And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
The question is raised by the disciples. In order for it to be raised (plural), it must have been previously discussed, or a question that came immediately to their minds when they saw the blind man. Perhaps they were moved by compassion by the suffering of the blind man and wondered to themselves, why does God allow this sort of thing to happen? Why is there suffering? How do you reconcile the goodness of God with the misery found in creation?
The answer was sin. It’s the correct answer, but these disciples (and perhaps the trend among that time) had assumed that personal suffering must be the result of a specific sin.
But this man was born blind. How did the disciples know this man was born blind? Verse 1 says Jesus saw a man blind from birth. Jesus must have revealed the situation about this man to the disciples. Otherwise, how would they have known? At any rate, whomever or whatever revealed that this blindness was from birth, it seems that this revelation is what prompted their question. Maybe Jesus pointed out the man to the disciples and advised he had been born blind which immediately prompted something that was on each of their minds. Why? Why was that man born blind?
This was a theological question they had hoped Jesus would resolve. But Jesus’ response shows that they were asking the wrong questions. This man’s suffering was not the result of a specific sin (though obviously Jesus isn’t saying this man is without sin, nor his parents for that matter).
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Remember, this is the Sabbath. And Jesus is here talking about work. God doesn’t stop working on the Sabbath. The works are to be displayed. This miracle is meant to be revelatory. And that was the purpose of this man’s blindness. Its intent was to reveal God. That this blind man would display, or be the display, of God’s work.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; (1cor 1.27)
The disciples were trying to unravel a theological mystery of their day. They ask Jesus, is this man suffering from A, or is it because of B? And Jesus responds: no.
Jesus says that this blindness was to display the work of God. And then goes on to say:
We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
Jesus is pointing out that their time is limited. They have work to do (we must work…) There will be a time when they can no longer do this work. And Jesus alludes to himself as the one who is SENT. That’s a significant connection to the Pool of Siloam which will be introduced shortly.
He then identifies himself as the ‘light of the world’. Jesus regularly identifies as the light of the world:
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8.12)
See also; John 1.9, 3.19, 11.9, 12.46. Jesus is the light, and we are called sons (or children) of light.
For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. (1Thes. 5.5)
While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. (John 12.36)
And then verse 6. The disciples and Jesus discuss the blind man. And then without any recorded verbal exchange with the guy, Jesus proceeds to make mud with spit to put in his eyes.
Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud
That had to be a good amount of spit. As one sermon shared yesterday, that might have been seen as somewhat offensive. Or just plain gross. Which is in every way symbolic of the gospel. To those perishing, the gospel is offensive. It is folly.
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1Cor 1.18)
Spitty mud balls in the eyes is culturally offensive. It offends our good taste. It seems improper. It was not sanitary. There’s nothing medicinal about spitty mud (despite certain claims to the contrary). There’s no mistaking the miracle as coming from Jesus, because the mud most certainly wouldn’t heal a man.
People recoil from the gospel just as they would recoil from someone making mud with spit and putting into someone’s eyes. We see that in this very chapter with the Pharisees.
and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing
It’s interesting to note thus far in the story that we have not heard a word from this man. Jesus just put spitty mud in his eyes and then directs him to go wash that mud in a pool called Siloam, which means Sent.
This pool was just discovered 11 years ago in 2004. It is in the south of Jerusalem. The blind man was sent to the pool called Sent. This was the first thing he would have seen. He would see water for the first time. The blind man was obviously familiar with water. But he would have no idea what it would have looked like. How would you even describe water to someone born blind? And then he returns to where he was, but now he can see.
The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar were saying, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.”
All sorts of confusion here. You see a guy every day in your neighborhood. He’s blind. He’s always been blind. Now he looks different. Similar. But different. Most certainly his eyes would have looked differently. Because, now they’re working. He’s now able to make eye contact. He wouldn’t be able to do that before. A man born blind has never become not blind. So what are they to make of this? The whole neighborhood probably caught fire with curiosity. The man had changed. He’s different now. But it’s the same man. He keeps insisting it’s him. This sounds all too familiar. Like a conversion story. Same guy. But he’s different. He’s been changed.
So they said to him, “Then how were your eyes opened?” He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed and received my sight.”
Previously I had assumed there was no interaction with Jesus and this man. As if Jesus had just walked up to him, put some spitty mud in his eyes, and then sent him to Siloam. But then, how did he know the man was Jesus? At some point there had to have been an introduction. But we aren’t given that information. It suggests that there’s more details to the story than we’re given. So minimally, we know the guy, prior to being sent to Siloam, was somehow able to get Jesus’ name. Maybe there was even more discussion than that. But we don’t know. Because John didn’t record that part.
And if I was this guy’s neighbor, I’d be thinking, “say whhhaat?” I don’t think that explanation would make any sense. Ok, so you met some guy named Jesus. He made mud? And then he anointed your eyes? He told you to go to the Pool of Siloam to wash. And then somehow you received sight? That would probably had led me back to my initial question. But how were your eyes opened?
Now this Pool Siloam. We were told in verse 7 that it means “Sent”. In verse 4, Jesus references being the one sent. To me, the significance of a pool named Sent, seems to reference Jesus as the one being sent to do the works of God. Jesus frequently refers to himself as the one sent from God throughout the New Testament, but most frequently in the Book of John.
So there’s this sense that the Pool of Siloam is in some ways symbolic of Jesus. The man is sent to this pool to wash and to be healed, just as all who are drawn to the father through the son. Jesus in John 6.65 says, “He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.””
They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I do not know.”
This reminds me of the guy in John 5. Jesus heals him, and then departs. And when asked by others where Jesus is, neither one of them know. Jesus heals these men, and then leaves. And then these men are confronted by opposition.
It’s not as if Jesus has abandoned these men. We see him following up with each of them later. But he physically departs. Their lives have changed. And then the opposition moves in. That’s a story I can identify with. It reminds me of my college years.
They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind
This was just a matter of custom. A miracle had allegedly taken place and so the religious authorities must be brought in. There was nothing wrong with bringing this man to the authorities. For the same reason, there was nothing wrong with the man of John 5 reporting the miracle of Jesus to the authorities. It was their obligation to do so.
Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes
Jesus intentionally picks the Sabbath to do these things. Jesus knows the antagonism these things will cause when done on the Sabbath. Jesus is clearly trying to stir the pot. He wants to expose the hypocrisy of the religious. So they bring the blind man to be tried by the Pharisees.
So the Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” Some 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 a division among them. So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”
So now it’s the Pharisees turn to hear the story. Immediately the objection is raised that Jesus cannot be from God because he has violated their understanding of the Sabbath. Of course, they don’t even think to question their oral traditions surrounding the Sabbath. But here other Pharisees (those that think as Nicodemus or Gamilel) question how a sinner (ie Sabbath breaker) can possibly do such things. So a dispute arose.
Here’s what they had to work with at this point:
1) Sinners cannot do these sorts of signs
2) Sabbath breakers are sinners
3) A man named Jesus performed a sign that sinners cannot perform
4) Spitting into mud and putting it on someone’s eyes is a violation of the Sabbath
Some there (obviously the minority) saw the problem in reconciling the undisputed 1-3, with 4. That is, If 1, 2, and 3 are given as truth, then 4 cannot be true (without a contradiction).
Others, clearly the majority, saw that if 1,2, and 4 were given as true, then 3 could not be true (that is, the miracle was a fake).
So strangely, they now appeal to the blind man to resolve this dilemma. Who do you say this man is? And the blind man has very little knowledge of who Jesus is at this point. He has his name, and he knows that he has performed a miraculous sign that no one has ever seen before. So he labels Jesus with the highest designation he can to a man. A prophet.
Naturally they don’t like that answer.
The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?”
If 4 above is taken as true, then at least one of the propositions 1-3 cannot be true. So naturally they’re going to deny 3. The miracle didn’t happen. That’s the only way they can retain 4. So to prove that the miracle is fake, they call the guy’s parents.
As a reminder, the text gives no indication as to the man’s age. Because he’s referred to as a man, we only know that he’s at least 13 years old or older. I have a tendency of envisioning someone much older. But the text really doesn’t specify. He could easily just be a kid by today’s standards. Given some of his sarcastic comments later, I’m now more inclined to see him as a kid. A smart one at that.
His parents answered, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.”
The fact that the parents feel the need to explain that their son is ‘of age’ leads me to believe that if there was really any question of this, then he must have looked young. Of course, that could just be there way of saying they didn’t want anything to do with this.
Now I have a feeling the parents aren’t being truthful here. They fear the Pharisees. They were asked three questions. Yes, this is their son. Yes, he was born blind. But when it comes to how he was given sight, they say they didn’t know. They had to have the same explanation that everyone else was given. Perhaps if they agreed to that explanation, then they thought they would have run into trouble with the obvious implications regarding 4 above (ie, it’s bogus belief).
So once again, this guy is on trial and left alone. His parents will not be speaking for him.
(His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.)
This passage seems to suggest that the parents were not entirely forthright, but instead, were crippled by their fear of being excommunicated.
This passage also seems to suggest that it was at sometime prior when the Jewish leaders made this proclamation regarding Jesus. After all, when asked about this miracle, the parents already knew the Pharisees’ disposition toward Jesus. That might suggest there is a greater gap in time between chapter 8 and 9 than is often given. Between the Feast of Booths in chapter 7 and the Feast of Dedication in chapter 10, there’s a gap. We just don’t know exactly where that is in the text.
At any rate, some prior event involving Jesus had caused the religious authorities to ban anyone from confessing Jesus to be the Messiah. To do so would entail excommunication. Now if the parents knew about this threat of excommunication, it seems reasonable that their son would also have known of this threat. That’s significant because if he did know, it certainly didn’t deter him in the least as it did his parents.
So for the 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.”
This is very strange. I’m at a loss as to what they were expecting this guy to say. Was he supposed to renounce the miracle as not really happening? Then how could he now see? Were they expecting him to lie about it? The implication in the imperative to give God glory is that he hasn’t been doing that. But quite to the contrary, that’s exactly what he’s been doing. The irony. And their arguing in circles. Sinners cannot perform these sort of signs. This sign has been confirmed as authentic. So how can they possibly conclude that this man is a sinner? They would have to contradict a prior belief they’ve maintained. They would have to now say that sinners can perform these signs.
He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”
He seems to change his mind shortly when he concludes a sinner could not do these things. So it does seem that he does know that Jesus is not a sinner, based upon the reasoning he offers (which is the same reasoning that causes the division among the authorities). I think his response is intended to indicate that he just met Jesus. He doesn’t know anything other than he was blind, now he sees, and Jesus was responsible for that. He’s just sticking with the facts. He’s not speculating as the Pharisees have done due to their prejudicial commitments.
They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”
Clearly they’re struggling here. They know there’s a contradiction. So they keep probing, senselessly, in an effort to find some way to undermine this work as miraculous. The guy has already answered this question. But they have no where else to go. In a sense, they’re being exposed for their hypocrisy. And I think this guy is starting to get annoyed:
He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?”
The story is not changing. But they want him to keep repeating it. He’s exposing their desperation. They’re helplessness. They’re defeat. So in what seems like mockery in the form of sarcasm, he asks, do you ALSO want to become his disciples? The clear implication is that HE wants to be a disciple of Jesus. That’s clearly grounds for excommunication. He doesn’t care. These guys have been exposed for what they are. He wants to be identified with Jesus. Christians love to hear the Gospel stories over and over again. He’s making fun of them by suggesting this is why they want to hear the story again. I have to imagine not a small number of people that had gathered around to witness this spectacle must have chuckled by this guy’s question. That would most assuredly enrage these hypocrites all the more.
And they reviled him, saying, “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 comes from.”
They intend it as an insult to call him a disciple of Jesus. He’s already made it clear he wants to be a disciple. That insult doesn’t work here. But they’re too dense to get it. And then they boast of being disciples of Moses. Nothing could be more blatantly false. Moses gave them a written text, codified in the Torah. He had nothing to do with their oral traditions. And those oral traditions had nothing to do with Moses. Number 4 above did not come from Moses. It came from their oral tradition. A tradition which in fact contradicts Moses.
By their own admission, they didn’t research the origin of Jesus. So they concede the point. They don’t know where Jesus comes from. So to say that he doesn’t come from God would contradict that very point. It’s as absurd as someone saying they don’t know anything (then how do they know that?).
And this non-named fellow picks up on this.
The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”
He’s obviously much smarter than they had given him credit. He’s defeated and deflated them. He points out their admission. They don’t know where Jesus comes from. Well that’s obviously a problem. Maybe they should figure that out FIRST before pontificating on where he comes from (ie, not God). They are spewing overt contradictions.
He AGAIN points to the fact that sinners cannot perform signs like this. They concede this. He points out the obvious. If Jesus was not from God, then he could do nothing. It’s an irrefutable argument. They don’t disagree with that point. Their former strategy of denying the miraculous event has obviously failed miserably. So they’ve got nothing. And this guy has become very bold. This illiterate (blind people cannot be taught to read/write when braille doesn’t exist) man (at least, over 13) has put these ‘leaders’ to shame. He’s humiliated them publicly. And now, he will pay for his actions the only way they know how.
Just like when Jesus refutes the ignorance of his opposition in John 8, they are left with nothing other than to hurl insults. And this is precisely what they do:
They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.
But even their insults are pathetic. The sin that this blind man was born in was no different than these blind leaders were born in. They’re basically just calling him a cripple. And he must be a cripple because something someone else did, or because he broke God’s law in the womb. Their theology is embarrassing. Their arguments and insults likewise.
And I doubt their insults would mean anything to this man. He could probably laugh at them. He’s heard this argument about the origin of his blindness his entire life. And that’s the best these well-educated scholars could do? They have only one thing left in their arsenal. Excommunicate him. And that’s what they’ve done. Casting him out is an expression denoting excommunication. He was cast out of the synagogue. Out of Israel. And I’d like to imagine he thought, good riddance.
…and would you teach us?
Yea son, you just got owned. :p