Bible Study series: John 9:13-34. The ex-blind man got the better of them. I once was blind, but now I see!
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together how to apply these truths to our lives.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:
For the Greek text, click here:
At that link, I provide a lot more commentary.
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: John 9:13-34
13 They led him who was formerly blind to the Pharisees. 14 It was on the Sabbath day when Jesus made mud and opened his eyes. 15 So the Pharisees asked him again how he recovered his sight. He told them, “He placed mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” 16 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 sinful man do such signs?” So there was a division among them. 17 So they again said to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”
18 So the Jews did not believe about him that he was blind and recovered his sight until they called the parents of the man who recovered his sight. 19 Then they asked them, saying, “Is this one your son whom you say that he was born blind? How then does he now see?” 20 So in reply his parents said, “We know that this is our son and he was born blind. 21 But how he now sees, we don’t know, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself. 22 His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for they had already agreed that if anyone confessed him to be the Christ, he was put outside the synagogue. 23 For this reason, his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”
24 So they asked the man who was blind a second time and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” 25 So he replied: “Whether he is a sinner, I don’t know. One thing I know: I once was blind but now I see.” 26 So they said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He replied: “I told you already and you have not listened. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t want to become his disciples, do you?” 28 They insulted him and said, “You are a disciple of that one, but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but we don’t know where that one comes from.” 30 In reply, the man said, “In this is a remarkable thing: You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if someone may be devout and do his will, God listens to him. 32 For an age, it was not heard that someone has opened the eyes of a man born blind; 33 unless this man were from God, he could not do one thing.” 34 In reply, they told him, “You were born entirely in sin, yet you teach us?” They threw him outside. (John 9:13-34)
Comments:
In no verse in this long pericope (pronounced puh-RIH-koh-pea) or section or unit does John use any word for “healed” (his eyes were “healed”). Instead, he says that the blind man’s eyes “were opened” or he (Jesus) “opened my eyes.” Or the verb “recovered sight” is used. The same is true of the opening of the eyes in vv. 1-12. There is a spiritual significance here. Our eyes need to be opened, our sight recovered, as well. Jesus will apply this lesson of blind eyes being opened in the next pericope (vv. 35-41).
13:
His friends and neighbors brought him to the Pharisees. We can fill in the blanks in the story and believe that the Pharisees summoned him, and the friends and neighbors brought or ked him to the Pharisees. In this verse John makes the point that he was formerly blind; in subsequent verses he will imprecisely say “the blind man,” but John understood that he had been healed.
14:
Now we learn that the opening of the eye was done on the Sabbath. Since this is online writing and I don’t have to worry about cost per printed page, let me repeat here what I wrote under John 5:9:
Jewish law allowed for healing on the Sabbath, if a life was at stake or a birth was happening. But the man’s blindness from birth did not fit this category.
Now let’s talk more broadly about the Sabbath laws and what constituted working. Here are the Mishnah’s thirty-nine categories of work that were not allowed (the Mishnah is a collection of legal and practical opinions, written down in about 200 AD). This comes from the second century, but it does reflect the times of Jesus:
- Sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, and baking.
- Shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, stretching the threads, the making of two meshes, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying [knotting] and untying, sewing two stitches, and tearing in order to sew two stitches.
- Capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it [of its hair], cutting it up, writing two letters, and erasing in order to write two letters [over the erasure].
- Building, pulling down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, and carrying out from one domain to another.
These are the forty primary labors less one.
(Source)
The rest of the tractate at another source goes on to define the parameters more precisely.
Religious teachers debated these issues endlessly. In effect, these strict teachers of the law said it was better that people should virtually do nothing on the Sabbath. It is better to be safe than sorry, to be severe and austere than risk too much questionable behavior before a holy God. This is called building a wall or fence around the Torah, so that people would not really break the Torah, but the traditions. Problem: the extra-rules became so strict that people felt oppressed.
The goal in these rules is to build a wall around the Torah, which does not specify what keeping or breaking the Sabbath was (one man was stoned to death for collecting wood in Num. 15:32-36). So if a man did any of those activities, he would not be stoned to death. The goal may have been noble, but the rules and strictures kept building and accumulating, become oppressive. The Pharisees and teachers of the law “are only interested in saddling him with the charge of Sabbath breaker, an offense worthy of death (Exod. 31:14). In their zeal to protect the law, they do not use it to set captives free but to bind them ever tighter.
John notes that Jesus made a mud or clay mixture. Even more absurdly, this may be considered working on the Sabbath, because it is close to kneading (see it in the first point, above). Bruce says that in the Mishnah (a written collection around A.D. 200 of earlier oral traditions) that in tractate Shabbath 7.2 and in the Babylonian Talmud (written much later), tractate ‘Abôdāh Zārāh 28.b, there is a discussion on whether it is permissible to anoint the eyes (note 6).
15:
Now the Pharisees ask or inquire of the former blind man how his eyes were opened, and he replied that he placed mud on his eyes; he washed and now he sees. Simple. So how do some of the Pharisees react? Let’s look at the next verse.
16:
They accuse Jesus of violating the Sabbath, or more precisely, their rules for Sabbath keeping, as we saw in v. 14.
“sinful man”: it is an adjective that means as I translated it. It is someone who does not observe the law, in this context. Let’s explore the term more thoroughly.
BDAG, a thick Greek lexicon, which many scholars consider authoritative, defines the adjective as follows: “pertaining to behavior or activity that does not measure up to standard moral or [religious] expectations (being considered an outsider because of failure to conform to certain standards is a frequent semantic component. Persons engaged in certain occupations, e.g. herding and tanning [and tax collecting] that jeopardized [religious] purity, would be considered by some as ‘sinners,’ a term tantamount to ‘outsider.’” Non-Israelites were especially considered out of bounds [see Acts 10:28].)” “Sinner, with a general focus on wrongdoing as such.” “Irreligious, unobservant people.” “Unobservant” means that he did not care about law keeping or observing the law.
Do you fail to conform to certain standards? Maybe you did break the demands of moral and religious law. Pray and repent, and God will accept you.
Bible Basics about Sin: Word Studies
Some Pharisees believe that Jesus broke the Sabbath (or “does not keep it”), so from their point of view he is a law-breaker and therefore a sinful man. Others believed that he was not sinful or a law-breaker because he does such wonderful signs.
“signs”: it is used as a synonym for miracles and works (erga in Greek), that is another term for miracles. Recall the table of signs, above. They confirm the message and Jesus himself:
What Are Signs and Wonders and Miracles?
And here is the purpose of the signs, without a complicated commentary:
30 So then Jesus performed many other signs in front of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 These were written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)
The signs are for us to believe that he is the Messiah (or Christ), the Son of God. They are signposts, which point to Jesus and his glory. Evidently, Messiahship and Sonship are interchangeable here.
Bruce points out that Deut. 13:1-5 says that a prophet can works signs and wonders to gain a following and lead people astray. Here Jesus healed a blind man; it was not skywriting or calling down darkness from fire.
It’s simple logic in their (limited) viewpoint.
First argument:
A man who breaks the Sabbath is not a man of God; Jesus broke the Sabbath. Therefore, he does not come from God.
The other side argued like this.
Second argument:
Anyone who heals a blind man, particularly a man born blind, comes from God. Jesus healed a man born blind. Therefore, he is from God.
Bruce points out that the Rabbinic school of Shammai argued from first principles (the first argument). The School of Hillel argued from the second one, an established fact (an actual healing).
Conflict would ensue in such conclusions.
So once again, John is rooted in history.
17:
The Pharisees wanted to be thorough, so they ask the former bland man what he thought about Jesus. He answered that Jesus was a prophet. He will sarcastically expand his opinion in vv. 25, 27, 30-32. Let’s wait until then.
The former blind man goes from calling “a man called Jesus” (v. 11) to a “prophet.”
18:
The “Jews” is a generic term for the religious establishment. Evidently the investigation expands to include them, besides the Pharisees. They did not believe that he was blind and recovered his sight until they called for his parents and asked their opinion. Skepticism lives. They must have been out of touch with the smelly, common people of Jerusalem, particularly the blind beggars. If they were not out of touch with the expendables, like blind people, and if they had looked closely at them, they may have recognized this man in particular.
19-21:
His parents are summoned and the establishment ask them whether this is their son and whether he really was born blind. The parents affirm their questions, but they don’t know how he came to see now. Then they pass the buck to their grown son. The establishment should ask him, for he is of age. In a Jewish lawcourt, he had to be at least thirteen years old. The man was much older than that.
22-23:
They feared the religious establishment because if anyone acknowledged or declared or confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, they were “desynagogue” or “away from the synagogue” (as the Greek literally says). They were expelled from a local synagogue, not all synagogues nationally or from the temple (Carson, comment on v. 13, p. 367). His parents must have been devout Jews and intended to remain in the synagogue. Expulsion would have shamed them. Their son, however, in the next ten verses, is fearless and does not care about their religious club. He once was blind but now he sees.
Historical sidebar debate, which specialists engage in, as follows.
Some commentators see a cultural background after the destruction of the temple in A.D 70, even though John was written in the 90’s. Jewish leaders were eager to kick out or expel or excommunicate Jews who declared Jesus the Messiah. This anachronism is excused that John is speaking to his own time about the cost of discipleship (Mounce, referring to other commentators). However, Klink (comment on v. 22) argues strongly against this anachronism, saying that this simple verse misses some elements seen at the later time; also, this conflict was common. They were really reacting against Jesus, whom they will soon crucify (with Roman permission). Carson argues against it as well, saying says that the evidence favoring the anachronism is inconclusive. This debate is for specialists, beyond the scope of this commentary for the laity.
“Christ”: I translated Christos (pronounced khree-stoss) in Greek as “Christ” because John was writing to a Greek speaking audience, probably Gentiles, and he wanted to be clear on the meaning of Christos: the Anointed One. Earliest Christianity was going out to the Greek provinces, and the NT writers wanted to communicate in their language, so they used Greek. There is nothing sinister about it, as if it was an anti-Jewish conspiracy (John does use “Messiah” in 1:41, 4:25). Messiah also means Anointed One.
3. Titles of Jesus: The Son of David and the Messiah
24:
In vv. 24-33 there is a sharp, staccato (abrupt, choppy) back-and-forth between the former blind man and the establishment. Before we explore this intense interaction, let’s look first at this clause: “Give glory to God.” It may be an expression based on Josh. 7:19, where Joshua said to Achan, “Give glory to God” or own up and admit it (Bruce, comment on vv. 24-25). Borchert: “The statement “Give glory to God” is not a praise statement but the equivalent of a Jewish oath, which the authorities employed to call the man to give an honest witness and confess any sinfulness in his testimony (cf. Josh 7:19; Jer 13:16, cf. also 2 Chr 30:8)” (comment on vv. 27-30). Fair enough. However, I also take it to mean not to give one syllable of credit to Jesus (as does Mounce, comment on v. 24).
Now let’s take the dialogue in short, abrupt, alternating terms:
The establishment:
They demand that the former blind man give glory to God, for Jesus is a law-breaker / sinner. Don’t give Jesus one syllable of credit.
25:
Former blind man:
He does not know whether Jesus is a law-breaker / sinner. He knows only one thing: he once was blind, but now he sees. A powerful testimony cannot be shaken or denied, by reasonable people. Be sure to tell your story.
26:
The establishment:
Tell us again what he did to you and how the blind man’s eyes were opened. This demand indicates that they were flummoxed. They were not getting the answers they wanted. This miracle sign pointed to the Messiahship of Jesus, as the former blind man was about to preach to them (vv. 30-33).
27:
Former blind man:
He gets bolder and exasperated. He already told them, so do they really want him to repeat such a clear story? He sarcastically asks them whether they wanted to become his disciples, because when the blind man were to recount his story of his miraculous healing, the establishment might convert! The ex-blind man seems to believe that this is the establishment mental state: “Tell us your miracle story again! It edifies us so much that we are about to be nudged to follow the miracle worker!” Of course the ex-blind man knows this is not true; he’s just poking at them or trolling them, not taking them seriously. And his mockery insults them, so they insult him back.
28-29:
The establishment:
They verbally abused or reviled or jeered or ridiculed or scolded at him (all these words translate the one Greek verb accurately). They rely on old Moses to guide them. He was a true man of God, for God had spoken to him, but they were not sure where Jesus had come from. From Galilee? Where?
Recall these verses:
40 Then some of the crowd, when they heard these words, were saying, “This man is truly the prophet.” 41 Others were saying, “This man is the Christ.” But others were saying, “No. Does the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Doesn’t the Scripture say that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 So then there was a division in the crowd because of him. (John 7:40-43)
They depended heavily on Moses.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?” (Num. 12:8, NIV)
However, one of John’s themes is the truth that Jesus is superior to Moses: “For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
Further, the establishment did not believe any story about the birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod, those many years ago. They may not have even known about them. Too much water under the bridge.
Mounce: “Their answer was the equivalent of the childish taunt: ‘My dad is better than your dad’” (comment on vv. 28-29).
30-33:
Former blind man:
He shows more wisdom than the establishment. He asserts or states: (1) Well now! Isn’t this remarkable! (2) You don’t know his origins to determine whether he is a prophet or the Messiah! (3) Yet he opened my eyes, a man born blind. (4) God does not listen to law-breakers / sinners (he actually does, as they repent). (5) But if a man is devout and does God’s will, then God hears him. (6) From time immemorial it was never heard that someone opened the eyes of a man born blind. (7) Proof that God hears and backs Jesus: he opened the eyes of this man—“me!”—who was born blind. Jesus does more than nothing: he performs signs.
God opened the eyes of the Arameans because Elisha prayed (2 Kings 6:8-20), but never in the OT was a man healed who was born blind.
34:
The establishment:
They exert raw power over the man who was born completely sinful. How dare he teach them! They threw him out.
Some say this was a formal excommunication, but Mounce points out that this formal act could be done only by the Sanhedrin (comment on v. 34). It is better to see the idmissal as kicking him out of their court.
Please recall that the disciples asked Jesus whether the blind man they had just met was born in sin or his parents were sinful and were punished with a blind child (v. 2). Jesus said not to focus on such things. The man was this way so that God could be glorified (v. 3). Now the disciples know more about the ways of God than the establishment does.
In this staccato exchange, the former blind man won. Recall from my comments on John 8:49 that ancient Israel was an honor-and-shame society. One person acquires honor, and the other person or persons acquire shame. The former blind man overcame their objections and their final reply was to throw him out. In their eyes, he was shamed because he was born in sin. Yet their simplistic belief corresponds to the disciples’ deficient beliefs in vv. 2-3, so in the eyes of John’s readers, the blind man came out on top.
GrowApp for John 9:13-34
1. Have your beliefs been unjustly challenged? How did you stand your ground?
2. The former blind man said: “I once was blind but now I see.” Have you ever developed your testimony of God’s work in your life. That is, can you tell your story of how God opened your eyes, in about a minute or a minute-and-a-half, if the door of witness opened up to you?
RELATED
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
12. Eyewitness Testimony in John’s Gospel
4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel
3. Archaeology and John’s Gospel
SOURCES
For the bibliography, click on this link and scroll down to the very bottom:
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 