see the discussion of Jn 8:48) and untrained (Jn 7:15+) blasphemer (Jn 19:7) from an insignificant family in the despised village of Nazareth (cf. Jn 1:46+). (See John Commentary) John 9:30 The man answered and said to them, "Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. BGT John 9:30 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ τὸ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν, ὅτι ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἐστίν, καὶ ἤνοιξέν μου τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς. KJV John 9:30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. NET John 9:30 The man replied, "This is a remarkable thing, that you don't know where he comes from, and yet he caused me to see! CSB John 9:30 "This is an amazing thing," the man told them. "You don't know where He is from, yet He opened my eyes! ESV John 9:30 The man answered, "Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. NIV John 9:30 The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. NLT John 9:30 "Why, that's very strange!" the man replied. "He healed my eyes, and yet you don't know where he comes from? Well, here is an amazing thing: Jn 3:10 12:37 Isa 29:14 Mk 6:6 and yet He opened: Ps 119:18 Isa 29:18 35:5 Mt 11:5 Lu 7:22 2Co 4:6 THE AMAZING IGNORANCE OF THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS One could subtitle this verse "The Way to Infuriate Pharisees!" The man answered and said to them, "Well, here is an amazing (remarkable) thing (thaumastos), that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened (anoigo) my eyes - Why would he be amazed and astonished at the statement of the religious elite? Because here is a Man that has done something that only divine power could have accomplished and they are ignorant of His origin.
João 9
MacArthur - If God did not take the initiative in salvation, no one would be saved, since sinners cannot seek Him on their own. Romans 3:10–12+ sums up the sinner’s total inability: “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.” “No one can come to Me,” Jesus said, “unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44+, cf. Jn 6:65). “You did not choose Me,” Jesus told the disciples, “but I chose you” (Jn 15:16). Just as the physically blind are incapable of restoring their own sight, so also the spiritually dead and blind cannot live or see by their own will or power. Salvation depends on God’s initiative, power, and sovereign grace (cf. Jn 1:12–13+) (See John Commentary) Matthew
João 9
MacArthur - The sobering truth is that those who willfully reject the light of salvation in Christ may find themselves fixed in their condition by God (cf. Jn 12:39–40; Isa. 6:10; Matt. 13:13–15; Acts 28:26–27; Ro 11:8–10). Scripture records not only that Pharaoh hardened his heart against God (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34; 1 Sam. 6:6), but also that, as a result, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8). Some of the Pharisees reached that same point when they rejected the full light of God’s revelation in Christ and attributed His divine power to Satan (Matt. 12:24–32). (See John Commentary) Matthew
João 9
MacArthur explains - Jesus’ point was that if the Pharisees would confess that they were spiritually blind (thereby admitting their need for Christ, the true Light) they would have no sin, because it would be forgiven (Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28:13; 1 John 1:9). (See John Commentary) In his study Bible MacArthur says "Jesus had particular reference to the sin of unbelief and rejection of Him as Messiah and Son of God. If they knew their lostness and darkness and cried out for spiritual light, they would no longer be guilty of the sin of unbelief in Christ. But satisfied that their darkness was light, and continuing in rejection of Christ, their sin remained." John
João 9
MacArthur - They could not plead ignorance or lack of opportunity. In particular, the sin in view here, and the one that always damns, is that of unbelief. (See John Commentary) NET NOTE - Because you claim that you can see, your guilt remains. The blind man received sight physically, and this led him to see spiritually as well. But the Pharisees, who claimed to possess spiritual sight, were spiritually blinded. The reader might recall Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in Jn 3:10+, “Are you the teacher of Israel and don’t understand these things?” In other words, to receive Jesus was to receive the light of the world, to reject him was to reject the light, close one’s eyes, and become blind. This is the serious sin of which Jesus had warned before (Jn 8:21–24+). The blindness of such people was incurable since they had rejected the only cure that exists (cf. Jn 12:39–41+). Warren