IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS

John 9

The Man Born Blind (John 9)

As He had a habit of doing Jesus here takes the opportunity of performing a miracle in such a way as to teach an important spiritual lesson. That it was Jesus Who intended the lesson comes out in His use of spittle in the healing, to show that it is from His mouth that sight comes, and His sending the man to the Pool of Siloam, meaning ‘sent’, (compare Mark 8.22-25 where the story of the man who is healed in two stages comes before the gradual opening of the eyes of the disciples at Caesarea Philippi). While the pool was probably called this because the water was artificially fed to it John sees significance in the name for he mentions it twice.

The placing of this miracle of the man born blind after the arguments of John 8 is not accidental. In John 8 we have men who are unwilling to see the light of the world, and refuse to believe that others can see, and in John 9 they are unwilling to believe that a man born blind can be made to see. But certainly, to the blind man Jesus becomes the light of the world twice over (see v.5).

One other thing which we should consider about this miracle recorded here is its messianic significance. In the Old Testament it is God himself who is associated with the giving of sight to the blind (Exodus 4.11; Psalm 146.8), and in a number of passages in Isaiah (29.18; 35.5; 42.7) it is considered to be a messianic activity. Isaiah 29.18 tells us, ‘On that day the deaf will hear words from a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see.’

Isaiah 35.4 adds, ‘Behold, your God will come with vengeance, the recompense of God will come, but he will save you.' Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.’

And to the Servant of God in Isaiah 42.6-7 the promise is given, ‘I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, and I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, as a light to the nations, to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the dungeon, and those who dwell in darkness from the prison.’

So when Jesus gives sight to the blind, He is fulfilling these prophecies and showing that as the Light of the world He has defeated the darkness (compare 1.5). Thus the miracle recorded here has significance for John as one of the seven ‘signs’ which he employs to point to Jesus' identity and messiahship. That the man was ‘born blind is also significant, for it speaks of the spiritual condition of all who are in the world.

9.1-2 ‘And as he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him saying, “Rabbi, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”.’

As Jesus is going on His way, He and His disciples see a man who has been blind from birth. This raises a question in the disciples’ minds. They have been brought up to believe that misfortune is the result of sin, and that the two are directly linked, (this was certainly central in later Rabbinic thought) so they ask Jesus, ‘Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ The point here is that the man was born blind, so it was a question of whether he could be seen as guilty at birth, having sinned in the womb, or whether his misfortune was due to others. It was a theological question.

9.3 ‘Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God might be revealed clearly in him.”

Jesus replies, ‘It was not this man or his parents who sinned. It happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him’. The answer removes any suggestion linking his blindness with sin. Nor is it intended to mean that God deliberately made the man blind for this purpose. Really Jesus is saying that, rather than being seen as a punishment for sin, it was a natural occurrence that should be seen as presenting God with an opportunity to take advantage of the position to reveal His glory.

9.4-5 “We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day. The night will come when no one can work. As long as I am in the world I am the light of the world.”

There is a sense of urgency in these words. ‘It is necessary’ (dei) for us ---’. There is stress on the divine necessity. Jesus is here stating that ‘we’ (He and His disciples - but we can include ourselves) must be ready to take every opportunity to do God’s work while the opportunity is there, for there will come a time when the opportunity is no longer there.

He is almost certainly speaking with a realisation of impending death, in view of which He must carry out His responsibility to be the light of the world while He can. and He wants His disciples to have the same urgency. None of us knows when our opportunity of service might be taken away by death, incapacity or circumstances. We also should therefore strive to do what we can while we can.

Note that it is Jesus Who connects what is to happen with His claim to be the light of the world (see on 8.12). He wants the opening of the man’s eyes to be taken as a lesson that all men are born spiritually blind and need their eyes to be opened by the light of the world.

But Jesus is not saying that when He goes darkness will descend. That is why He included the disciples in His words. The light will go on shining through them and they too must work while it is day.

9.6 ‘When he had thus spoken he spat on the ground, made clay with the spittle and anointed the his eyes with clay’.

It is true that spittle was looked on as an ancient medicine, and some have suggested that this was an aid to faith for the blind man, but Jesus did not need to resort to such methods, and it is therefore far more likely that we are to see it as symbolic of His word of power opening the eyes of the spiritually blind.

9.7a ‘Then he said to him ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’, which is by interpretation ‘sent’.’

The author draws attention to Siloam as meaning ‘sent’. We are thus almost certainly intended to see it as meaning that, just as the pool which is ‘sent’ causes the blind man to see, so the One sent from God is at work opening the spiritual eyes of men. Furthermore the pool of Siloam was where the water was drawn for the ceremonies at the Feast of Tabernacles (see on John 7) and this links it with the coming work of the Holy Spirit, and the times of refreshing, symbolised by those waters, when the eyes of the blind will be opened (Isaiah 29.17; 35.5 compare also 42.7).

It is very probable therefore that it is this also which is to be seen as ‘sent’. The man blind from birth has met the light of the world Who is sent to drench (baptise) men with the Holy Spirit that God has promised to send into the world, and as a result he sees.

9.7b ‘So he went and washed, and came back seeing’ (v.7). The world’s blindness must be dealt with in the same way. The water of the word of God washes away the blindness and darkness and opens the eyes of the blind and of those who sit in darkness (Ephesians 5.26).

9.8-9a ‘The neighbours therefore, and those who saw him in the past, and knew that he was a beggar, said, “Is this not the one who sat and begged?” Others said, “It is he”. Others said, “No, but he is like him”. ’

The man was clearly well known. He had been begging since he was a child. So those who had known him in the past, especially those who lived nearby, were amazed to see him walking about as a seeing man, and found it hard to believe, so much so that some merely thought he was the man’s double. vv. 9.9b-12 ‘He said, “I am he”. So they said to him, “How then were your eyes opened?” He answered, “The man who is called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes, and said to me ‘Go to Siloam and wash’, so I went away and washed and received sight”.’ And they said to him, “Where is he?” He says, “I do not know”.’

When the man meets some who have known him as a beggar, it causes a general stir as they discuss whether it is the same man, and if so what has happened to him. So he outlines in full the way in which he was healed. This repetition confirms that the details of the cure are all to be seen as significant.

‘A man who is called Jesus.’ This makes specifically clear that the blind man previously knew nothing about Jesus. Sitting where he did in his blindness the world had passed him by. Yet within a short while he will a full disciple of Christ. This is in contrast with the Pharisees who have had every chance to know Him but have refused them.

9.13 ‘They bring to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind’.

The Pharisees were looked on by the people as their spiritual guides, so this was quite a natural act. They probably thought they would get some good spiritual lessons from it. But they were to be disappointed.

9.14 ‘Now it was the Sabbath on the day that Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.’

The day of the healing was the Sabbath, and all healing, apart from emergency work, was forbidden. The Pharisees were thus concerned, and they were even more so when they learned that Jesus had actually made clay on the Sabbath.

Their rules and regulations meant more to many of them than the wonder of God at work. It was this which showed them to be essentially blind. Instead of sharing in the general amazement at the miracle they looked at the minor details with critical eyes. They did not consider that a man making clay to give sight to a man blind from birth thereby justified the making of clay for this reason on the Sabbath. Their view was rather that inessential healing should not take place on the Sabbath.

9.15 ‘Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. And he said to them, “He put clay on my eyes and I washed and do see”.’

Who is more blind than the man, who in the face of a miracle of such wonderful proportions, asks how it happened, not in order to wonder at God’s goodness, but in order to check that the healer has not broken any religious rules?

‘Some therefore of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for He does not keep the Sabbath’. But others said, ‘How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?’ And there was division among them.’

By a sinner they did not mean someone who committed grave sins but someone who did not keep himself in a state of acceptability to God through obedience to Moses as regulated by the teaching of the Rabbis. But surely someone who could do such things must be pleasing to God? That was a question they dare not face in view of His ‘misdemeanour’.

The division brings out that there were a number of Pharisees who were honestly prepared at least to consider the evidence. These were as well as those who had actually believed in Him. So they call the man in again.

9.17 ‘They say therefore to the blind man again, “What do you say about him in view of the fact that he opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet”.’

They ask the man what he thinks. His reply is simple, ‘He is a prophet’. A God sent man. Truly his eyes have been opened as he stands before these ‘blind’ men and reveals at least part of the truth. The man born blind is seeking to open the eyes of those who claim to see.

9.18 ‘The Judaisers therefore did not believe about him that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of him who had received his sight.’

Note the change from ‘the Pharisees’ to ‘the Judaisers’. Not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus as we have seen, and they were prepared to wait and see. ‘The Judaisers’, which is John’s term for those who were antagonistic, were not willing to be convinced and did not believe the man’s story. So they called in the man’s parents. This may have been the beginning of the official enquiry, or just a preliminary vetting.

It was quite an awe inspiring thing for these people to be brought before a gathering of the leading religious authorities. They knew that such men could have them excluded from the privileges of the synagogue.

9.19-23 ‘And they asked them saying, “Is this your son who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” His parents answered and said, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. But how he now see we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. Ask him. He is of age. He will speak for himself.” His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Judaisers. For the Judaisers had already agreed that if any man should confess him to be Christ he should be put out of the synagogue. That is why his parents said, “He is of age. Ask him”.’

Two questions are put to them. Firstly, is this your son whom you say was born blind? They want confirmation that the man really is who people think he is, and that he really had been born in that condition. Once they receive that confirmation they express their doubt by asking, ‘if that really was the case, how does he now see?’ They are testing out the witnesses. It would seem from what is said later that they finally do accept their testimony.

The poor parents meanwhile were fearful that they might be excluded from worship (we know that a century later this involved being excluded from the privileges of the synagogue for up to thirty days, although attendance was still required, but that may not have applied at this time). This while confirming that he was born blind, they otherwise prevaricate.

‘For the Judaisers had already agreed that if anyone should confess him to be the Messiah he was to be excluded from the synagogue’. This was now clearly well known, at least among the inhabitants of Jerusalem who attended their synagogues. John makes it quite clear that it was this fear that prompted them to evade a reply and pass the buck to their son himself.

Exclusion from the synagogue would later become an established penalty. Possibly at this stage it was only a temporary expediency.

9.24 ‘So they called the man who was blind a second time and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.”

They feel it their duty to set the man right. They call him and say to him, ‘Give glory to God, we know that this man is a sinner’, that is to say, not in a state, through obedience to the rules and regulations of the Rabbis, of acceptability to God. They may basically be saying, ‘recognise that all the credit should go to God and none to the so-called miracle worker in view of his evident unworthiness in God’s eyes’.

Now in the right circumstances ‘give the glory to God’ is a good and right statement. But due acceptance must always be given to the one through whom the miracle is performed. Thus the statement that his Benefactor was a sinner provoked the man to reply. This statement was so evidently self-contradictory that even the poor beggar could not believe what he heard, even though understandably he does not want to antagonise them.

On the other hand ‘give glory to God ’ can rather mean ‘consider things in the eyes of God’ (compare Joshua 7.19), i.e. give glory to God by recognising and admitting the truth. And that is probably what the Judaisers meant here.

Furthermore, ‘so they called the man’ suggests an official examination. Thus this may well have been a committee appointed by the Sanhedrin who were on the whole antagonistic to Jesus. At what stage this whole case ceased to be just a matter of interest and became an official enquiry we cannot be certain, but it was almost certainly that by this time.

On this view he is undergoing official examination with a view to breaking his testimony. With this in mind they point out the impossibility of ‘a sinner’ doing such a thing and ask him to be open and honest about what happened in the sight of God.

9.25 ‘He therefore answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that whereas I was blind, now I see”.’

Without actually criticising them he brings home the important point that they must recognise that what he has said happened, did actually happen. He is in no position to judge religious conformity, but he does know that what has happened has happened, and that it is extraordinary.

They cannot accept that any credit should go to Jesus. So they try again.

9.26 ‘They said therefore to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” ’

They want the story again so that they can pick holes in it, and even find cause against Jesus. Surely the once blind man must see that Jesus is a Sabbath-breaker. However, the man has had enough and is disgusted at their hypocrisy.

9.27 ‘He answered them, “I told you even now and you did not accept it. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” ’

He can see quite clearly that they are not trying to find out the truth but to minimise Jesus. His question is sarcastic, for he knows very well that the last thing they want is to become disciples of Jesus. But his ‘also’ makes clear that he now sees himself as one of them. It may even be that it is their questioning that has brought this fact home to him.

9.28-29 ‘And they reviled him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he has come from”.’

His reply angers the Judaisers. They have lost their patience and revile him. ‘You are his disciple,’ they add, ‘but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he is from’. Significantly the people had rejected Jesus for the very opposite reason, because they did know where He was from (7.27).

So they compare Jesus with Moses, to His detriment. But how do they know God spoke to Moses? The answer is because of the wonderful things that he did. Why then can they not see that this is also true of Jesus?

‘We do not know where he is from.’ He is an obscure Galilean with no background and, as far as they know, without having learned the Law from any recognised Teacher.

This infuriates the man. Here he is having been cured of permanent, lifelong blindness, and they do not know where His benefactor came from? Surely anyone can see that He must be from God. He can no longer stay silent whatever the consequences.

9.30-33 ‘The man answered and said to them, “Why, this is a marvel. You do not know where he comes from, and yet he has opened my eyes? We know that God does not listen to sinners (the Pharisees themselves taught that), but if anyone is a worshipper of God and does his will, he listens to him. Not since the world began has it been heard that anyone has opened the eyes of a man born blind (not even Moses). If this man were not from God he could do nothing’.

His reply catches them out and puts them on the spot. It was they who had taught the man these sentiments, and now he is using them against them. What has happened, he states, demonstrates conclusively that Jesus is a man sent from God and is pleasing to God. Indeed that He is like none other.

Had they been willing to consider his words calmly they must have recognised their error, for his logic was inescapable. But they so hated Jesus that they deliberately closed their eyes. Their reply and reaction is typical of bigots who have no argument and therefore bluster their way out of it..

9.34 ‘They answered and said to him, “You were totally born in sins, and will you try to teach us?” And they threw him out.’

They have no answer, so as such men will when they will not admit that they are wrong, they attack the man and take action against him. They threw him out. This may simply mean that they forcibly ejected him, or, more likely, that they officially excluded him from synagogue worship.

‘Born in sins’. This reflects their general view, a view which Jesus combated earlier, that his blindness was due to someone’s sin, probably his own. An interesting example of later Rabbinic thinking on this is found in Midrash Rabbah on Song of Songs 1.41 which states that when a pregnant woman worships in a heathen temple the seed within her also commits idolatry. Their prejudice convinces them that this man too is unworthy for some similar reason. He has borne the mark of sinfulness upon him, how dare he criticise them?

9.35 ‘Jesus heard that they had excluded him, and finding him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Ideas about the heavenly Son of Man were current at the time (see John 3.13; 5.27; 6.62 which mirror popular belief), a figure who came from God and would one day receive from God glory, dominion and power and participate in the judgment.

Many good authorities have here ‘the Son of God’. If so Jesus may have been probing to find out his Messianic views. But ‘Son of Man’ probably has the weight on its side.

Either way the terminology refers to One Who has come from God and is empowered to act on His behalf.

9.36 ‘He answered and said, ‘Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?’ He has recognised that Jesus is a God sent teacher and is willing to accept whatever He tells him.

9.37 ‘Jesus said to him, ‘You have both seen him and He is the one who speaks with you’.

Jesus wants him to know that He is not talking of some far off figure in Heaven. Indeed the man has seen him and talked with him, for it is He Himself.

9.38 ‘And he said, “Lord, I believe”’, and he worshipped him.’

The man’s eyes have now been opened again, this time spiritually, and he confesses Jesus as Lord. How far he yet sees we do not know, but we are undoubtedly to see this as the beginning of a genuine discipleship. (He previously called Jesus ‘sir’ using the same word ‘kurios’ but the change in his viewpoint demands the change in translation).

‘He worshipped him.’ We are probably to see here that he fell on his face before Him. When men who are spiritually blind have their eyes opened they too will worship Jesus. We note here that while in Revelation the angel told John not to worship him (22.9), Jesus makes no such restriction. He accepts the worship as His right. The use elsewhere in John’s Gospel of the word used here is restricted to the worship of God (see especially 4.20-24).

9.39 ‘And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that they who see not may see, and that they who see might become blind”.’

We now have a general statement made by Jesus in the presence of others, including some Pharisees, which the author tacks on here as summing up the incident. ‘I came into this world for judgment, that those who do not see might see, and that those who see might become blind’.

We can compare 3.19-21. Light has come into the world, but men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. However, when that light shines, the light of Christ, there are some whose eyes are opened and they gladly respond to the light, but there are also some who avoid the light and choose to remain in darkness, and so do not see or have their eyes opened. That is why He has come. He has not come to judge, but His presence necessarily judges.

Alas when that light shines there are many who would claim to have spiritual sight, who turn away, because they do not want the searchlight of God revealing the truth about them, ‘because their deeds are evil’ (evil if only in motive or self-satisfaction). So by His coming Jesus is causing judgment to be passed on men, and the result is seen by their response to His light.

9.40 ‘Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things and said to him, “Are we also blind?”.

Some Pharisees who were there with Him rather uneasily recognised some of the implications of His statement. So they say to Him, ‘Are we also blind?’ Of all men they thought they could see. They were quite satisfied that they were different from ordinary men.

The words in the context suggests these are not disciples but rather listeners who are willing to give Him a fair chance, but no more. Thus they are probably other than the believing ex-Judaisers (8.31).

9.41 ‘Jesus said to them, “If you were blind you would have no sin, but now you say ‘We see’. So your sin remains”.’

Jesus’ reply is uncompromising. Those who have the most privilege are those who are most accountable. If they were physically blind they would bear no blame. They would not thereby be guilty (v.3). They would be able to do nothing about it. But when they claim to be able to ‘see’ spiritually they are the more to blame if they then fail to come to the light, because it is a deeper sin that prevents them from coming, and that therefore makes them doubly guilty.

A man who sees has no excuse for avoiding the light, and sin therefore weighs heavily upon him when he does. These Pharisees may be accompanying Jesus, confident that they know the Scriptures, but if that knowledge does not illuminate their hearts it will only make them the more guilty. They must beware that they do not avoid the full light of Christ. For if they do not come to full faith in Him no efforts of theirs will rid them of sin. (Compare Isaiah 6.10; 42.18-19).

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?