Day #297

Sermon - Audio
John 9:1-10:21 - Reading
John 9:1-10:21 - Audio

Daily Insights - Please Comment

Daily Reading: John 9:1-10:21

Notes Today from the New Bible Commentary.

9:1–12 The encounter with the blind man. There is a clear connection between this chapter and ch. 8, because both in 8:12 and 9:5 Jesus declared himself to be the light of the world. John now gives a specific instance in which Jesus was seen as light, giving sight to a blind man. The other gospels record instances of Jesus healing blind people, but in John what is characteristic is the discussion the healing provoked which centred on the person of Jesus himself.

It is not clear from the text when this incident happened, but it was some time between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication (cf. 10:22). The man had never seen (1). The fact that he was born in this condition heightened the theological discussion which followed. There is less difficulty in seeing some connection between sin and suffering as a general principle than in applying it to particular cases (2). The disciples’ assumption that either the man himself or his parents must have been at fault was in line with contemporary theories. Some of the rabbis taught that it was possible to sin before birth. But Jesus refused to answer the question, who sinned? and chose rather to focus attention on God’s glory. That suffering could be used for God’s glory was a concept difficult to believe, although it is inherent in the Christian approach to the problem. It can show the illuminating power of Christ, not only in the physical but also in the spiritual sphere. In v 4 Jesus was including his disciples in the working out of his own mission, although they were not involved in the immediate miracle of healing. The contrast between day and night appears to be symbolic, if the reference is to the mission of Jesus, in which case the night would represent the close of that mission. The increasing hostility and unbelief of the Jews might be represented by the darkness of night, but the former view seems preferable.

Jesus’ remark in v 5 shows that he was thinking of his earthly life. The use of saliva in curing blindness finds some parallels in Mk. 7:33; 8:23, although in these cases the saliva was applied direct, whereas here it is mixed with soil. There was a current belief that saliva was beneficial for diseased eye. But whereas Jesus used currently understood means, he did not attach any superstitious value to them. In fact the healing happened only when the man washed in the pool of Siloam as instructed by Jesus. It is not clear why John gives the interpretation of the name Siloam as Sent, but perhaps he sees some connection with Jesus as the sent one. It may, of course, be no more than a help for Greek readers, as in other instances with Hebrew names (cf. 1:42). V 7 implies some delay in the healing, perhaps to test the man’s faith. The subsequent account of the conversation between the man and his neighbours is told with exceptional vividness (8–12). The argument about the man’s identity, the vagueness of his own knowledge of Jesus and the certainty of the cure are all clearly brought out.

9:13–34 The Pharisees’ view of the healing. It is not clear in v 13 who brought the man to the Pharisees. It may have been the neighbours of v 8 or others who were hostile to Jesus. John’s comment about it being the Sabbath on which the healing took place supplies the clue to the action. The objectors were obviously those who were sticklers for the Jewish law. The making of clay on the Sabbath would have been enough to raise their hackles, in spite of its being done in an act of mercy. The Pharisees’ interest in the method of healing (15) was no doubt because they saw some opportunity to criticize Jesus over it. But in fact the Pharisees show a similar division of opinion as the neighbours (16). The dispute in their case was between the strict legalists, whose main concern was the Sabbath regulations, and others, who were so impressed with the signs that they could not imagine a sinner performing them and therefore were concluding that the legalists were judging wrongly. The blind man’s statement that Jesus was a prophet (17) was an advance on v 11 when he referred to the man they call Jesus.

The next section (18–23) demonstrates the sheer obstinacy of unbelief. The Jews disbelieved the man’s own words and would not accept that he had been born blind. The demand that the man’s parents should be required to substantiate his testimony does not appear to have been made from an impartial desire to sift the evidence. Their prejudice against the idea that a man born blind could receive his sight is apparent. Only the parents could confirm that the man had been born blind, but they themselves were hardly in a position to supply an explanation of the miracle. The narrative brings out that their response was inhibited by their fear of the Pharisees. Threat of excommunication was a powerful weapon. At the same time it was justifiable for the parents to pass the question back to the son. There is some debate over v 22 since some scholars think it improbable that during the lifetime of Jesus the synagogue would have introduced a ban about Jesus being called the Christ. But it would have been quite natural for reports to circulate claiming that Jesus was the looked-for Messiah, although it was much later that the full truth of this dawned on the Christians.

The words of v 24, Give glory to God, cannot mean that Jesus’ opponents were urging the man to praise God for the healing. It was a common Jewish oath which called on the man to speak the truth. The Jews were convinced that Jesus was a sinner because he broke the Sabbath. The man’s own knowledge of Jesus was based on personal experience (25). He had no comment to make on the technical matter, but was very firm in acknowledging his restored sight. The opponents were baffled by the fact of the healing and switched to the method used (26). Facts can be stubborn, but technical matters can be more malleable. There was both irritation and irony in the man’s response (27). He suggested their eagerness to hear a repetition of the evidence could derive only from a desire to become disciples of Jesus. In answer to his irony, the opponents resorted to scorn. His mention of discipleship prompted them to claim to be disciples of Moses. This was apparently a rarely used description, but it highlights the superior place given to Moses in their thoughts than they gave to Jesus. The contrast sums up the long-running conflict between Judaism and Christianity. There is a refusal here to consider the true origin of Jesus. Not only so, they were refusing to give credence to the testimony of anyone whose origins they did not know (29). For them no personal experience, however remarkable, was of any consequence.

There is obviously food for thought here concerning all debates about supernatural healing. The Pharisees of Jesus’ time used arguments strikingly similar to those employed by some medical authorities today.

It is no wonder that the man became more and more cutting in his remarks (30–33). The debate over the origins of Jesus found no place in his matter-of-fact approach to experience. Nevertheless, the man argued the matter in a series of steps: his sight had been restored; he suggested that God hears only those who do his will, not sinners; hence, since he was convinced the healing was from God, the healer could not be a sinner; there was no precedent for a mere man opening the eyes of a man blind from birth; therefore, the healer must have been from God. The theologically minded Jews at last saw that they could make no headway with a man who could argue in such a manner; so they ejected him (34), possibly by excommunication, but not before a parting snipe at him. They charged him with being born in sin, a tacit admission of his blindness from birth which they had earlier questioned. They were more concerned to show contempt for his former condition than pleasure for his present restoration.

9:35–41 Jesus’ comments on spiritual blindness. This concluding section of the narrative depicts the man’s discussion with Jesus and reaches its climax with his declaration of faith. Jesus took the initiative in seeking out the man. He at once issued a challenge to faith, a connection with miracles as signs found elsewhere in John’s gospel. But the most significant thing about the question is the use of the title Son of Man. Elsewhere in this gospel the idea of faith in the Son of Man occurs (3:14–15). Whatever John meant by the title, the man’s lack of understanding is clear. His question (36) was probably because he had not seen Jesus before. As soon as Jesus explained that he was the Son of Man the healed man at once believed, which suggested he had already had the seeds of faith in him. In fact, the whole narrative shows a progressive development of understanding leading to faith. The words, Lord, I believe, may not reach as far as a full recognition of the lordship of Christ. The word Lord could be simply a polite form of address, but when linked with faith more probably points to a deepening appreciation of the character of Jesus. This is especially evident in his act of worship. At first sight v 39 stands in contradiction with 3:17. Yet since 3:18 speaks of judgment, it must be understood rather as the inevitable effect of the coming of Jesus, but not its main purpose. The mission of Jesus brought people to the point of crisis. The healed man’s crisis had been faced in his excommunication, which was further sealed by his act of worship of Jesus.

The antitheses—non-seeing and seeing, seeing and becoming blind—are one of the characteristic features of John’s gospel. The notion of sight is used in different ways. The blind man had received both physical and spiritual sight. The Pharisees possessed natural sight and thought they possessed spiritual sight, but their reaction to Jesus showed they were really blind. It was in this sense that his coming had brought judgment. John notes the total lack of understanding among the Pharisees (40–41). The question Are we also blind? underlined their incredulity. Jesus’ reply, If you were blind, can be understood in two ways. It could mean, ‘If you were really conscious of your blindness’, i.e. in a spiritual sense, for if they were, they would desire illumination which they clearly did not. In this sense the following words, you would not be guilty of sin, would mean they would then have been open to the redemptive mission of Jesus. This is more likely than to suppose that Jesus meant ‘If you were really blind you would be guiltless because you would be unable to see’. Jesus was claiming that wilful blindness carried with it guilt; in this case the guilt of rejection of God’s messenger. John sees this as an important challenge applicable to his readers, including, of course, ourselves.

10:1–18 Jesus as the shepherd

The illustration of the shepherd in this section is in the form of an allegory in which various aspects are applied in a spiritual manner. It is akin to the synoptic parables but in a more developed form. It is important not to press the details.

1–6 The main point of this section is the means by which true and false shepherds are to be distinguished. The imagery of the shepherd is a familiar one in the OT (cf. Je. 23; Ezk. 34; Zc. 9). In this section the thought is most strongly influenced by Ezk. 34, where the shepherds of Israel are criticized. There is probably intended a close connection between the theme of ch. 9 and the shepherd illustration, and this is stressed by the words I tell you the truth (the double ‘truly’) of v 1. The contrast is between the bad shepherding of the Pharisees (as seen in their attitude towards the blind man) and the good shepherd. Eastern sheepfolds had only one door, which was either guarded by the shepherd himself when only one flock was there, or by a gatekeeper when several flocks were enclosed. In the latter case the gatekeeper would know the shepherds. Thieves would be forced to enter by other means. It is probable that no difference is intended between a thief and a robber. There is no need to attach any particular interpretation to the gatekeeper (watchman; 3). He is merely a detail of the illustration to ensure entry for the shepherd. What is important is the relationship between the sheep and the shepherd. The characteristic of a true shepherd is that he not only recognizes his sheep but calls them by name and leads them out to pasture (4). Clearly no such personal relationship could exist between strangers and the sheep (5). The hearers were unable to understand the truth behind the figure of speech.

7–10 The imagery now changes, with Jesus himself seen as the gate. He claimed exclusive right to grant entry. V 8 has presented difficulties if it is supposed that none who came before Jesus were anything other than thieves and robbers, which clearly would make nonsense of the OT. Some mss omit the words before me, but it most likely that they are original. The most probable meaning is that any who came before Jesus and claimed to be the only way in were false; a reference to the many false Messiahs with whom the history of the period abounded. Indeed the previous chapter shows how disastrous were the claims of the Pharisees. In v 9 Jesus’ own claim is repeated in a more extended form. He now promises both salvation and sustenance.

These two benefits are then summed up as fulness of life (10). The contrast between the false and the true is here particularly striking. Jesus brings life; the false shepherds bring death. The abundance of the life which Jesus gives is a characteristic theme of John.

11–18 Another contrast is now introduced between the good shepherd and the hired hand. The first quality of the shepherd is willingness to sacrifice himself for the sheep. Having just promised abundant life to others, Jesus spoke of the giving up of his own. On the face of it this would seem to put the sheep immediately at risk, but Jesus went beyond the metaphor to point to a deep spiritual truth. He drew attention to a voluntary act of sacrifice which would benefit the sheep (11). The death of the shepherd is seen as an act on behalf of others. The contrast between this and the act of the hired shepherd who runs away (12) brings out vividly the nature of the sacrifice of Jesus. The lack of care is particularly noted (13). Vs 14–18 form a kind of commentary on the statement of v 11. It begins with an emphasis on the mutual knowledge of the shepherd and the sheep, a knowledge like the mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son (14–15). There can be no closer intimacy than this. It puts the hired hand entirely out of the picture. Such intimacy between the shepherd and the sheep has already been hinted at in vs 3–5.

V 16 introduces another line of thought, this time based on the idea of different folds (sheep pen). The other sheep to which Jesus here refers must be Gentiles. But although there are different folds there is only one flock, as there is only one shepherd. This statement witnesses to the variety within the community of God’s people, yet its essential unity in Christ himself. The reason (17) could refer to the preceding verse with the meaning, ‘The Father loves me because I am the good shepherd’, or with the following verse (as in the niv) in which case the Father’s love is based on the Son’s sacrifice. But it cannot be supposed that the Father’s love was dependent on the Son’s action, but rather that it was demonstrated through it. The concluding clause in v 17 shows that the sacrifice was not regarded as an end in itself. The resurrection was in mind as the triumphant outcome. The totally voluntary character of the self-offering and the authority vested in Jesus is stressed.

10:19–21 The effects of this teaching

It is most likely that the word Jews here is general, including both the crowds and the leaders. Examples of similar divided reactions are to be found in 7:43 and 9:16. Again we find a demon-possession charge, similar to those in 7:20 and 8:48. It was assumed that there was a close connection between demon-possession and madness. For some the healing of the blind man in ch. 9, as well as the wisdom of Jesus’ teaching, ruled out such a theory.

D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994). Jn 9:1-10:19.