Was Blind but now I See: An Exposition of John 9
John 9 is a drama presented in several scenes. It is a literal story of a man who had been born blind. It is important to see this. However, even a real story can speak beyond itself. In this way, it speaks to us in symbolic language as well. There is more to this story than a man who was born blind is given the miracle of sight. There is more to seeing than seeing. So we need to look into this passage and find its rich and deep spiritual meaning to us as well.
Act 1: Setting the Context
Chapter 9 is set up by chapter 8 which precedes it. In 8:12, Jesus who is at the Feast of Tabernacles says: I AM the Light of the World.” This is one of the seven “I AM” statements in John. The theme of light and darkness is found throughout the Gospel. In John 1, John records this about Jesus: “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not understand it.” The present tense for shining shows that the light perpetually shines. This light is in the life of Jesus. In chapter 8, we see this lack of comprehension. The Jews simply could not understand who Jesus is. Jesus confounded their logic and their understanding. They could not accept Jesus’ claims about Himself. They could not believe that Jesus was the pre-existent Word come in human flesh. They only saw a man who could not even have been 50 years old. Even if Jesus was Methuselah, He could not have been old enough to have been alive in the days of Father Abraham. When Jesus answers their unbelief by saying “Before Abraham was, I AM.” This is the eighth I AM saying in John, this time without a predicate adjective. It was a naked claim to be Yahweh who introduces Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14. “Tell them that I AM sent you,” The response of the Jews shows that they clearly understood what Jesus was claiming and utterly rejected it as blasphemy. They took up stones to stone Him. But Jesus hid Himself from their sight and went out of the Temple.
Even though John 8 emphasizes that they did not know Jesus more than their blindness to Him, the themes are quite similar. John in many ways is a commentary on the prophet Isaiah in which it is said in chapter 6: “See and do not perceive; Hear and do not understand.” John makes this connection explicit in chapter 12 of his gospel when Jesus Himself makes this connection. But sight is in this passage along with knowledge. Jesus mentions that: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day, saw it, and was glad.” Sight and knowledge are connected
Act 2: Jesus Sees the Man Born Blind
Chapter 9 begins with the words” As He was going along.” This indicates a break between chapters 8 and 9. However, the chapters are logically connected. We do not know for certain that the events in chapter 9 follow temporally the event is chapter 8. The gospels in general follow a general chronological order, but the difference in placement of some of the events show that they do not follow chronological order all the time. Sometimes, passages which do not follow chronologically are placed near each other because the one event explains the other. For example, the anointing of Jesus for burial occurs the evening before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, whereas Matthew seems to place it in the middle of Holy Week. Unless one holds to two anointings, it is obvious that one has not followed chronological order. In John 12, John ties the betrayal of Judas to the anointing at Bethany. He mentions Judas by name as the one who was offended by the waste of money. In Matthew, it does not mention Judas grumbling explicitly. However, the passage which immediately follows talks about Judas going to the Jewish leaders for the purpose of betraying Jesus. Both gospels indicate the connection between the anointing and the betrayal but have different ways of bringing it out. Matthew uses logical order by placing the two events together. John may have used this same logical ordering in chapter 2 where the cleansing of the Temple occurs. If there was only one cleansing, then it is John who has chronologically dislocated the event for a reason. It would them be in juxtaposition to the first sign in Cana of Galilee in which the cleansing is the final sign.
The text then says: “He (Jesus) saw a man blind from birth.” It becomes obvious that the disciples saw the man also. But Jesus saw more than they did. How can one see a man and know that he was born blind? Sometimes, the blindness can be seen because one can see that there is something wrong with the eyes. At other times, we can perceive that one is blind because they are using a white-tipped cane or are being led. As we shall see though, there is more to being blind than being blind.
The disciples saw the blind man and tried to understand why this man was born blind. Was it his parent’s sin or his own sin? By this they were showing a total lack of perception. They had made a connection by assuming a connection between sin and blindness. It is true in a general sense that blindness and all other disease and malady is the result of the sin of Adam and Eve. This much is true. Everyone suffers to one degree or another because we live in a fallen and cursed world. But there is a different degree of sin which is personal. We all come to this awareness at some point. We are sinners. But the blind man was not capable in this aspect of sin in the womb. He was born blind. But Jesus goes father. He also affirms that this was not the result of his parents’ sin either. Rather, this man was born blind for the purpose of God’s work might be manifested (brought to light) in him. This serves as a test of our perception. Why would God allow this man to be born blind and suffer ostracism as a sinner as a result. Think of all the years he had to spend begging. What kind of God would do this? So this challenges us. Yet this is what it says. We also hold to the absolute goodness of God. We have to perceive that God sees things differently than we do. The Greek uses the strong adversative translated “but.” The first assumption of the disciples must be replaced with the proper understanding which Jesus offers.
Jesus now gives an admonition to His disciples which is strongly stated in Greek. He does not say “I must work” but “We must work.” The extra pronoun “we” is added to the Greek. This would be like us using the bold type “We” in English. The Greek word fir “must” is usually used as the divine imperative. This is not a suggestion but rather the command of God Himself. “We MUST work the work of the One who sent me!” This We extends to us as well. This must be done while it is still daylight. Our work cannot be done in the darkness of night. Jesus refers to Himself again as that light, the light of the world. This in the immediate context seems to refer to his earthly ministry. But Jesus is still in the midst of His church. Our works must be done in the light of Christ.
Act 3: Jesus Heals the Man’s Earthly Blindness
Jesus is recorded as having healed the physical blindness of other people. But the way he heals this man seems disgusting to many. He spit on the ground, made mud of the dirt, and anointed the man’s eyes. Having mud in the eyes seems painful and having that mud made of spit seems insulting. The blind man did not see what Jesus did, but the disciples and other onlookers did. Some explain this action to some obscure Jewish writing that the Messiah would have special power to heal with His saliva, and that was a revelation to those who see as a proof of His being Messiah. I do not know if this was the case. All I know is that this is what Jesus did.
Jesus sent the man to the Pool of Siloam to wash the mud out of His eyes. The name “Siloam” means “sent.” There was the expectation of obedience on the part of the blind man. He had to go where he was sent. I would surmise that someone had to take him by the hand and lead him to this pool. So this person had to also believe. We lead others to their being made whole in Christ. The church must be obedient. We must do the works of the One who sent Jesus. He went; he washed, and came seeing.
It would be one thing to have once seen and become blind for a season. There would have been the previous experience of sight to shed light upon the restoration of sight. It would have been much less of an adjustment. But this man was born blind. What he had seen, he saw with his hands. I would suppose that the new experience of sight would have been overwhelming. It would represent quite an adjustment. He would have to learn this new way of seeing. He needed to learn how to use his newfound sight.
Act 4: The Man’s Neighbors are Confounded
The previously blind man returned home seeing. All of the man’s neighbors had seen him begging for alms. They never questioned that the man was blind. There was no evidence of him faking blindness. They too saw that he was blind. The older neighbors knew that he always was blind. But now this man returned seeing. He became an instant sensation. The neighbors were asking: “Is this not the man who sat and begged?” The question is framed in Greek to expect an affirmative answer. The Greek imperfect tense (“Were saying”) indicates draws out this astonishment individually. This is what every one said when they found out about it. The imperfect tense is used often in this passage. Each one saw this for themselves.
Some of the witnesses could not accept this was the man who had been blind and were saying that this man just resembled the blind man. Certainly, sight could not be restored to a man born blind they were thinking. Did Elijah or Elisha give sight to a man born blind? To accept that this was indeed the case would make Jesus greater than both Elijah and Elisha. This meant they would have to make a serious decision about Jesus. In chapter 8, the Jews had accused Jesus of being both a Samaritan and being demon possessed. If Jesus actually performed these miracles, then they were done by the power of the devil. The other gospels say similar things about Jesus. But there are problems here. Jesus asks them why Satan would cast out Satan as far as his exorcism of demons from people. A more serious question is that these works were good and not evil works. Does Satan care about people more than Yahweh? This would be the implication. Jesus told them that this type of thinking dishonored God, and He closely associates this attitude with the unforgivable sin. To attribute the works of God to Satan or the works of Satan to God is the utter blasphemy.
The man’s neighbors did not make such an accusation. Instead they asked the man how this healing happened. He tells them what happened by saying what Jesus did to him and what He told him to do. They asked the man where Jesus was, and he answered that he did not know. If he did not return to Jesus after the healing, he would have had no idea what Jesus looked like.
Act 5: They Take the Man to the Pharisees
Being unable to resolve the contradiction, they took the man to the Pharisees. The Pharisees were seen in the country as being the religious authorities. Perhaps they could shed light on the matter. Then we are given the information that this was on the Sabbath day. It is interesting that this detail is hid until this point, but now that the Pharisees were getting involved, this becomes a salient point. The Pharisees were rigid adherents to their understanding of the Law of Moses. It was important that the Law be upheld. They well knew that doing work on the Sabbath was strictly prohibited. Jesus had done work. He had spit on the ground and made clay. Then He anointed the eyes of the blind man. This was in their opinion a flagrant violation of the Sabbath. What they did not realize was that by making judgment against the blind man and Jesus that they were breaking the Sabbath themselves. It is so easy to see splinters in someone else’s eye while being blinded by a beam in their own eye. Jesus had found fault with their interpretation of the Law. They were tithing things like dill seed while disregarding love and mercy. They were also hypocrites. They would have pulled their own donkey out of a pit on the Sabbath while condemning someone else for doing the same things. If the people of the village thought that the Pharisees could cast light on the matter, they were sorely mistaken.
Like the villagers, the Pharisees ask the man to tell them what happened. And he gave them the details of what had happened. The Pharisees who were blinded by their Sabbath regulations and could not see that giving sight to the blind man was to give him rest from his life of blindness. A dispute of the contradiction broke out with some saying that Jesus could not have been from God because He broke the Sabbath. Others were saying that it was not possible for a sinner to do such signs.
When they could not come to a conclusion, they decided to get the opinion of a man who had been born blind. What a marvel this is! “What do you say about the person who opened your eyes?” Sooner or later, one has to make a decision about Jesus and give an answer to questioners. How one answers is very important. He answered the best he knew. “The man is a prophet.”
Act Six: Let’s go ask His Parents
The result of the Pharisees was that they simply could not believe that the man was born blind. They blew past the man’s answer that Jesus must be a prophet. So they called in the man’s parents to testify concerning their son. They ask them two questions: “Is this man your son?” This was affirmed. The second question was whether he had been born blind. This was answered affirmatively as well. The framing of the question with the extra pronoun “you” indicates that the Pharisees did not believe that this man was born blind. “YOU say that he was born blind.” The parent’s answer was defensive. While affirming the facts about their son, they did not want to commit themselves about how he was healed. They were afraid of being excommunicated from the synagogue. They did not want to make an opinion about the person of Jesus. They pass the buck to their son. “He is of age to answer for himself. Don’t ask us, ask him.” They had failed to see what a great deed Jesus had done for their son. They feared the Pharisees more than they feared God. How fatal it is when people do this. It is a form of idolatry.
Act Seven: The Second Examination
The Pharisees were not going to believe that a miracle had occurred. There was no room for miracles in their way of thinking, especially if affirming it would imply that Jesus was who He said He is. So in verse 24, they begin to question him. They admonish him to “give glory to God” which is another way of solemnly charging the man to tell the truth such as the swearing in of the witness. They thought he must be lying. Perhaps he was only faking blindness, they thought. A witness for Christ must be truthful. Jesus had been accused in the last chapter. He truthfully told that He knew the Father while the Pharisees did not. If He had said that He did not know the Father, He would have been a liar just like they were. The true witness does not deny the truth.
The Pharisees emphatically state “We know that this man is a sinner.” The extra pronoun and the moving forward of the word “sinner” in the sentence show this. They had already made an ironclad conclusion about Jesus and could not be persuaded otherwise.
The man responds by saying that he did not know whether Jesus was a sinner or not. He was a blind beggar. He was no astute theologian like they were. But then he makes a brilliant statement. He might not be a theologian, but he at least knew one thing. He once was blind, but now he could see. He did not know much, but what he did know he testified truly. He was beginning to see the implications of this. His spiritual eyes were being opened. He had previously thought Jesus a prophet. Now he was coming to the realization that Jesus was much more than a prophet.
The Pharisees again ask the man what happened. This is the sort of thing one does when setting a perjury trap. They hoped he would give himself away by saying something inconsistent with his previous testimony. The man would have none of this. “I have told you already, and you did not listen! Why do you want to hear it again?” He is almost mocking the Pharisees at this point. He adds: “Certainly you are not wanting to become His disciples, are you?” By saying this, the man is identifying himself as a disciple of Jesus. The Pharisees were emphatically not wanting to be Jesus’ disciples as the man’s question expects a negative response.
And a negative response he received. They abused him and said: “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses!” The extra “you” and “we” pronouns in the Greek sentence makes emphatic distinction between the man and the Pharisees. They add that they were certain that God had spoken to Moses. They said about Jesus that they had no idea where this man was coming from. The use of “this” is used to distance themselves from Jesus. The man who had been blind and now could see responds to this by saying: “Isn’t this marvelous! “You have no idea where He is coming from, yet He opened my eyes.” He was now seeing something that the Pharisees could not about Jesus. Now his eyes open wider and he adds: “We know that God does not listen to sinners. Rather, it is one who is devout and does His will. He had previously said that he did not know whether Jesus was a sinner. Now he sees that Jesus could not possibly be a sinner. It is always a wonderful thing to see faith born in a person. He was becoming so much wiser than the theologians!
The man adds: “It has never been heard that anyone ever opened the eyes of one born blind. If this man wasn’t from God, this could not have happened to me.” The Pharisees were deeply offended at the statement. “In sin, you were entirely born. How dare you teach us!” Then they threw him out which implied that he was also was excommunicated from the synagogue. Jesus had warned His disciples of this.
Act 8: Jesus Makes the Blind Man to See Again
Jesus heard that the man had been thrown out of the synagogue and went looking to him. He had already gained much insight, but there was one more connection he needed to make. Jesus had given him natural sight the first time. Now he needed to see again. This is similar to what Jesus tells Nicodemus in chapter 3 where he says “You must be born again.” So many of the people Jesus healed physically never were completely healed. He once healed ten lepers, but only one returned to give thanks, and that a Samaritan! It was this Samaritan whom Jesus said was truly healed. There is more to wholeness than physical wholeness, and there is more to vision than eyesight.
The man had never seen Jesus before but had heard His voice. Now he sees Jesus, and Jesus asks him a direct question: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” The man had seen Jesus as having to have been a great prophet. But Jesus needed the man to see that He was more than this. The man who is grateful to Jesus responds by asking: “Who is He lord that I might believe in Him? He trusted Jesus to give him the correct answer. Jesus answers: “You have seen Him and it is He who is speaking to you.” The man who had been blind was given sight into the person of Jesus, something which Jesus closely guarded. He had told the Samaritan woman. Now He tells an excommunicated Jew. How true it is that “out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, Thou hast perfected praise!” The man believes and worships Him. He was blind, but now he saw!
Now Jesus tells the man as well as the Pharisees who had gathered around. He had come into the world to bring things in the light of judgment. The ones who could not see would see. Then He adds that He came to blind the seeing, or at least those who thought they could see. The Pharisees and the others retorted to this by saying: “Certainly you are not implying that we are blind, are you!” Jesus now pronounces judgment on them. If they were blind, they might have excuse for their sin. But because they had claimed they could see, their sin remained. The tables had been turned. They had claimed emphatically that Jesus was a sinner. They berated the man as being altogether born in sin. Yet is was the Pharisees who were suffering from the great blindness of sin. They were the sinners!
Conclusion
What do we draw from this very long passage? As this is the season of Lent, we should take time to soberly assess where we stand with Jesus. The Pharisees were blinded by their reason, tradition and experience. John Wesley shows that reason, tradition and experience can be useful to our Christian understanding. But if we are not careful, they can be blinders rather than means of spiritual enlightenment. The Pharisees were followers of a sort of Wesleyan Quadrilateral. They held to Scripture, tradition, reason and tradition. Seeing that we can be so easily blinded, we have to continuously be like the publican who beats his breast and says: “Be merciful to me a sinner!” We are like the nearly blind sheep who have to depend on their shepherd for guidance. But that is chapter 10 of John.
John wrote His gospel “that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have eternal life.” This speaks directly to us. It follows the passage of “Doubting Thomas” who is invited to touch the wounds of Jesu and believe. After Thomas falls in worship, Jesus says “Because you have seen, you have believed. More blessed are those who have not seen and believe.” The blind man had seen with his hands, then his eyes, and finally with the sight of faith. This is the vision we all need.
If only we and our theologians could see what this man saw!
