John 9 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

1. The healing of the blind man (9:1–41) a. The healing (9:1–12)

The cure of the blind man probably occurred shortly after the Feast of Tabernacles, while Jesus was still in Jerusalem. The episode is a unit by itself, used as an illustration of Jesus’ utterance recorded in 8:12: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” The healing was not only a sample of Jesus’ ability to restore sight to a man who was congenitally blind; but it also represented, figuratively, and for the blind man, experientially the dawning of spiritual light. Furthermore, the healing brought new light to the disciples on one of the mysteries of life that had bewildered them.

1 Although Jesus had healed blind persons on other occasions (Mt 9:27–31; 12:22; 15:30; 21:14; et al.), this “sign” (GK 4958) was an outstanding case because (1) the man had been born blind; (2) the sign was related to the issue of fate, raised by the disciples; and (3) it illustrates the origination and development of faith, a theme of this gospel. The encounter of Jesus and the blind man seems to have been a casual one. Since blind beggars had little opportunity for employment, they were dependent on charity for their sustenance.

2–3 The interest of the disciples was prompted by theological curiosity rather than compassion. For them the blind man was an unsolved riddle rather than a sufferer to be relieved. Their question was based on Ex 34:7, which the Jews construed to mean that if a person suffered from any ailment, it must have been because his parents or grandparents had committed some sin against God. To this they added the thought that perhaps he might have sinned before birth (either as an embryo or in a preexistent state); such a concept appears in the rabbinical writings. Jesus refused to accept either alternative. He looked on the man’s plight as an opportunity to do God’s work, not as a punishment or as a matter of irrational chance.

4–5 The growing pressure of hostility rising from unbelief warned Jesus that his time was short; the darkness would soon fall. As all the Gospels show, Jesus was working under the shadow of the coming cross (Mt 16:21; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22). While he had the opportunity, he must let his light shine on the darkness around him by healing both bodies and minds. The use of “we” shows that he included his disciples in his ministry. They also would pass through perils and opposition, but they would have the support of the Father who had sent him. “I am the light of the world” repeats 8:12; the healing of the blind man illustrates the positive and practical application of that principle.

6–7 To make known his intention to the blind man, Jesus made clay from dust and spittle and placed it on the sightless eyes. The touch of a friendly hand would be reassuring. The weight of the clay would indicate to the blind man that something had been done to him, and it would induce obedience to Jesus’ command. Certainly he would not want to continue sitting by the roadside with mud smeared over his eyes. Though his lifelong affliction may have made him apathetic, he now had at least one motive for obeying.

The Pool of Siloam was probably a considerable distance from the place where the blind man was. His trip must have been a venture of faith. Jesus had not even told him that he would be healed but had merely commanded him to wash. If the man had overheard Jesus’ conversation with the disciples, he would have expected something to happen. Yet so extraordinary a miracle as giving sight to a man born blind would have seemed impossible.

8–9 The man’s recovery of his sight created a genuine sensation. The effects of the miracle are described vividly by the responses of four groups or individuals: (1) the neighbors, (2) the Pharisees, (3) the parents, and (4) the man himself. The neighbors and acquaintances knew very well the man they had supported by their charity. To see him walking with normal sight was so incredible that they thought it must be a case of mistaken identity. He quickly settled the dispute by avowing that he was the man they had known.

10–12 The curiosity of the neighbors demanded an explanation. The man replied in matter-of-fact fashion, narrating the event just as it happened. His reply, however, indicates the first stage of faith: he accepted the fact. He made no attempt to evaluate Jesus’ person but spoke of him simply as “the man they call Jesus.”

E. The Manifestation of Opposition (9:1–11:57)

The widening rift between belief and unbelief, which had become clearly apparent at the time of the feeding of the five thousand and was accentuated at the Feast of Tabernacles, now became an open breach. Not only had many of Jesus’ disciples abandoned his cause (6:66), but the religious authorities also were becoming actively hostile (7:32). The last few months of Jesus’ life were filled with controversy and with attempts by the priests and scribes to trap him by his words or actions. Jesus, however, being fully aware of their designs, maintained his usual ministry and became bolder in his resistance.

b. The consequences (9:13–41)

13–15 The case was so mysterious that the neighbors took the man to the religious authorities, the Pharisees, who supposedly would be able to offer an explanation. Since the day on which the miracle was performed was a Sabbath, the Sabbath law was involved. The Pharisees inquired how the man received his sight, and he repeated the story he had given first to the neighbors.

There are both parallels and contrasts between the healing in Ch. 9 and that in Ch. 5. Both occurred at a public pool; both concerned apparently incurable cases; and both occurred on the Sabbath, which precipitated the question of the Sabbath law. In the previous instance, however, the man healed reported voluntarily to the Pharisees and identified Jesus afterward. In this instance the man had no knowledge of Jesus’ whereabouts, nor did he report the matter to the authorities. Furthermore, Jesus implied that the former man had sinned and adjured him to cease doing so (5:14); of the man in this chapter he stated that his condition was not the result of sin (9:3).

16 The response of the Pharisees revealed reasoning from prejudice: “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” For the Pharisees there could be no other conclusion. Others, however, were hesitant and asked how a sinner could have the power to perform such miracles. The use of the plural “miraculous signs” suggests that they knew other miracles of Jesus comparable to this one. The contrast between these re sponses brings into focus an important principle of interpretation: Should Jesus be judged by an a priori application of the law or by an a posteriori consideration of his works?

The division among the Pharisees shows that there must have been at least a small minority who were not hostile to Jesus (perhaps including Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea). Their question, “How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?” sounds much like Nicodemus’s opening words to Jesus in 3:2.

17 Again the man himself was questioned to help bring a decision in the dispute. His verdict was more definite than the preceding one: “He is a prophet.” The prophets were agents of God, and in some instances they performed miracles (e.g, Elisha, 2Ki 2:19–22; 4:18–44; 5:1–14). If, then, Jesus had performed an indisputable miracle, it was indisputable evidence that he must have a divine commission. As an emissary of God, he could be empowered to heal on the Sabbath, if necessary.

18–23 The evidence was still insufficient to remove the objections of “the Jews” (a phrase here synonymous with “the Pharisees”). They proceeded to query whether the man really had been born blind; for if he had not been blind from birth, the miracle could be disputed. They also interrogated his parents, who, fearing excommunication from the synagogue, evaded the issue by stating that their son was an adult capable of answering for himself.

24 To the Jews there was only one solution. The Law forbade working on the Sabbath; Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; therefore, Jesus was a sinner. So they commanded the man to “give glory to God” for his healing.

25–27 The ensuing argument between the previously blind man and the Pharisees was a duel between an obvious fact and a legal syllogism. The fact of the healing was undeniable and was admitted by the blind man’s opponents. Their incessant questioning exhausted his patience, and he indulged in some sarcasm by insinuating that their repeated inquiries showed an interest in becoming disciples of Jesus.

28–29 Such a response to learned rabbis on the part of an illiterate man was surely considered insulting. The Jews quickly retorted that they were abiding by the authority of Moses, whose law had been the standard of Israel’s religion. Jesus they rejected as a vagrant prophet who did not keep the law.

30–33 Again the blind man pressed the pragmatic argument, and he also employed an argument of his own. Since, according to the assumption of the Jews, “God does not listen to sinners” (cf. Ps 66:18; Pr 28:9; Isa 1:15), how could Jesus have performed this miracle if he were under divine condemnation? Rather, the man reasoned, the healing should be ample evidence that Jesus came from God.

34 To this argument the Jews had no real answer, so they attacked the man by character assassination and made him feel unworthy to answer. Then they excommunicated him, thus isolating him from his family and friends and debarring him from employment (cf. v.22).

35–36 In contrast to the negative result of rejection is the positive result of Jesus’ response. “Found” implies that Jesus looked for the man so that he might confirm his faith. The question “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” is a summons to commitment, demanding a personal decision in the face of opposition or rejection. Since the healing of the man occurred after Jesus’ first interview, he would not have recognized Jesus by sight; and the question, couched in the third person, would not instantly identify the questioner as the object of faith.

37–38 When Jesus said that the “Son of Man” was the person speaking, the man instantly responded by worshiping Jesus. He was ready to believe on the one who had healed him. The progress in his spiritual understanding of Christ is marked by progressive descriptions: “The man they call Jesus” (v.11); “he is a prophet” (v.17); “from God” (v.33); “Son of Man” (v.35); and, lastly, “Lord” (v.38). This progression illustrates the man’s movement from darkness to light, both physically and spiritually.

39–41 The negative result is illustrated by the Pharisees’ response. Jesus’ remark in v.39 makes him the pivot on which human destiny turns. The Pharisees, assuming that they could “see” without his intervention, asked in resentment, “Are we blind too?” Jesus’ re ply indicated that if they had acknowledged blindness, they could be freed from sin; but since they were asserting that they could see when they were really blind, there was no remedy for them. Deliberate rejection of light means that “the light within . . . is darkness” (Mt 6:23).