Chapter 9

John 9 (Healing the blind man)

(9:1) 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) “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).^[1] 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[2] or (2) the parents had some sort of sin that God was punishing in their unborn baby.^[3] 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.”[4] Most religious thinking is this way: God is punishing us for our wrongdoing.

While the Bible doesn’t teach this,[5] 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.”^[6]

(9:4) 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) 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) Why did 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.”[7] 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.”[8]

(9:8) Jesus’ prediction comes true (v.3). This man’s healing spoke to the entire community about the power of God.

(9:9) 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) 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) This miracle gets some people asking where Jesus was. They start seeking for him to ask him for an answer.

(9:13) Instead of seeking Jesus, they sought out the Pharisees.

(9:14) Oh no! Jesus had the audacity and irreverence to heal this man… on the Sabbath! How could he do such a thing??

(9:15) The man explains how Jesus performed the miracle: Jesus used physical substances (e.g. mud and saliva), and this would constitute work.

(9:16) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 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]

(9:31-33) The healed man is revealing the contradiction in their religious presuppositions. Since the rabbis agreed that God doesn’t listen to sinners (b. Sanhedrin 90a; b. Berakhot 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.”^[10]

(9:34) 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 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) The healed man lost the synagogue and the approval of the religious authorities, but he gained Christ (cf. Phil. 3:5-10).

(9:39) This miracle had a spiritual message frontloaded into it, speaking to the “spiritual blindness” of humanity.

(9:40) Apparently, the Pharisees overheard this conversation, but still refused to believe.

(9:41) 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.”[11]

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?

^[1] Cited in Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 425.

[2] In this passage, the rabbis state, “You were born entirely in sins” (v.34). Elsewhere, we read that ancient rabbis held that Esau must have sinned in the womb (Gen. Rab. 63.6).

^[3] Cant. Rab. 1.6; Ruth Rab. 6.4; Tg. Ps.-J. of Deuteronomy 21:20.

[4] Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Baker, 2003), 777.

[5] See Luke 13:1-5; Ezekiel 18:20; Jeremiah 31:29-30.

^[6] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 425.

[7] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament (Intervarsity: Downer’s Grove, 1993), 288.

[8] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah: Volume 2 (Bellingham, WA. 1896), 783.

^[9] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 437–438.

^[10] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 438.

[11] Andreas Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 295–296.