Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples
asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus,
"but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed
in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who
sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the
world, I am the light of the world."
6Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the
saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. 7"Go," he told him,
"wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So
the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
John 9:1-7
Explanation: Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind (9:1-7)
Jesus, taking the initiative, notices a man blind from birth. It
is not said how Jesus and his followers know that he has been blind
from birth. Perhaps the Lord knew preternaturally, or maybe he simply
asked him. Once this information is known the disciples treat the
man's condition as a theological problem. People commonly assumed
that disease and disorders on both the personal and national level
were due to sin, as summarized in the rabbinic saying from around
A.D. 300 that "there is no death without sin and there is no
suffering without iniquity" (b. shabbat 55a). But the case
of a person born blind raises the question of whose sin caused this
condition, that of his parents or of the person himself while in
the womb. The idea that the parents' sins can affect their children
finds support in the Old Testament itself (Ex 20:5), as does its
antithesis (Ezek 18:20). Likewise the rabbis debated whether fetuses
could sin, some arguing they could (for example, Genesis Rabbah
63:6) and others that they could not (Genesis Rabbah 34:10). Obviously,
such issues were matters of debate within Judaism (cf. Schrage 1972:290-91),
including the time during Jesus' ministry, as our text indicates.
The disciples' question was a request that Jesus comment on this
debate. Jesus shifts the focus, and instead of addressing the cause
of the man's blindness he speaks of its purpose: so that the work
of God might be displayed in his life (v. 3). We should not be concerned
with assigning blame. Trying to figure out the source of suffering
in an individual's life is futile given our limited understanding,
as the book of Job should teach us. Rather, here is one in whom
Jesus can manifest God's works and thus reveal something of God
himself and his purposes on earth.
Jesus is being led by his Father to provide a sign
that he is indeed the light of the world. In this sign he continues
to reveal the Father's glory, that is, his love and mercy. For the
ultimate truth about Jesus' works is that the Father, living in
him, is doing his own works (14:10). This is what it means that
his works are done from the Father (10:32) and in the Father's name
(10:25, 37), revealing that Jesus is in the Father and the Father
in him (10:38; cf. 10:30). As is always the case in John, Jesus'
identity and his relation to the Father are at the heart of what
is being said and done.
Jesus' statement touches on the theme of suffering. There is a sense
in which every aspect of our lives, including our own suffering,
is an occasion for the manifestation of God's glory and his purposes.
Scripture describes four types of suffering viewed in terms of causes
or purposes (cf. John Cassian Conferences 6.11): first, suffering
as a proving or testing of our faith (Gen 22; Deut 8:2; Job); second,
suffering meant for improvement, for our edification (Heb 12:5-8);
third, suffering as punishment for sin (Deut 32:15-25; Jer 30:15;
Jn 5:14); and fourth, suffering that shows forth God's glory, as
here in our story and later in the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:4).
To these should be added a fifth form of suffering, that which comes
from bearing witness to Christ, illustrated by what happens to this
former blind man in being cast out of the synagogue.
Suffering is connected to sin (see comment on 5:14), at least generally
if not always directly. But the present passage develops this connection
further. Our sufferings are opportunities for God's grace. If our
suffering is indeed a punishment for sin, then it becomes an occasion
for repentance and thus the manifestation of God's grace as we are
restored to fellowship with God. If our suffering is not a direct
punishment for sin, then it is something God allows to happen in
our lives, usually for reasons beyond our knowing, which nevertheless
can help us die to self and find our true life in God. God does
not allow anything to enter our lives that is not able to glorify
him by drawing us into deeper intimacy with him and revealing his
glory. When we cling to self and our own comfort we are led to resentment.
When we trust in God's goodness and providence we are able to find
comfort in God himself and not in our circumstances. Consequently,
we can genuinely "give thanks in all circumstances" (1
Thess 5:18). This is not to say that misfortune and evil are God's
will in general, but they are part of what it takes to live with
him and unto him in this mess we have made through our rebellion
against him and his rule over us. Our rebellion has brought disorder
to every aspect of our existence, and the way back to the beauty
and peace and order of his kingdom leads through suffering, as the
cross makes clear. So we should not deny or avoid the reality of
our suffering, but we should ask God to use it to further his purposes
in us and through us. Some lessons only become ours in reality through
suffering and the relationship with God that results from these
tests. We can help others with the truths we learn in this way (cf.
2 Cor 1:3-11), and we can identify with the blind man and reflect
on ways the Lord might display his works in us in the midst of our
own sufferings.
In his keynote address Jesus said he does what he sees the Father
doing, which includes in particular giving life and judging (5:19-30).
Both features are evident here. In giving sight to his man Jesus
reveals himself as the Messiah who brings the new quality of life
that the prophets promised, seen now in terms of a relationship
with himself. He brings light into this man, both physically and
spiritually. In the conflict that erupts as a result of this act
of divine grace and mercy, the other aspect of the coming of the
light, judgment, is also clearly seen.
Jesus includes his disciples in such work when he says, we must
do the work of him who sent me (9:4). Such involvement on the disciples'
part has been hinted at earlier (3:11; 4:32-38; cf. 6:5) and will
be developed more later (chaps. 13--17; 20:21). Jesus' disciples
are to share in his relationship with the Father and thereby in
the revelation of the Father's glory through doing the work of the
Father and in the judgment of the world.
The fact that Jesus' disciples will do such works in the future--indeed,
even greater works (14:12)--makes Jesus' next statement puzzling.
He says this work is to go on as long as it is day for night is
coming, when no one can work (9:4). Clues appear later in the Gospel
as to when this night occurs. As Jesus approaches his Passion he
will warn the people, "You are going to have the light just
a little while longer" (12:35). When Judas leaves to betray
Jesus it is said, "And it was night" (13:30). This is
the beginning of the Passion, when Jesus will be taken from them
for three days (cf. also Lk 22:53). When the light is absent it
is night, and the night for John is when Jesus is absent, as Jesus
himself says in verse 5: While I am in the world, I am the light
of the world. Thus, the night seems to be the time when Jesus is
absent from the world between his death and resurrection, since
thereafter the Spirit will be present (20:22) who will continue
Jesus' work through the disciples. Through this strong warning,
which regards such a limited period of time, we are led to see the
enormity of the darkness of those three days in salvation history.
Thus, Jesus' somewhat cryptic statement tells us that what is about
to occur is a work of God made possible because Jesus, the light
of the world, is present. The glory of God continues to be manifested
in Jesus' activity, as it has from the outset (2:11).
Jesus' identity is revealed by the very act of healing a blind man,
for a sign of the messianic age was the healing of blindness, both
physical blindness (for example, Is 35:5) and spiritual blindness
(for example, Is 42:18-19; cf.
Westcott 1908:2:31). It is quite striking that the
only references to healing of blindness in the Bible other than
in Jesus' ministry are Tobit (Tobit 2:10; 11:7-13) and Paul (Acts
9:8, 17-19). Tobit may not have actually been blind, since his loss
of sight resulted from getting bird droppings in his eyes. In the
case of Paul it was Jesus who both blinded and restored him. So
Jesus' healing of the blind stands out as a major sign of his identity
and the significance of his coming.
Although the healing reveals Jesus as Messiah, the way Jesus goes
about healing suggests his identity as Messiah goes beyond anyone's
conception of the Messiah. The use of saliva for medicinal purposes
was common in the ancient world (Barrett 1978:358), and Jesus himself
uses it in his healings at times (Mk 7:33; 8:23). Clay also could
have associations with pagan healing practices, in particular with
the cult of Aesculapius (Rengstorf 1968:118-19). But for the healer
to make clay out of spittle and use it for healing is unusual. John
emphasizes this mud in the repeated recounting of the event by the
former blind man (9:6, 11, 15) and also by including it where it
is unnecessary (v. 14). K. H. Rengstorf suggests that this emphasis
may be intended to draw a contrast with Aesculapius, but more likely
the allusion is to the biblical picture of God as a potter and human
beings as clay (for example, Job 10:9; Is 45:9; 64:8; Jer 18:6;
Sirach 33:13; cf. Rom 9:21). Irenaeus picks up this allusion when
he interprets this story in the light of the creation of man from
the ground (Gen 2:7), for "the work of God [cf. Jn 9:3] is
the fashioning of man" (Against Heresies 5.15.2). Thus, "that
which the artificer, the Word, had omitted to form in the womb,
[namely, the blind man's eyes], He then supplied in public, that
the works of God might be manifested in him" (Irenaeus Against
Heresies 5.15.2). In this way Jesus revealed his own glory, "for
no small glory was it that He should be deemed the Architect of
the creation" (Chrysostom In John 56.2). This story illustrates
the truth revealed in John's prologue that Jesus, the Word, is the
one through whom all things were made, having in himself the life
that is "the light of men" (1:3-4). While many modern
scholars would agree with C. K. Barrett that Irenaeus's interpretation
is "improbable" (Barrett 1978:358), the association with
the prologue actually makes it likely--all the more so as this story
follows directly Jesus' clear expression of his claim to divinity
(8:58).
The healing was not effected until the man obeyed Jesus' command:
Go . . . wash in the Pool of Siloam (9:7). Why didn't Jesus just
heal him on the spot, as he did others? Why send a blind man, in
particular, on such a journey? There must be something involved
here that contributes to the revealing of God's work. Perhaps the
man's obedience is significant, revealing that he shares a chief
characteristic of Jesus' true disciples. Like Naaman the Syrian
(2 Kings 5:10-14), this man obeys God's command to go and wash and
is healed. Also like Naaman, he is able to bear witness to God as
a result (2 Kings 5:15). But John's parenthetical note that Siloam
means Sent (v. 7) suggests more than the man's obedience is involved.
References to Siloah, the stream associated with the pool of Siloam
(Shiloah in Gen 49:10 [NIV margin]; Shiloah in Is 8:6), were seen
as messianic (Genesis Rabbah 98:8; Gen 49:10 in Targum Onqelos;
b. Sanhedrin 94b; 98b). This fits with the emphasis in John's Gospel
on Jesus as the one sent from the Father, including such an emphasis
in the immediate context (8:16, 18, 29, 42; 10:36). Thus, both the
healing itself and the details involved point to Jesus as the Messiah.
Here is an example of the triumph of the light over the darkness
(1:5).
8-17
8His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked,
"Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?" 9Some
claimed that he was.
Others said, "No, he only looks like him."
But he himself insisted, "I am the man."
10"How then were your eyes opened?" they demanded.
11He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put
it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and
washed, and then I could see."
12"Where is this man?" they asked him.
"I don't know," he said.
The Pharisees Investigate the Healing
13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14Now
the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes
was a Sabbath. 15Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had
received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied,
"and I washed, and now I see."
16Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for
he does not keep the Sabbath."
But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?"
So they were divided.
17Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you
to say about him? It was your eyes he opened."
The man replied, "He is a prophet."
John 9:8-17
Explanation:
The Man's Neighbors Raise Questions (9:8-12)
The crowd had a hard time identifying Jesus (chaps. 7--8), and now
they are divided in their recognition of this one whom he has healed
(9:8-9). The man uses the same language Jesus has used to identify
himself, ego eimi, though here it does not allude to the divine
name but is used as an identification formula: I am the man (v.
9; see comment on 6:20).
Once they have established that he is indeed the blind beggar they
had known, they ask the obvious question of how he came to have
his sight (v. 10), and he recounts what happened (v. 11). This question
will be asked four times in this story, stressing that something
highly unusual has taken place, something that cannot be explained
in the categories of this world (Beasley-Murray 1987:156). Unlike
the man by the pool of Bethesda, this man does realize from the
beginning that Jesus is the one who has healed him (v. 11; cf. 5:12-13),
but he does not know where Jesus is (v. 12). This ignorance will
be resolved soon enough. The deeper ignorance of the opponents,
who do not know where Jesus is from (v. 30), does not improve as
a result of this act of mercy and glory on Jesus' part. The man's
admission of ignorance is an attribute of a true disciple, revealing
him to be honest and humble. He stands in marked contrast to the
Jewish opponents in this story, for they claim to know what in fact
they realize they do not really know (v. 24; cf. v. 16). It is precisely
this lack of integrity and self-awareness that Jesus criticizes
in his conclusion to this story (vv. 39-41).
The Pharisees Interrogate the Man (9:13-17)
The neighbors bring the man to the Pharisees, presumably because
something unusual has taken place and they are the recognized experts
on the things of God. There does not seem to be anything sinister
in their going to the Pharisees, unlike the contact between the
Jewish opponents and the man at the pool of Bethesda (5:15).
The fact that this healing took place on the sabbath is mentioned
in dramatic fashion midway in the story (v. 14; so also 5:9). In
healing the blind man Jesus broke the sabbath rules in several ways,
at least as they appear in later texts. Healing was permitted on
the sabbath since "whenever there is doubt whether life is
in danger this overrides the Sabbath" (m. Yoma 8:6; cf. b.
Yoma 84b-85b; Lohse 1971:14-15). But, as in the case of the man
at the pool of Bethesda, Jesus again heals what is not a life-threatening
condition. Furthermore, just as his command to the man to carry
his mat violated sabbath rules (5:11), so now Jesus' own activity
of making mud violated the prohibition of kneading on the sabbath
(m. shabbat 7:2). It is possible that his use of spittle also violated
sabbath rules, since later at least "painting" the eye,
that is, anointing it for healing, was clearly prohibited (b. 'Aboda
Zara 28b), and some included the use of spittle in this prohibition
(y. 'Aboda Zara 14d; cf. Beasley-Murray 1987:156-57). Finally, it
was unlawful to take a journey of more than 2,000 cubits (1,000
yards) on the sabbath (cf. m. 'Erubin 4-5). A trip to Siloam and
back from the nearest wall of the temple, for example, would be
about 1,300 yards. It is perhaps likely that the trip to and from
Siloam was further than was allowed, though we cannot be sure since
we do not know where the healing took place. Jesus may be not just
breaking the sabbath, but trampling on it, at least according to
the views of these Jewish opponents!
The former blind man has to tell the story a second time, this time
speaking to a new audience and adding the dramatic note that it
was the sabbath. The crowd had wanted to know how the healing had
happened out of understandable curiosity. The Pharisees now ask
the same question but with different intent, for they want to determine
whether any sabbath laws have been broken. The man recounts his
healing with great brevity (v. 15).
Many scholars see in this brevity an exasperation with
having to retell his story, but this is only the first time he has
told it to these people. Perhaps he senses their displeasure and
sticks to the bare facts, as peasants have a tendency to do when
interrogated by the junta--not an inappropriate image for this story,
as we will see.
The Pharisees are divided over the man's witness (v. 16), a common
occurrence when the light shines (cf. 7:43).
The division among his opponents bears witness to Jesus'
identity as the light of the world (cf. Lohse 1971:28). But here
the light is shining through this man's testimony, providing an
example of what all disciples are to do in the future (20:21).
The Pharisees face a dilemma for Jesus' sabbath breaking suggests
he is not of God whereas his extraordinary power to heal suggests
he is of God. Some of the Pharisees ask, How can a sinner do such
miraculous signs? (v. 16). The plural, signs, indicates a larger
familiarity with Jesus' activity. Perhaps we may assume that we
are hearing the voice of Nicodemus, who has already said the same
thing to Jesus himself (3:2). If so, then the one who came to Jesus
at night is now sticking up for him once again (7:50-51) while it
is day.
Divided amongst themselves, the Pharisees ask the blind man for
his opinion of Jesus, given that it was his eyes Jesus had opened
(v. 17). It is ironic that these Jewish leaders, who are so proud
of their possession of the law and their ability to evaluate religious
claims, are asking this man for his opinion on a religious matter.
The Christians in John's own day would have loved this verse, since
they were being persecuted by these same authorities for their loyalty
to Jesus. This scene is like an underground political cartoon that
deflates the self-important persecuting officials.The man responds
that Jesus is a prophet. This is true as far as it goes, though
it is not in itself adequate. He clearly thinks Jesus is on the
side of God, despite such supposed abuse of the sabbath. The crowd
has also viewed Jesus as a prophet (7:40), as have those so misguided
as to want to make Jesus king (6:14). But the Samaritan woman also
held this view (4:19), and Jesus went on to lead her into a deeper
understanding of himself. Jesus will lead this man in the same way.
18-23
18The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had
received his sight until they sent for the man's parents. 19"Is
this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was
born blind? How is it that now he can see?"
20"We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and
we know he was born blind. 21But how he can see now, or who opened
his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for
himself." 22His parents said this because they were afraid
of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged
that Jesus was the Christ[1] would be put out of the synagogue.
23That was why his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."
John 9:18-23
Explanation: The Pharisees Interrogate the Man's Parents
(9:18-23)
Jesus' disregard for their sabbath regulations is so blatant the
opponents cannot accept the idea that God would honor such lawlessness.
So to reconcile what has happened to their presuppositions, they
assume that the man must not have been blind. Not only do they reject
the man's evaluation of Jesus as a prophet, they don't even accept
his testimony about his own former condition! Instead, they investigate.
They call in the parents and ask them to identify the man, confirm
whether or not he was born blind and explain how he gained his sight
(v. 19).
The parents clarify that he is indeed their son who
was born blind, but they refuse to speculate on how he gained sight.
This is now the third time the question of "how" has been
asked. But here the parents understand the question to be asking
for more than what mechanism enabled him to receive his sight, because
they say they know neither how nor by whom this happened. The issue
now is by what or whose power this unheard of event took place.
To answer this more serious "how" question would require
a confession regarding Jesus and his relationship to God, as the
explanation makes clear (v. 22). Such a confession has implications
for one's life within the community, and the parents are not willing
to be put out of the synagogue for the sake of Jesus. The parents
fail to stand up for Jesus in the face of the Jewish opponents,
so it is clear they do not model discipleship.
Their son is of age, that is, thirteen years old or
older, so he must answer such a question for himself.
This scene is full of tragedy, for these parents are not allowed
to give thanks to God for the great thing he has done for their
son. They must have agonized over his blindness and the begging
he was forced into. Now he has been miraculously healed, and they
must put aside the overwhelming parental joy and knuckle under to
the goons from the committee for the investigation of un-Jewish
activity, as it were. The parents' agony would have been very great,
given the guilt over the possibility that it was their sin that
had been responsible for their son's blindness. In such a situation
Jesus' healing would have far-reaching implications concerning God's
gracious acceptance of sinful humanity. Not only was their son released
from the bondage of his blindness and its related life of begging,
but they and their son would see themselves in a new relation to
God. Yet they had to stifle all of these feelings of joy and gratitude
when they were called in by the authorities for questioning.
The parents' fear stems from the threat that anyone who acknowl-edged
that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue (9:22).
Such exclusion was used in the Old Testament (Ezra 10:8), and later
sources speak of different degrees of exclusion that were exercised,
from a week-long exclusion from the congregation, to a thirty-day
exclusion, to an unlimited exclusion from the congregation with
avoidance of all contact, to an exclusion from the entire community
of Israel (Schrage 1971:848-49). At the time of Jesus one of the
lighter forms may have been exercised, and this continued to be
the case for some time, as Paul's example indicates: he was thrown
out of local synagogues (for example, Acts 13:50; cf. 1 Thess 2:14-16)
but was not viewed as outcast from the people of Israel.
Later in the first century, as the gulf between followers of Jesus
and the synagogue widened, the harshest form of exclusion came into
force. Many scholars see this reference to being put out of the
synagogue (aposynagogos poieo, v. 22; 12:42; 16:2) as reflecting
changes in the synagogue liturgy late in the first century. A curse
against heretics, known as the Twelfth Benediction, or the birkat
ha-minim, was added to the liturgy (cf. b. Berakot 28b-29a). This
is taken as a way of smoking out the Christians and thus causing
the separation between church and synagogue. John is probably writing
late in the first century, and although such a separation was taking
place then, it is unclear whether John is referring specifically
to this addition to the liturgy and whether the addition had such
an intent (Robinson 1985:72-80; Beasley-Murray 1987:lxxvi-lxxviii,
153-54; Carson 1991:369-72). After a careful study William Horbury
concludes that the addition "was not decisive on its own in
the separation of church and synagogue, but it gave solemn liturgical
expression to a separation effected in the second half of the first
century through the larger group of measures to which it belongs"
(Horbury 1982:61; cf. Lindars 1981:49-54). Given such separation,
this story would have particular relevance for John's first readers.
Under this threat of expulsion we can see the nucleus of a community
gathering around Jesus, clearly distinct from these officials who
represent what emerges after A.D. 70 as official Judaism. Jesus
has withdrawn from the temple (8:59), and now he is gathering a
group around him over against the structures and leadership of Israel.
Jesus will set this process in place as this story continues (9:35).
The full expression of this split will not emerge for some years,
but its seed was planted, John says, by Jesus himself.
24-34
24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give
glory to God,[2] " they said. "We know this man is a sinner."
25He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know.
One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"
26Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open
your eyes?"
27He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen.
Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples,
too?"
28Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's
disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29We know that God spoke to
Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes
from."
30The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know
where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does
not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his
will. 32Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born
blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
34To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth;
how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.
John 9:24-34
Explanation: The Pharisees Interrogate the Man a Second
Time (9:24-34)
When the Jewish authorities put the "how" question to
the man himself they get a very different response than they got
from the parents, and the fur flies. They begin their interrogation
on a solemn, formal note: Give glory to God (v. 24). This is not
an invitation to sing a hymn of praise for his healing! The expression
means the man is being exhorted to confess his guilt (cf. Josh 7:19;
m. Sanhedrin 6:2). The man has told them the truth, but they don't
really want the truth, they want their own answer. These people,
whom Jesus called liars (8:55), are trying to force this man to
lie, and they are doing so in the name of truth. (Double talk is
not an invention of the twentieth century.) The terms they use are
full of irony. These people who care only for the glory of men,
not God (12:43; cf. 5:44), are telling him to give glory to God.
They are demanding that he give glory to God by confessing his sin,
but the man has given glory to God by bearing witness to Jesus.
They are being deceptive when they say, We know this man is a sinner
(v. 24). Jesus has clearly broken their sabbath rules and thus could
be labeled a sinner, but we have just been told they are divided
over this very question (v. 16). John is showing us the deception
and bullying of these ideologues who are in power. The Christians
in John's day could identify with this man. Indeed, John himself
had such an experience with some of these very same individuals
(Acts 5:17-41). Those Christians in the world today who are persecuted
for their faith can also identify with this man.
The authorities say Jesus is a sinner, but the man does not pick
up on that. Instead he points to the one certain fact of the case--he
was blind and now he sees (v. 25). Their supposed knowledge about
Jesus is pitted against his certain knowledge of his healing. With
this fact thrown in their faces again they are stymied. They can
only repeat once more their questions of what happened (v. 26).
They are at a loss, and the man pushes them. His reply is very cheeky:
I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want
to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too? (v.
27). Here he reveals much about them and himself. They didn't listen,
which Jesus has already pointed out (8:43, 47). And by asking if
they want to become Jesus' disciples too he reveals that he himself
has such a desire (cf. Michaels 1989:169). The man has progressed
yet further in his Christology, for he here implies "that Jesus
is his master" (Talbert 1992:160).
The man may simply be being cheeky when he asks whether they want
to become Jesus' disciples, but in effect he is doing the work of
an evangelist. Here is another offer of God's grace to those most
deeply opposed to Jesus and alienated from God. In their furious
reply they comment again that they are disciples of Moses (v. 28;
cf. 5:45-47). The Pharisees insist that a choice must be made between
being a disciple of Jesus and being a disciple of Moses, at least
as they understand Moses. It is one of John's purposes to show how
Moses and the Scriptures actually witness against the opponents
and to Jesus (cf. 5:46). This story is preparing us for an important
example of such a witness in the next chapter (10:34-36).
The Pharisees once again condemn Jesus by saying they do not know
where he comes from (v. 29), a major theme of chapter 7. But now
someone stands up to them and uses what they think is a charge against
Jesus as a condemnation of themselves. He focuses on their ignorance.
It is remarkable (v. 30) that those who know God and his ways so
well would not be able to recognize one who is able to do what is
unheard of--open the eyes of a man who had been blind from birth
(v. 32). For a man born blind would have defective eyes, not just
damaged eyes. A person born blind had no hope of sight, as this
man well knew from experience. He picks up the very misgiving some
of the Pharisees were having (v. 16) and drives it home: God listens
to those who are godly and who do his will, not to sinners (v. 31).
If this man were not from God, he could do nothing (v. 33). Earlier
the man refused to say whether Jesus was a sinner (v. 25), but now
he makes it very clear what he thinks.
The authorities do not deal with his argument. Instead, they cast
him out, saying, You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you
lecture us! (v. 34). Literally they say, "would you teach us,"
revealing again their unteachable spirit. Instead of facing up to
the evidence the once-blind man has presented they throw back at
him his blindness as evidence of his sinfulness. They refuse to
entertain the possible implications of his healing, that is, that
he is accepted by God. These who had asked him for his opinion earlier
(v. 17) now show their true contempt for him. We get the impression
that if he had gone along with them and attributed his healing to
someone other than God, then they might not have thrown this in
his face. But four times in this story Jesus has been referred to
directly or indirectly as a sinner. This is the only place in John
that this word occurs. So we have the Master referred to as a sinner
and the one who confesses him suffering the same fate. Such a fate
awaits all of Jesus' disciples, as he will make clear later (15:18-25).
Again we see this man as a model disciple (cf. Chrysostom In John
58.3-4).
So the issue comes down to who is the real sinner, Jesus and his
disciple or the Jewish authorities. The impasse these leaders face
is the same that faced Saul of Tarsus when Jesus appeared to him
on the road to Damascus. To accept Jesus means a complete rethinking
of the law for a Pharisee. The reality of the law and the reality
of Jesus come up against one another, and one of them has to budge.
Jesus' approach to the law is only appropriate if he is God himself.
This has been illustrated by the modern rabbi and prolific scholar
Jacob Neusner. In his book A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, Neusner puts
himself back in the days of Jesus and watches and listens to him
as Matthew's Gospel records his life. He asks himself whether he
would have been a follower of Jesus and concludes he would not.
The reason is Jesus' use of the Torah. He would part from Jesus,
saying, "Yours is not the Torah of Moses, and all I have from
God, and all I ever need from God, is that one Torah of Moses"
(Neusner 1993:3). The main problem is that "Jesus has asked
for what the Torah does not accord to anyone but God" (Neusner
1993:32; cf., e.g., pp. 53, 74). Neusner illustrates that the main
sticking point, as we've seen in John's Gospel, is Jesus' view of
himself.
With these implications regarding the law this story continues the
development of the theme in chapter 5 that the law bears witness
to Jesus. In chapters 6--8 we find Jesus replacing the temple and
its festivals with himself. Now we see that the law as regulation
is also superseded in Jesus. "The Law in condemning Jesus had
condemned itself (Gal. 3.10-14); this theme forms the theological
basis of the present chapter. The Law condemns itself, and so do
its exponents, when they try and condemn Jesus" (Barrett 1978:362).
Here is the great divide between Jesus and his Jewish opponents,
with each side claiming loyalty to the Torah rightly interpreted.
On the surface this story may look like a showdown between personal
experience and Scripture, but it is more complicated than that.
The man's statement that if Jesus were not from God, he could do
nothing (v. 33) is not true, strictly speaking. The works of the
Egyptian magicians show as much (Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7). Indeed, Jesus
warns against false Christs and false prophets who "will appear
and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect"
(Mt 24:24) and speaks of those who prophesy in his name, cast out
demons in his name and do many mighty works in his name, whom he
does not know at all (Mt 7:22-23). So much for experience being
an infallible guide! But then the Scriptures, in and of themselves,
are not an infallible guide either, as the example of the Jewish
opponents reveal. It depends on one's interpretation. The Christian
claim is that the Scriptures are an organic whole that make sense
when interpreted in the light of Jesus the Christ under the guidance
the Spirit has provided the church (Jn 14:26; 15:26). The bottom
line is that we need God to guide our understanding of both the
Scripture and our experience. Once again we see the importance of
humility and openness to God as a core attribute of true discipleship.
If the opponents of Jesus had really been loyal to God, open to
him and holding to his truth, then they would have been able to
see him when he came, as did Nathanael, the true Israelite (1:45-49).
Spiritual Blindness
35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him,
he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that
I may believe in him."
37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one
speaking with you."
38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped
him.
John 9:35-38
Explanation: Jesus Leads the Man to Faith (9:35-38)
Jesus finds the one who has been thrown out, acting like the Good
Shepherd he will soon claim to be. Here is the tenderness and mercy
of God in action, but such love is never sentimental in this Gospel.
When Jesus finds the man he confronts him with another of his testing
questions, Do you believe in the Son of Man? (v. 35). Some Jews
at this time associated the Son of Man of Daniel 7 with the Davidic
Messiah (J. Collins 1995:189), so the man could think Jesus was
asking whether he believed in the Messiah. He obviously would not
understand the more specific meaning of the Son of Man in John,
namely, the Messiah from heaven who brings God's life and judgment,
especially through the cross (see comments on 3:13-14 and 5:27).
The man responds in a way that reveals his desire to believe (v.
36). He does not ask what the Son of Man is, he asks who he is.
Belief is not merely an intellectual assent to a proposition, but
an attachment of trust to an individual as the one who comes from
God. Such an expression of a "longing and inquiring soul"
(Chrysostom In John 59.1) does not go unanswered any more than the
openness and desire of the Samaritan woman did (4:25-26). Jesus
responds, You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking
with you (v. 37), a particularly poignant way of speaking to one
who has only been able to see anything at all for a very short time.
Here is a crucial step in the development of this relationship:
Jesus has cured him and found him, but he now reveals something
of his identity to the man. The man has spoken of Jesus as a prophet
(v. 17), but will the man accept Jesus on Jesus' own terms? True
faith requires such a humble acceptance, as John emphasizes throughout
this Gospel.
The man responds with faith: Then the man said, "Lord, I believe,"
and he worshiped him (v. 38). The word for Lord (kyrios) could simply
mean "sir," (cf. 4:11; 12:21). Likewise, the word for
worshiped (proskyneo) means to fall down and do homage to either
God or a human being (Greeven 1968:758-63), and thus could refer
to homage due to a man of God rather than God himself. But H. Greeven
has argued that the word is always used in the New Testament for
adoration of "something--truly or supposedly--divine"
(Greeven 1968:763). Certainly the other uses in John signify worship
of God (4:20-24; 12:20). Jesus has been presented in divine categories
with increased emphasis at the end of chapter 8. But the title "Son
of Man" would not convey such a notion in Jewish ears. So while
the language used in the man's response to Jesus continues the presentation
of the man as a model disciple, it is unclear how much of all this
he grasped at the time. He has been progressing as a true disciple,
moving from knowledge of Jesus' name (v. 11), to confession of him
as a prophet (v. 17), to bearing witness that Jesus is one come
from God (v. 33) and finally to accepting his claim to be the Son
of Man (vv. 35-38; cf. Brown 1966:377; Westcott 1908:2:37). So even
if he does not understand the full significance of his confession
and homage to Jesus, he is accepting Jesus on Jesus' own terms and
thus placing himself in the position to receive further revelation
and grow in his understanding of Jesus and his relationship with
him. None of the disciples have understood with any real depth the
identity of Jesus or the nature of the salvation he brings. But
here in this former blind man we have the anticipation of Thomas'
dramatic confession of Jesus as Lord and God (20:28).
39Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so
that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked,
"What? Are we blind too?"
41Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of
sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
John 9:39-41
Explanation: Jesus Comments on the Healing and Its Aftermath
(9:39-41)
We have seen a man go through the stages of becoming a disciple
of Jesus, but we have also seen Jesus' opponents' actions progress
from debate and division (v. 16) to judgment (v. 24) and on to expulsion
of one who would be a disciple of Jesus (v. 34; cf. Westcott 1908:2:36).
Jesus' concluding comment puts both of these results in perspective:
For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will
see and those who see will become blind (v. 39). Here, in a key
definition, Jesus says his judgment both enlightens and blinds.
He has not come for judgment in the sense of condemnation (3:17),
but such condemnation does take place as he who is the light of
the world is revealed. When the light shines, judgment takes place;
however, salvation comes as well, for when the light of the world
dawns hearts are revealed and the truth about individuals' relationships
with God is brought into the open. The same sun that melts wax,
hardens clay (Origen On First Principles 3.1.11). The opponents
have hard hearts--they reject God's offer of mercy and his call
to repentance that come through his chastisement (cf. Jer 5:3; 7:25-26;
19:15; Zech 7:11-12; Rev 9:20-21; 16:9-11). Such hardness of heart
darkens their minds and alienates them from the life of God (Eph
4:18). The sight they think they have must be taken from them if
they are to receive true sight, which sees the true light (Jn 8:12;
see comments on 10:1, 8).
That Jesus is using this healing of physical blindness to speak
of spiritual conditions is clear to some of the Pharisees who were
near Jesus. They are not physically blind, but they ask, What? Are
we blind too? (v. 40).
Here is revealed their self-perception as those who
are spiritually illumined with the knowledge of God. They are the
ones who think they know (3:2; 8:52; 9:24, 29), but they have a
knowledge that does not recognize Jesus for who he is. So Jesus
responds with words of great grace--hard words, but words that can
break through and lead them into the true light: If you were blind,
you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see,
your guilt remains (v. 41). Clearly, it is their claim to have knowledge
that is the dilemma. They do not recognize their need; there is
no poverty of spirit (Mt 5:3).
We again see the great need for humility, openness and recognition
of need. The man has emphasized his ignorance (vv. 25, 36), while
they have emphasized their knowledge (vv. 16, 22, 29). Those who
settle into blindness without a disposition of openness to God are
"incurable since they have deliberately rejected the only cure
that exists" (Barrett 1978:366). In a similar situation Jesus
refers to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:29), since in
that case Jesus' opponents were seeing his gracious acts and saying
they were the work of the Beelzebub, the prince of demons. Such
a sin is unforgivable precisely because the person is looking at
the character and work of the one who is all good and calling it
evil. This perception prevents one from turning to God. For, on
the one hand, if one does turn to Christ while thinking Christ represents
evil, then that person in his or her own mind is choosing evil and
thus sinning (cf. Rom 14:23). If, on the other hand, one refuses
to embrace evil but thinks that Jesus is evil, then obviously one
cannot turn to him. Either way one has precluded repentance and
thereby shut oneself off from forgiveness. God offers forgiveness
for all sin. The only sin that cannot be forgiven is the unrepented
sin. Thus, until one has a right view of Jesus and comes to him
for forgiveness, one remains in one's sin, not because God will
not forgive, but because such a one refuses to accept the forgiveness
in accordance with God's reality in Christ.
So here at the end of the story we see that spiritual blindness
is the real sin, not physical blindness, as the disciples and the
Pharisees had thought (vv. 2, 34; cf. Chrysostom In John 56.1).
Jesus has given sight to a man born blind, but this is a sign of
the more significant spiritual light that he provides for those
who are spiritually blind. In the very act of mercy, the giving
of physical and spiritual sight to this blind man, Jesus continues
to reveal the glory of God, that is, his love. Ironically, as earlier
(5:1-18), the very brightness of the light that is shining brings
a reaction from those who see such signs but do not get it. In their
judgment and condemnation of Jesus they stand self-judged and self-condemned.
But even this judgment reveals God's glory. It does so, first, because
it is indeed an offer of mercy that they are rejecting. Second,
his mercy is seen in the care he provides to those who do receive
him, for in condemning their opponents he is protecting his people.
As in the case of Pharaoh, God's hardening of one who rejected his
call to repentance revealed God's own glory as the one greater than
Pharaoh and as the one who redeems his people from evil (Ex 7:3,
14; 14:4, 17). The evil in the present story is the blindness of
Jesus' opponents, which is alienation from God. There is a veil
over the opponents' hearts (cf. 2 Cor 3:15). But there is also evil
in their preventing people from recognizing Jesus and believing
in him. God must condemn such evil not only because it is not in
keeping with his reality, but also because it is opposing his work
in the lives of those who are open to him.
Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees at the conclusion of this story
reveals their alienation from God more clearly, and it also says
something about those who, like the blind man, do come to faith
in Jesus. This story is an encouragement to stand up and bear witness,
as we have seen, and it also illustrates the experience of everyone
who becomes a true disciple. Every human being is in the condition
of this man spiritually--born blind and in need of enlightenment.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the ancient church saw in
this story a depiction of baptism, since baptism was known as enlightenment.
Some modern scholars continue to find such allusions here (Brown
1966:380-82) or, in a similar way, to conversion (Michaels 1989:160,
168). This story describes one who is in the process of being born
from above, becoming capable of seeing the kingdom of God present
in the presence of the King (Jn 3:3). We are all in need of the
faith that is itself an organ of spiritual perception similar to
what Paul refers to as the "eyes of the heart" (Eph 1:18;
cf. Schnackenburg 1980b:255). Unless God opens our eyes we will
not see, but he is offering sight to all who will receive it--such
is the biblical antinomy of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
This coming to faith is the crucial point of this story. In the
physical healing of the man's eyes we see the agent of creation
at work within his world. But the even more astounding work takes
place as Jesus leads the man to faith in himself, for this is not
just a creative work on the man's body, but the bringing of that
essential life that was lost in Eden. That life had existed by virtue
of the relationship of intimacy between Creator and created, and
now in this man's worship of God in Jesus we see the return to the
proper relationship that had been severed by the rebellion. The
worship of the man who has found God in Christ is his entrance into
eternal life (17:3).
There is also a corporate dimension to this story. Jesus has departed
from the temple (8:59), and now a new society is being formed around
him in separation from what will become official Judaism. He has
revealed himself to people earlier in the Gospel and has accepted
spontaneous expressions of faith, but now he takes it a step further
and "proposes a test of fellowship" (Westcott 1908:2:43);
that is, he offers himself as an object of faith with a specific
confession attached: Do you believe in the Son of Man? (v. 35).
This is a new development in the process of the light shining and
the polarization which that causes. "The separation between
the old and the new was now consummated, when the rejected of `the
Jews' sank prostrate at the feet of the Son of man" (Westcott
1908:2:44). Jesus is the Good Shepherd of a flock that is distinct
from official Judaism, a theme developed in the next chapter.
So this story offers many challenges. We need to realize our own
utter poverty, blindness and need apart from Christ. We need to
see with his eyes the desperate condition of all who have not been
illumined by him, the light of the world. We need to consider before
God whether there are ways we reject the evidence of our own experience
because we have a faulty understanding of him and his ways. We need
to consider before God whether we have God too figured out--or,
in this day, whether we have the opposite tendency to think that
everything is up for grabs and there is no objective truth or that
the Scriptures are not clear and coherent when interpreted in the
light of the guidance the Spirit has given to the church. Finally,
among many other connections that might be made, we need Jesus to
be our center of reference, like this blind man did, so that we
are stable, secure and bold no matter what hassles come to us due
to our relationship with Jesus, for we have experienced the goodness
and mercy of God in Jesus.
