John 9 - The Moody Bible Commentary

9:1-2 Jesus left the temple (8:59) and as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth (cf. v. 12). Healing the blind was a characteristic sign of the Messiah (Mt 11:5; Lk 7:22). The disciples’ question (v. 2) who sinned, this man or his parents … ? shows they had adopted the mistaken theology that all illness was the result of personal sin or parental sin. A similar erroneous concept is found in the law of karma as taught in many Eastern religions. Nevertheless, the man’s physical blindness did picture every person’s spiritual blindness from birth (2Co 4:4).

4 Healing of the Blind Man (9:1-40)

The preceding claim of Jesus to be the “light of the world” (8:12) is elaborated symbolically in the narrative of the blind man (cf. v. 5). Although the blind man had lived in darkness, his healing by Jesus made him able to see the light.

9:3-5 The Lord corrected the disciples, establishing the truth that many disabilities are not the result of sin. In the sovereign plan of God, the man’s blindness allowed for the works of God to be displayed in him. This display of God’s works has been multiplied as millions have read this story through the centuries. Night is coming when no one can work (v. 4) refers to the time of the crucifixion, when the disciples will be scattered and Christ will neither teach nor do miracles. This is supported by Jesus’ remark While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world (v. 5).

9:6-7 In preparation for the healing, Jesus spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to the blind man’s eyes. The making of clay (pelos) is central to the narrative (vv. 6, 11, 14-15). By putting the clay on his eyes, Christ symbolically claimed to be God the Potter (cf. Rm 9:21; cf. Jb 10:9; 33:6) who makes the seeing and the blind (Ex 4:11). Jesus previously presented Himself as the life-giving waters symbolized in the pool of Siloam (v. 7; see comment on 7:37). In addition, just as the man would cleanse his eyes in the Pool of Siloam (which means “Sent”), so also people will find spiritual cleansing and “sight” in the One who was sent (4:34; 5:23, 37; 7:28; 8:26). This miracle was an enacted symbol of Jesus’ saving mission.

9:8-9 The confusion over the identity of the blind beggar parallels the confusion of the crowds over the identity of Jesus. To identify himself (v. 9), the blind man kept saying, I am the one [ego eimi], the exact Greek phrase Jesus used (8:58) to identify Himself. If the listeners correctly recognized the blind man, they would open the door to see accurately the “I Am” who heals spiritual blindness.

9:10-12 If this was the former blind man, his sight demanded an explanation. The facts were straightforward (v. 11). The blind man knew the person who healed him was called Jesus, and that He made clay, and anointed his eyes. Then Jesus told him, Go to Siloam and wash. When he obeyed and washed, he received his sight. Few things are more convincing than a simple testimony of our personal encounter with Christ. Since he was blind at the time, the former blind man when questioned (v. 12) did not know where Jesus had gone.

9:13-14 Because of the unusual nature of the case, those acquainted with the beggar (v. 9) led him to the Pharisees (for Pharisees, see comment on 1:24). First, the blind man appeared before the Pharisees (vv. 13-17). Then his parents were interviewed (vv. 18-23). Finally, the blind man was questioned a second time (vv. 24-34). As in 5:9, John reported that the healing was done on the Sabbath (v. 14). In Jewish tradition, both healing one whose life was not threatened (m. Yoma 8:6) and kneading dough (m. Sabb. 7:2), and by analogy making clay were forbidden on the Sabbath.

9:15-17 Although the Pharisees would have been told the situation, they personally questioned the former blind man themselves, asking him again how he received his sight. They used the information gained from him to judge Jesus (v. 16): This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath. Like the people’s split over the healed man (cf. vv. 8-9), there was a division among the Pharisees over Jesus (7:12, 40-44; 10:20-21). But the debate served to advance the blind man’s understanding of his Healer. When asked (v. 17), he became convinced that Jesus was a prophet.

9:18-19 Rather than believe that Jesus was from God and had healed the blind man, the Pharisees doubted that the man had been blind at all and had received his sight. This was the case only until they called in his parents and questioned them. The questions (v. 19) reflected a hope on the part of the Pharisees that the situation was a case of mistaken identity. To discredit the healing was to discredit the character and identity of Jesus.

9:20-21 His parents answered by rehearsing the basic facts. He was their son, and he was born blind. But they avoided giving an answer (v. 21) to how he was healed and who healed him. Their suggestion was to ask their son since he was surely old enough to give a responsible answer. He is of age suggests the son could be as early as thirteen and need not be older than his late teens or early twenties.

9:22-23 The parents eluded answering (cf. v. 21) because the Jews [i.e., the Pharisees] had already agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. (For “Christ,” see comment on 1:20.) To be expelled from the synagogue (v. 22; 12:42; 16:2) would have resulted in serious social and economic consequences. Although there is no extrabiblical evidence that an official Jewish ban against those confessing Christ was established at this time, the severe persecution of Christians in the rest of the NT (e.g., the book of Acts) supports the apostle’s interpretive remark.

9:24-25 The Pharisees interrogated the former blind man a second time, calling on him to give glory to God. This OT idiom means, “as God is your witness, tell the truth” (Jos 7:19; 1Sm 6:5). With the words we know that this man is a sinner the Pharisees attempted to coerce him to change his testimony. Instead (v. 25), he boldly confessed the one thing he did know, that though he was blind, now he could see.

9:26-27 The Pharisees had finally come to believe that the blind man was healed (cf. v. 18). But they still held that anyone who broke the Sabbath was a sinner (v. 24). The former blind man became irritated, having to reply to questions that had already been answered. Sarcastically he asked (v. 27), Why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?

9:28-29 The healed man had confronted the Pharisees’ resistance to truth. So the Jews resorted to ridicule. You are His disciple, they contended. As would happen with Caiaphas (11:49-52), the Pharisees unknowingly foretold what the healed man would become (v. 38). On their part, they claimed to be disciples of Moses and to lack knowledge of Jesus’ earthly identity. Misunderstanding His earthly identity (Cf. 7:41-42; Mt 2:5-6; Lk 2:15) made them ignorant of His heavenly origin as well.

9:30-33 The Jewish leadership should have marveled at Jesus’ healing of the blind man. Instead, the blind man marveled at the Pharisees’ ignorance of the Healer’s origin. He reasoned with sound OT theology. God does not hear the prayers of sinners (v. 31). He only hears God-fearing people who do His will (Pss 66:18; 145:19; Pr 28:9). He also reasoned from OT history that no one ever opened the eyes of a person born blind (v. 32). No known biblical or extrabiblical Jewish sources record the healing of a blind man. This was a power associated only with the coming Messiah (Is 29:18; 35:5; 42:7, 18; 61:1). The healed man concluded (v. 33) that Jesus could do nothing on His own initiative—the very affirmation Jesus Himself made (Jn 5:19, 30; 8:28).

9:34 You were born entirely in sins picks up and intensifies the prejudicial Jewish perspective that Jesus refuted (vv. 2-3). In light of v. 22, they put him out refers to expulsion from the synagogue.

9:35-36 Jesus sought out the healed man (cf. the Good Shepherd described in 10:1-16) and asked, Do you believe in the Son of Man? For “Son of Man” as a messianic title, see comment on 1:51; cf. also 12:34 and Dn 7:13-14. Since the man was blind when he left Jesus to wash in Siloam, he had not yet seen Christ. He was willing to believe in Messiah (v. 36) if he only knew who He was (Cf. 4:10).

9:37-38 You have … seen Him pointed to Jesus as the One who healed the man’s blindness. For the second time in John, Jesus revealed His messianic identity to an individual (cf. the Samaritan woman, 4:26): He is the one who is talking with you. The man’s knowledge of Jesus progressed from a man (v. 11), a prophet (v. 17), one from God (v. 33), and finally the Son of Man to be believed (v. 38) and worshiped like God Himself (Cf. 4:21-24).

9:39-41 The judgment that Jesus brought into this world was the condemnation of sin that would lead people to faith. This judgment was so that those who do not see may see, i.e., the spiritually blind may believe and gain spiritual sight. The antithesis is that those who see may become blind, i.e., the self-righteous who “see” may become hardened (Cf. 12:39-40). Jesus conceded that the Pharisees did “see” to a degree (vv. 40-41) since He had clearly revealed Himself as Messiah to them. If they were totally blind, they would have no sin of rejecting Him. But they insisted, We see. Therefore, Jesus declared that their sin of rejecting Christ remained. The Jewish leaders had greater accountability because of their privileged position as the leaders of the chosen people, to whom God’s revelation had been entrusted (Rm 3:1).