John 9 (Second Essay) And WHAT a Healing!

In this essay I propose to work through the story of Jesus' healing of the man born blind in some detail. It may be divided into four sections: (1) vv. 1-7; setting the context and presenting the healing; (2) vv. 8-12, the first reaction to his healing; (3) vv. 13-34, the first and second interview with the Pharisees; and (4), vv. 35-41, Jesus and the man. The heart of the story, and of my comments, centers around (3). In that section we see humor, irony, truthful speaking, and gentle mockery of the Pharisees by the healed man.

I. The Man and His Healing (vv. 1-7)

This is the only Gospel story where it is mentioned that a man blind from birth is healed (see other healings of blind people in Mk. 8:22-26; 10:46-52 and parallels; Matt. 9:27-31). Instead of taking the man at the level of his need, however, the disciples want to turn him into a theological lesson. Was it his or his parent's sin that made him this way? In fact, we shouldn't be too amazed that the disciples wanted to do this; after the man was healed the Pharisees also wanted to make theological points because of the man. No one, it seems, can simply let the story unfold; everyone has to bring a poisoned arrow from his theological quiver to shoot into the midst. But Jesus does two things in responding to the disciples' statement. First, he quickly ends the speculation by changing the subject. The man's blindness is not an indication of sin; it is an occasion for the glory of God to be manifested. Then, once he has deflected their concern, he turns to one of the "big themes" of the passage (see previous essay): the contrast between light and darkness. Jesus picks up on the statement that he is the light of the world (8:12) here (9:5).

But the Gospel author also takes pains to point out how Jesus healed the man. He spat on the ground and took the mud balls thus made to spread on the man's eyes. Then, he commanded him to wash in the pool of Siloam. When the man did this, he came back seeing. Dr. Michaels points out that the spittle of a person who has been engaged in fasting might be held in particularly high regard; it would be as if it was "God-touched" spittle. So, the healing is not done simply by the "word" of Jesus. It is word + spittle; word + earth.

II. The First Reaction to the Man (vv. 8-12)

This first reaction is almost as if it is a "rough draft" or "first attempt" of what will later be a controversy. We don't really yet have a problem. We just have bewildered people who are trying to get the story straight. John's inclusion of the reaction of the "common people" has an air of verisimilitude to it. Normally, things like come to the attention of "little people" first. They will want to know what happened, but will then want to leave it at that. It is only when the religious people get into the act that all hell will break loose. There was a division in the house over whether the man born blind, who is now called a beggar, is actually the man who now sees. It is reminiscent to me of an experience I had when I lived in Boston 30 years ago. A street person, with long, unkempt hair, occupied the same corner for months. One day we saw a person who looked like the street person, but his head was shaved. I recall talking to a person, debating with her, "Was this the guy who formerly was the long-haired street person?" Such is the tone of the debate in these verses. Interestingly, the man dispels doubts by using a phrase which would be beloved of Jesus in the 4th Gospel--when he wants to identify with God! Literally it says, "That man said, 'I am he' (ego eimi--v. 9)." The author makes nothing of this admission. But what we do learn about the man impresses us. He only will speak of what he knows. He tells how Jesus healed him (v. 11), but he won't go beyond that when he has no more information (v. 12).

III. The Interviews with the Pharisees (vv. 13-34)

This section is the literary and theological heart of the story. The Pharisees interview him twice, with an interval in between where "the Jews" go and interview the man's parents about his former condition (vv. 18-23). In the first interview we learn an additional fact--that Jesus' healing was on the sabbath (v. 14). By so healing, Jesus had broken the Jewish law--not necessarily by healing but by "kneading" the dirt into mud balls. As with all religious or civil authorities, the Pharisees here will begin their questioning from the beginning of the story and will not rely on anything that was said to previous witnesses. Thus, they ask him how he received his sight (v. 14). The man's story is substantially the same that he gave to the unnamed people in vv. 8-12. Jesus put mud on his eyes; he washed and now he sees. We think at this point that he is a rather simple man, but we will learn as the passage unfolds that he is a very sophisticated man, a man who begins his words on the basis of what he knows and then carefully branches out from that to more-inclusive claims.

The man's simple narrative causes a division among the Pharisees. They are not so concerned with thanking God for the healing; they want to know the character of the man who did the healing. After all, such a person has power, and power is something that the religious leaders want to make sure resides only with them. The religious leaders want the man to judge his healer; it isn't sufficient for them to hear the story of how he was healed. So, the man ventures the tentative assertion in v. 17: "He is a prophet."

As the narrative and inquisition develop, the man's understanding grows. But before we get there we are taken to the man's parents, whom the Jews want to interview. They seemingly want to know if the man was truly their son and if he was, in fact, born blind. They too, like their son, confine their answer to what they know. They don't know who opened his eyes; but they know he is their son and was born blind. Then they turn the inquisitors back to the son by refusing to say more. Our Gospel writer interprets this as rising out of fear--they don't want to say the wrong thing and perhaps be expelled from the synagogue (v. 22).

This brief interlude only sharpened the desire of the Pharisees for more exact information. But instead of asking him a question, they said their piece. "Give glory to Go! We know that this man is a sinner" (v. 24). Perhaps those who argued that Jesus' healing act on the sabbath meant that he wasn't from God (v. 16) had won over the other side in their intra-religious debate. The man is non-committal. He only will say what happened to him. But that isn't enough. His interlocutors began to question again and, true to form, wanted to start out at the beginning. "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes" (v. 26)? Now it is the occasion for the man born blind to show his personality. Perhaps he begins to see through them; he sees their fear, their desire to trap not just Jesus but him in his answers; their utter disregard and unconcern for the fact that a person has been miraculously healed. When you run into true believers, whether of a political or religious nature, the fact that someone has multiplied loaves or made water come from a stone is a thing fully immaterial. The thing that must be satisfied is theology. People must fit into categories and, if they don't, those people must be vilified, thrown out and perhaps, even put to death. What is at stake here is not simply giving glory to God, as they said (v. 24). It is about preserving religious power.

I pause on this point because I believe that this is the way that people act today. When power is threatened, either through the "great acts" or "insight" of a person, the powers that be have the choice between welcoming the new person or, if the person seems not to "fit" easily under their authority, vilifying the person. You just can't have a person be a "star" in your midst if the person threatens to undermine your authority. So, they have to zero in on Jesus and the man born blind. But he gives them more trouble than they anticipated. For, as we see in vv. 30-34, the man showed himself a formidable theological debater. He "matures," as it were, right before our eyes, and now begins to speak with his own brand of authority. He states a principle (v. 31) and then makes a claim about blindness (v. 32). Finally, the man draws a conclusion: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" (v. 33). That, in fact, will be precisely what Jesus says in another context later in the Gospel (15:5).

But the man has showed himself "unreliable." He not only stands up for Jesus, but he seems to show a remarkably acute theological awareness. The religious leaders, aware of all of this, realize that their options are limited. So, they "drove him out" (v. 34--i.e., they cast him out of the synagogue).

IV. Jesus and the Man Speak--and Conclusion

This is a marvelous little scene (vv. 35-41). It is almost as if it is an "after the dust has settled"-type of scene. He has been thrown out. Jesus has disappeared for 30 verses. Now he reappears, speaks to the man, quizzes him about his knowledge and reveals more about himself to the man. Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, a title that he also used to describe himself in 1:51. The man believes in him and worships. Who can't hear a slight echo of the verse that will resound in our minds at the end of the Gospel--"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe" (20:29)? Since the Gospel is about blindness and sight (v. 40-41), we have a beautiful example of the phenomenon. And, we are led to believe, this is the way it will work for many in the future who will believe in Jesus. They will be the ones who truly see while it is the spiritually blind people, who throw them out, who will claim that they are the ones who see.

This passage is a comfort for all those who believe they have spiritual insight but have been mistreated by the religious establishment of any age. Let's learn from the blind man. Only speak of what has happened to us. Don't be afraid, however, to draw conclusions about Jesus as a result. Don't be afraid to needle those religious authorities who try to "pin you down." Realize that they have an agenda of their own--an agenda to preserve power. Be true to yourself and your religious experience, and realize that the power of that experience mediates Jesus to us. As Jesus said to the formerly blind man: "You have seen him (the Son of Man), and the one speaking to you is he" (v. 37). That, friends, is our ultimate comfort when we have been healed. That will get us through the layers of disappointment, rejection and misunderstanding. Maybe this is why the story of the man born blind is so riveting. It tells us that the true source of our life is in the healing hand and words of Christ.

3329