Chapter 9

Healing the blind man

(9:1) As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.

This happened as Jesus was leaving the Temple (Jn. 8:59). Jesus was running for his life, but he still stopped to heal a guy. This man had congenital blindness (i.e. “blind from birth”).

(9:2-3) And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” ³ Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

“Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Modern Western people surely take this to be a very odd question (and indeed it is!). But most religions on Earth blame suffering on the victim, claiming that the person did something to deserve their fate. While the Bible doesn’t teach such a thing, ancient rabbis debated this very issue. If a person was born with a congenital disease, they argued, then someone must be morally responsible, because there was a direct relationship between suffering and sin. For instance, Rabbi Ammi (AD 300) allegedly said, “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity” (Shabbat 55a). But if the individual was born blind, then who sinned? Ancient rabbis advanced two (unbiblical) alternatives: (1) the person sinned in utero—as a fetus in the womb or (2) the parents had some sort of sin that God was punishing in their unborn baby. Craig Keener writes, “Jewish literature provides many examples of the connection; one who saw a blind, lame or otherwise seriously afflicted person should praise God as the righteous judge.” Most religious thinking is this way: God is punishing us for our wrongdoing.

While the Bible doesn’t teach this, the disciples were men of their times. Growing up under these traditions, they thought that this man’s suffering was a result of divine judgment. Thus, they offer Jesus this false dilemma. But Jesus answers, “Who sinned? Wrong question!” After all, what could a fetus do in the womb? Sin against other fetuses? (Indeed, some rabbis argued this based on Genesis 25:22!)

Why then did this man have a congenital handicap? Jesus says, “It was so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (v.3). Does this refer to all congenital defects? Not necessarily. Jesus is only referring this particular case—not all suffering. Jesus could confidently claim this because he knew that he was about to perform a miracle on this man. It’s also true that Jesus’ healing work in the life of the believer shows the grace of God (2 Cor. 12:7-10). Citing F.F. Bruce, Leon Morris argues that “God overruled the disaster of the child’s blindness so that, when the child grew to manhood, he might, by recovering his sight, see the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

(9:4) “We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work.”

Who is Jesus referring to when he says “we”? The disciples? The Trinity? Most likely, it seems that he’s referring to the disciples.

“Night” must refer to Jesus’ departure from this world (v.5). That is, Jesus would only do his ministry of miracles on Earth and in person for a little while longer.

(9:5) “While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.”

This is similar to John 8: Those who respond to Jesus’ light receive more sight. But those who reject Jesus’ light become more blind.

(9:6-7) When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, ⁷ and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.

Why does Jesus spit on the ground and make mud? In Mark, Jesus used saliva to perform a miracle as well (Mk. 7:33; 8:23). But with his other miracles, Jesus simply speaks or “snaps his fingers,” and the miraculous occurs. Why does he use mud to heal the man’s eyes, instead of just speaking a word of healing?

Jesus likely did this so that it would constitute “work” in the minds of the religious leaders, and this miracle occurred on the Sabbath (v.14). Keener writes, “Kneading (dough, and by analogy clay) was one of thirty-nine classes of work forbidden on the Sabbath.” Alfred Edersheim concurs, “In general, the principle is laid down, that anything by which the ground may be benefited is to be considered a ‘work’ or ‘labour,’ even if it were to sweep away or to break up a clod of earth. Nay, to pluck a blade of grass was a sin. Similarly, it was sinful labour to do anything that would promote the ripening of fruits, such as to water, or even to remove a withered leaf. One Rabbi allowed to spit into the handkerchief, and that although it may necessitate the compressing of what had been wetted; but there is a grave discussion whether it was lawful to spit on the ground, and then to rub it with the foot, because thereby the earth may be scratched.”

(9:8) Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?”

Jesus’ prediction comes true (v.3). This man’s healing spoke to the entire community about the power of God.

(9:9) Others were saying, “This is he,” still others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the one.”

What a natural human reaction. The people weren’t dumb, pre-scientific idiots. They knew that congenital blindness didn’t just fix itself. Some were skeptical.

(9:10-11) So they were saying to him, “How then were your eyes opened?” ¹¹ 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 I received sight.”

The NASB renders this as “anointed my eyes.” The NET renders this as “smeared it on my eyes.” The NLT renders this as “spread it over my eyes.” The word (epechrisen) means “to apply a viscous substance, anoint, spread/smear on” (BDAG).

(9:12) They said to him, “Where is He?” He said, “I do not know.”

This miracle gets some people asking where Jesus was. They start seeking for him to ask him for an answer.

(9:13) They brought to the Pharisees the man who was formerly blind.

Instead of seeking Jesus, they sought out the Pharisees.

(9:14) Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.

Oh no! Jesus had the audacity and irreverence to heal this man… on the Sabbath! How could he do such a thing??

(9:15) Then the Pharisees also were asking him again how he received his sight. And he said to them, “He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”

The man explains how Jesus performed the miracle: Jesus used physical substances (e.g. mud and saliva), and this would constitute work.

(9:16) Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them.

This verified miracle led to intense debate among the people. Notice that no one denied the miracle here—only its cause. Moreover, the people noted that Jesus had performed “signs” (plural), not just this one.

(9:17) So they said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”

The healed man thought Jesus was “a prophet,” not “the Prophet.” He doesn’t discover Jesus’ identity until later (vv.36-38). Without propositional teaching, mere miracles can actually be quite confusing to people.

(9:18) The Jews then did not believe it of him, that he had been blind and had received sight, until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight.

Once the man explains the theological implications of this healing, then (all of a sudden!) the Pharisees start to deny the miracle. Their theological presuppositions skewed the evidence.

(9:19) And questioned them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?”

The Pharisees weren’t holding an objective investigation. They seem to be trying to pressure witnesses to deny Christ. They interrogate the parents likely because the formerly blind man lived with his parents. This would be intense social and religious pressure.

(9:20-23) His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; ²¹ but how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not know. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself.” ²² His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. ²³ For this reason his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

The religious leaders had “already decided” their view about Jesus (v.22). They weren’t honest investigators, but had a political and religious agenda. As a result, the parents wimp out, remaining agnostic (“we do not know”). How will their son hold up under this intense social pressure? We discover that the man develops a sarcastic attitude toward these religious leaders…

(9:24-25) So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.” ²⁵ He then answered, “Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”

Instead of following them down their theological rabbit hole, the man focuses on what he does know with certainty.

How did the religious leaders already “know that [Jesus] was a sinner”? Clearly, their theological assumptions based on their man-made laws about the Sabbath were skewing the evidence. They were convinced Jesus had broken the Sabbath, because they trusted the reports about Jesus making mud out of dirt. But they denied these same reports that confirmed a genuine miracle.

(9:26-27) So they said to him, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” ²⁷ He answered them, “I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?”

The healed man holds his own! He asks why they keep asking the same questions over and over. Often, people do this when they are being stubborn or when they are trying to pressure you to change your view. This wasn’t an open dialogue; it was an interrogation.

(9:28-29) They reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. ²⁹ We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from.”

If excommunication from the synagogue was at stake (v.22), then this would be a really serious accusation. There is great tragedy in the fact that they choose to be disciples of Moses, while rejecting Jesus. This reminds us again of the prologue: “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17).

(9:30) The man answered and said to them, “Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes.”

The healed man is pushing back on their faulty reasoning: If Jesus really was a miracle worker, then why wouldn’t they investigate where he came from? How could they fail to look into this? Morris paraphrases the man’s statement in this way: “This is the really marvellous thing; your unbelief in the face of the evidence is more of a miracle than my cure!”

(9:31-33) “We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him. ³² Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. ³³ If this man were not from God, He could do nothing.”

The healed man is revealing the contradiction in their religious presuppositions. Since the rabbis agreed that God doesn’t listen to sinners (b. Sanh. 90a; b. Ber. 58a), then how could God perform a miracle through Jesus? Morris comments, “It is not a bad chain of reasoning for one who had hitherto been a beggar all his life, and presumably a stranger to academic and forensic argument.”

(9:34) They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?” So they put him out.

Jesus didn’t condemn this man in this way (v.3), but the Pharisees did. The Pharisees refused to listen to the man’s testimony about who Jesus was, and consequently, they plunged into further spiritual darkness.

What must it have been like for this man to be questioned, accused, and thrown out of the synagogue? On the very day that he reentered society as a newly respected person, the religious authorities declared him a “sinner” and cast him away. This man must’ve felt all alone in defending Jesus. But look who shows up next to keep him company…

(9:35-37) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” ³⁶ He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” ³⁷ Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.”

Jesus heard about this man’s faith, and he went searching for him (“finding him”). This man thought that Jesus was just a prophet (v.17). But Jesus ups the ante and tells him that he is the “Son of Man” (cf. Dan. 7:13-14).

(9:38) And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him.

The healed man lost the synagogue and the approval of the religious authorities, but he gained Christ (cf. Phil. 3:5-10).

(9:39) And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”

This miracle had a spiritual message frontloaded into it, speaking to the “spiritual blindness” of humanity.

(9:40) Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?”

Apparently, the Pharisees overheard this conversation, but still refused to believe.

(9:41) Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”

Their sin was in the fact that they falsely claimed to see God. Köstenberger writes, “It is not the Pharisees’ sin, but their repudiation of grace, that renders them lost. There is no cure for people who reject the only cure there is, and no hope for those who are wise in their own eyes.”

Discussion Questions

Compare and contrast the account of the healed man and the Pharisees: What key differences do you see?

In this account, we saw that the religious leaders were biased by religious presuppositions. How can bias (e.g. religious, philosophical, experiential, etc.) affect our interpretation of Christianity?

What are signs that someone thinks that they can “see” just fine without God?

• “I have a relationship with God, because I grew up in a religious household.”

• “I have a relationship with God because of my good works.”

• “My life is just fine without Christ.”

• “If I dedicate my life to Christ, it would lead to regret and misery.”

• “I’ve already read that passage of Scripture before.”

• “I don’t need to seek counsel or consider correction.”

• “I can ignore Christ’s instruction on a specific area, and it won’t affect the rest of my life.”