John 9 - The NIV Application Commentary on the Bible: One-Volume Edition

The Healing of the Blind Man (9:1–7). Blindness was a problem in antiquity, far more common than we would think. Eye disease had few cures, and unsanitary conditions increased risks considerably. The man whom Jesus meets at the Feast of Tabernacles has been blind from birth. This leads his disciples to ask about the origin of his suffering. They assume there must be a connection between sin and suffering, so they probe who is responsible, the man or his parents. Jesus rejects this entire line of questioning. However, the NIV and most English translations invite gross confusion with Jesus’s answer (v. 3). It hardly takes a careful reader to see the theological implications following this line of thought: God brought suffering to this man so that he might glorify himself in his healing. While a sound theology cannot doubt God’s sovereignty to do as he pleases, thoughtful Christians may see this as a cruel fate in which God inflicts pain on people simply to glorify himself.

However, the “purpose clause” of verse 3b (“so that the works of God . . .”) can just as well be applied to verse 4, and no doubt it should. We may translate it as follows: “ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus. ‘But so that the work of God might be displayed in his life, we must do the work of him who sent me while it is still day.’ ”

The purpose clause now explains that Jesus must work so that God’s work may be displayed in this man’s life. God had not made the man blind in order to show his glory; rather, God has sent Jesus to do works of healing in order to show his glory. The theological nuance of the two translations cannot be more different.

In antiquity, spittle was thought to have medicinal power. Thus, Jesus’s action is not unusual. Jesus then tells the man to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam. This is an important detail for two reasons. It was the source of water in Tabernacles. If Jesus is the source of the Feast of Tabernacles water (7:37–39), this man has now experienced such water in a profound way. The name of the pool bears symbolic importance for Jesus. More than twenty times in this Gospel, Jesus is described as the one who has been “sent” by God. In other words, the blind man is being told to go wash in the place called “sent” (9:7), by the one who was “sent” by God. Jesus, then, is the source of his healing, not the pool.

Interrogation (9:8–34). The dramatic healing of this man must have made a significant stir among his immediate friends and family. The community’s investigation of this man’s experience is given to us in abbreviated form in the following verses. We can imagine hours of debating and discussing as the community tries to verify not only the identity of the man as blind but the identity of the healer, Jesus.

The neighbors (9:8–13). John provides a cycle of four scenes where questions are launched concerning the man and his healing. In the first scene (vv. 8–13), the neighbors interrogate the man and in disbelief work to verify that he is indeed the man they knew as blind. They do not reject the miracle, but they look to the Pharisees, the established theological leaders in the synagogue, for counsel.

The Pharisees (9:14–17). The Pharisees question the man about the healing, but their chief worry is about a violation of the Sabbath.

The man’s parents (9:18–23). The Pharisees turn next to the man’s parents in order to confirm that indeed a miracle has occurred. The leaders are incredulous, but the parents fear them because they know of a conspiracy that will expel anyone from the synagogue who stands with Jesus. They deflect the Pharisees’ questions and direct them back to their son.

The formerly blind man (again) (9:24–29). The leaders turn to the man for a second time. While he can hardly make a comment about Jesus’s sinfulness, he cannot deny the miracle. In exasperation, he presses the Pharisees boldly, and the tension of the story mounts. The miracle demands an explanation, and its sheer magnitude points to only one source: God. But if this is the case, since God does not listen to sinners—and God has listened to Jesus—Jesus cannot be a sinner. Here we have the sharpest division between the man (who supports Jesus) and the leaders (who do not).

As the story progresses, Jesus is more closely revealed by name: he is “Jesus” (v. 11), then he is called a “prophet” (v. 17), then “the Messiah” (v. 22), and finally he is declared to be “from God” (v. 33). It is easy to see the christological progression of each name as the story develops. While the Pharisees repudiate Jesus and his role, the discussion drives home his true identity.

Ironically, the entire episode of interrogation ends with an accusation hurled at the man from the leaders (v. 34). This is telling, since it echoes the verses that began the chapter. In the former instance, sin supposedly brought physical blindness; in the latter, his sin supposedly brought spiritual blindness (or religious ignorance). They are wrong on both counts. Nevertheless, the interrogation ends with the healed man expelled from the synagogue.

Spiritual Blindness (9:35–41). Jesus meets with the blind man privately to unveil the true depth of what he experienced. His confession of faith (“Lord, I believe,” v. 38) and his worship indicate that he no longer lives in darkness in any sense. This is an open embrace of Jesus—a commitment to him as the Messiah of Israel. The blind man thus becomes a model of every believer who embraces Jesus’s lordship and suffers persecution as a result.

The Pharisees, by contrast, have come forward to judge both the man and Jesus. But in the end, Jesus judges them. The light/darkness motif that surrounds the Feast of Tabernacles creates a delightful double meaning. Jesus’s opponents are physically sighted, but in reality they are spiritually blind. The blind man has had both conditions reversed.

But the most serious condition these opponents possess (v. 41) is their insistence that they are innocent, that they understand fully the theological point Jesus is making, and that they reject it. Because they claim that they can see, their guilt is underscored since they are self-affirming in their religious position against Jesus.