5.The Condemnation of the Pharisees (9:39-41)

5.The Condemnation of the Pharisees (9:39-41)

JOHN 9

P. THE SIXTH SIGN — HEALING

THE MAN BORN BLIND (9:1-41)

It would not be true to say that there are no accounts of the healing of the blind in antiquity other than those of Jesus, but there are remarkably few in canonical Scripture. There is no story of the giving of sight to the blind anywhere in the Old Testament. Nor is this function anywhere attributed to the followers of Jesus. The nearest we come to it is when Ananias laid his hands on Saul of Tarsus and that Pharisee's temporary blindness disappeared (Acts 9:17-18); but this exceptional case is not on all fours with the giving of sight as Jesus gave it. There are more miracles of the giving of sight to the blind recorded of Jesus than healings in any other category (see Matt. 9:27-31; 12:22-23; 15:30-31; 21:14; Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52; Luke 7:21-22). In the Old Testament the giving of sight to the blind is associated with God himself (Exod. 4:11; Ps. 146:8). It is also a messianic activity (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7), and this may be its significance in the New Testament. It is a divine function, a function for God's own Messiah, that Jesus fulfills when he gives sight to the blind. This chapter then has significance in John's plan for showing Jesus to be the Messiah.¹ This story has features all its own, notably in the character of the healed man. He is no lay figure, but a colorful personality with a mind of his own and a readiness to say what he thinks before the highest in the land. His argument with the Pharisees is lively and very true to life. The narrative brings in the motif of judgment. Jesus is the Light of the world, and light is always in conflict with darkness. When people walk in darkness the coming of light always represents judgment. Indeed, Jesus says that he came "For judgment" (v. 39). This particular miracle was performed on the Sabbath, which opened the way for a controversy. There were those so firmly in the grip of darkness that they saw only a technical breach of their law and could not discern a spectacular victory of light over darkness.² They disputed with the man and in the process revealed their inward blindness. The incident takes us one step further in the dispute between Jesus and the authorities. In the end they take action against the healed man. Whether this is rightly understood as excommunication or not it marks the first definite action taken by way of persecution of Jesus followers.

Jesus' method of dealing with the man is not to be overlooked. First he healed him, then he left him to debate the situation with the Pharisees, and only after they had taken disciplinary action against him did Jesus approach him to deal with his spiritual need (Jesus is out of the action between v. 7 and v. 35). The result was that the man came to believe (v. 38). In his ministry to people's souls Jesus adopted no stereotyped approach. He dealt with each as the person's need required.³

1. The Healing (9:1-7)

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? " 3Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." 6Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes, 7 "Go," he told him, "wash in the pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

There are unique features in this healing. The man given sight is said to have been blind from birth, there is a discussion as to the reason for this, and means other than the word of Jesus are used for the healing, namely spittle to make mud and the washing in the pool of Siloam.

1 There is no time note. John does not relate this incident to others in his story, and we are left to guess at its place in the sequence. Hoskyns says that the incident took place on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, but this is pure assumption. It is likely that some time has elapsed since the attempt on Jesus' life (8:59), but more than this we cannot say. John simply tells us that Jesus passed by (where?) and saw a man blind from birth.⁴ Nothing is said as to how Jesus knew that the man had been blind from birth, which argues that he was a well-known figure. The Synoptic Gospels mention a number of cases of restoration of sight to the blind, but they do not include any mention of a man blind from birth. One might have expected some mention of the disciples, in view of the following question, but John appears to mean that it was Jesus who first took notice of the man. The initiative was his.

2 The man's plight provoked the disciples⁵ into asking Jesus the reason for it.⁶ It was widely held that suffering, and especially such a disaster as blindness, was due to sin. The general principle was laid down by R. Ammi: "There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity."⁷ The disciples evidently accepted this, but. in the present case were perplexed as to the application of the dogma. There were grave difficulties in seeing how a man could have sinned before his birth.⁸ And it is not much easier to think that a man should bear such a terrible punishment for the sin of his parents.⁹ So the disciples put the matter to Jesus.

3 Jesus decisively rejects both alternatives.¹⁰ Suffering is not always due to sin, and this blindness is not the result of sin either in the man or in his parents. "But" translates a strong adversative: "on the contrary," "far from that." It happened¹¹ so that God's works might be shown in the man.¹² It is perhaps worth noticing the significance of the use of the term "work." What was to happen is to us a miracle, but to God no more than a normal "work" (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). This does not, of course, mean that God made the child suffer blindness for years so that the cure might reveal his greatness. Rather, "God overruled the disaster of the child's blindness so that, when the child grew to manhood, he might, by recovering his sight, see the glory of God in the face of Christ" (Bruce).

4 Both "we"¹³ and "must" are important. Jesus is not speaking only of what he must do; his followers share with him the responsibility of doing what God directs (specifically Jesus has said that it is "the work of God" for people to believe on him whom God sent, 6:29). And "must" reminds us that this is not simply what is advisable or expedient. There is the thought of a compelling necessity (see the comments on 4:4, and for Jesus' obedience those on 4:34). As happens so often in this Gospel, God is characterized in terms of his sending of Jesus (see on 3:17). That is the critical event, and John does not let us lose sight of it. It is a reminder in this context also of the fact that the works in question do not originate here on earth. They are heaven-sent works that we must do. And there is an urgency about doing them, for the opportunity will not always be present. "Night is coming": the remorseless passage of time removes the present opportunity.¹⁴

5 There is particular appropriateness in Jesus' doing the works of which he speaks and doing them while it is day because he is "the light of the world" (cf. 8:12).¹⁵ For "light" see on 1:4. "While" is the indefinite "whenever."¹⁶ It is a little strange to find this expression, and we might have expected something general, as in 8:12. But here there is a sort of urgency, and Jesus may well be hinting that the time of the incarnation is limited. His stay in this world is short. Therefore he must work quickly and in accordance with his character as the world's light.

6 Jesus proceeded to cure the man. He took the initiative, for it is not said that anyone asked him to heal this man; he saw him and he gave him sight. He chose to do this by making clay of his spittle, putting it on the man's eyes,¹⁷ and bidding him wash it off.¹⁸ Questions arise like "Why clay?" "Why spittle?" "Why wash in Siloam?" In most other cures that Jesus wrought such things are not mentioned. It is known that the ancient world often attributed curative powers to saliva.¹⁹ And it may have helped this particular man to have something that he might do himself. But in any case Jesus performed his cures with sovereign hand, and he cannot be limited by rules of procedure. He healed how he willed. Mark once relates a cure in which Jesus "had spit on the man's eyes" and later laid his hands on the eyes (Mark 8:22-25), but there is no mention of mud there. Some of the patristic writers heard in the mention of mud a reference to Genesis 2:7 where man is made out of the dust of the earth. If this is the right way of viewing the passage, we are to discern in Jesus' action a work of creation.

7 Jesus told the man to go and wash in²⁰ the pool of Siloam.²¹ "Pool" denotes quite a large pool, one big enough to swim in (see on 5:2). This pool is mentioned here only in the New Testament (though cf. Luke 13:4). Accord-ing to his custom John explains the meaning of the Hebrew word, giving the Greek equivalent.²² Originally the name will have had to do with the fact that this water was "sent" into the pool by a channel; the Hebrew is active and in the first place will have referred to this channel, the "sender." But the pool was given the name quite early (Neh. 3:15; Isa. 8:6). For John such a name has obvious spiritual significance and is not to be overlooked. So he draws attention to the meaning. In this Gospel the thought of being sent is very prominent. Again and again John refers to Jesus as having been "sent" by the Father. So now blindness is removed with reference to and with the aid of the "sent." John describes the actual miracle in the simplest possible fashion. The man washed as he was told "and came home seeing." Nothing could be more concise or less flamboyant.

2. The Effect on the Neighbors (9:8-12)

8His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?" 9Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I am the man." to "How then were your eyes opened? " they demanded. 11 He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see." 12 "Where is this man?" they asked him. "I don't know," he said.

The first result John records is the effect of the miracle on the neighbors of the formerly blind man. They were so astonished at such a cure that some of them refused to believe that this was the man who had been blind.

8-9 The mention of the neighbors probably indicates that the man went home (NIV has "came home" in v. 7, but the Greek says only "came seeing"). There are two groups here, the man's neighbors and those who knew him as a beggar.²³ This is the first mention of his being a beggar, but it is almost implied in the earlier statement that he was blind. What else could a blind man do in the ancient world than beg? The one presupposes the other. The people who had lived near him and those familiar with him from his begging are probably singled out as those who knew him best. Their amaze-ment at his cure is expressed in a question, "Surely this is he . . . ?" The question expects an affirmative answer, but the putting of it shows the great difficulty they had in accepting the evidence of their senses. Others, who perhaps knew him but not quite so well, kept talking.²⁴ Some said it was the man, others that it was not, though those of the latter opinion admitted a resemblance. The man himself put an end to speculation by saying emphati-cally, "I am the man."²⁵

10-11 This brings the eager question, "How then were your eyes opened?" (NIV's "demanded" is a mite strong; the Greek means no more than "they said"). The man responds with a succinct account of the miracle.²⁶ He apparently knows little about Jesus and expects that his hearers will likewise know little, for he speaks of him as "The man they call Jesus."²⁷ He expects that Jesus will be known but no more. That he speaks of him as no more than a man shows that he has, as yet, little understanding of his Person.²⁸ As the chapter progresses we will observe how his awareness of the significance of Jesus grows.

12 The interrogators want to know the whereabouts of him who had done such a miracle. But the healed man does not know where Jesus is.

3. The Healed Man and the Pharisees (9:13-34)

This miracle no more than any of the others serves to induce faith in Jesus' bitter opponents. Rather, it stimulates them into more vigorous opposition. John evidently wants us to see that the activity of Jesus as the Light of the world inevitably results in judgment on those whose natural habitat is dark-ness. They oppose the Light and they bring down condemnation on themselves accordingly.

The man now enters a spirited discussion with the Pharisees, which we may divide into three sections. In the first the healing is established and a division among the Pharisees revealed (vv. 13-17), in the second the Pharisees examine the man's parents (vv. 18-23), and in the third they turn on the man himself (vv. 24-34).

a. Preliminary Discussions (9:13-17)

13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath. \5Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see. " 16Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided. 17Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened." The man replied, "He is a prophet."

In this section the battle lines are drawn. It is established that it was the Sabbath and that the man claimed to have been cured of blindness. The division of opinion among the Pharisees is indicated by the fact that some are impressed by the miracle and others by the Sabbath breach. And the man's own emphatic declaration for Jesus is recorded.

13 There is no note of time, but it seems plain that this is on a day subsequent to that of the cure. It is not said who is meant by "they," nor why they should have brought the man²⁹ to the Pharisees. The expression may be indefinite (like the French on) and mean no more than "he was brought." But perhaps it is more likely that the disputants of the previous verses are in mind. Not being able to make up their own minds, they decide to lay the matter before the recognized religious leaders. They probably felt that there must be a religious aspect to the cure (was not Jesus a religious teacher?), and the Pharisees would be the ones to pronounce on such an aspect. It is possible that the Pharisees were acting as official representatives of the Sanhedrin. Hendriksen argues cogently that they were an official body, possibly even "the minor Sanhedrin or synagogue-court, of which there are said to have been two in Jerusalem." If this is the case, it will explain such things as the fear of the parents in the face of interrogation. But neither the proceedings, nor the sentence read like the account of formal proceedings and it may be better to think of an influential but unofficial inquiry.

14 John interpolates an explanation of his own that is important in the light of the coming discussion. It was Sabbath (no article) when Jesus made the clay and performed the cure. Calvin is of the opinion that Jesus purposely wrought this miracle on the Sabbath in order that the resultant offense to the orthodox would give more publicity to the matter, and so "the truth of the miracle shines more brightly." This may be so, but Jesus' avoidance of publicity is against it.

15 The Pharisees question the man. The verb denotes a continuing process and not a simple invitation to rehearse the matter. They were evidently persistent. Again the man relates what happened. He has a gift for succinct utterance and puts the essence of the matter in one terse sentence.

16 The man's statement divides the Pharisees. The more doctrinaire seize on the breach of the Sabbath as they saw it. If a man³⁰ did not keep the Sabbath according to their understanding of Sabbath keeping he could not possibly be from God. It was as simple as that. Others, however, were more open-minded. They took their stand on another principle, a principle neatly stated by the formerly blind man (v. 31). Jesus was doing "signs" (note the plural; they were not confining their attention to this one miracle) of such a kind that they could not envisage him as being a sinner.³¹ One group starts from the Sabbath breach. Since the Pharisaic rale has been broken Jesus cannot be from God. The other starts from the miracle. Since he has performed such signs he must be from God. So the Pharisees were divided.³² The group speaking tentatively in favor of Jesus must have been a small one. We do not hear of them again after this verse, and throughout the rest of the chapter the narrative proceeds as though the other group were the only one to be considered.

17 It is a measure of the Pharisees' perplexity and division that they ask the man what he thinks of Jesus. Normally they would not have dreamed of putting a question on a religious issue to such a man. But after all he did know what had happened. So they ask for his opinion. The request is the measure of their embarrassment. Their "you" is emphatic; the man is in a special position. He does not hesitate but robustly affirms: "He is a prophet" (cf. the verdict of the Samaritan woman, 4:19). Knox renders, "Why, he must be a prophet," but this is not strong enough. The man is definite. "He is a prophet." If this seems to us inadequate we must remember that the man had no way of knowing that Jesus was more. His contact with the Lord had been very brief. And for him "prophet" was probably the highest place he could assign to a man of God; his answer puts Jesus in the highest place he knew.³³ John brings out his progressive apprehension of the significance of Jesus. He passed from thinking of him as "the man they call Jesus" (v. 11) to seeing him as a prophet (here). Then he advances to the thought of one to whom allegiance may fitly be given (vv. 27-28), then to one "from God" (v. 33), and finally he comes to believe in the Son of man to whom worship should be given (vv. 35-38). By contrast the Pharisees, starting with the view that Jesus is not from God (v. 16), question the miracle (v. 18), speak of Jesus as a sinner (v. 24), are shown to be ignorant (v. 29), and finally are pronounced blind and sinners (v. 41).

b. The Man's Parents Examined (9:18-23)

18The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man's parents. 19 "Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see? "20 "We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and we know he was born blind. 21 But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself. " 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ^a would be put out of the synagogue. 23That was why his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."

a. 22 Or Messiah

The first tack attempted by Jesus' enemies is that of discrediting the miracle. They held that Jesus did not come from God. It followed that he could not have done a miracle. Therefore this miracle did not happen. They do not examine the evidence with open minds, but in the light of their firmly held prejudices seek to discover the flaw that they feel must surely be present. They begin by trying to establish that the man who now saw had not been born blind.

18 The opposition is now called by the usual name, "the Jews." "The Pharisees" are mentioned again in this chapter only in verse 40. The Jews did not believe that the man had really been cured. So they called his parents.

19 They put two questions to the parents. The first is natural enough: they want to know whether the man is really their son who they say was born blind (NIV splits this into two questions). But when they ask the second, "How is it that now he can see?" they give their case away. They concede that the man was blind (as the parents said) and now sees (as they perceived for themselves).

20-21 The parents were evidently of a very different temper from that of their sturdily minded son. Their reply is characterized by timidity and a readiness to submit tamely to the authority of their questioners. They testify out of their own knowledge to the identity of the man as their son, and to the fact that he was born blind. But they say they know nothing of how or by whom he received his sight. In avowing their ignorance of the identity of the healer they used the emphatic pronoun ("we don't know"). Evidently this was the tricky question. In saying "Ask him" they also put emphasis on him, and they have the emphatic pronoun in "he will speak.. .." All this emphasis makes clear their determination not to get mixed up in the affair more than they can help. There is no reason for thinking that they had been present when the cure was per-formed, so it was inevitable that they should give some negative answers. What was not inevitable was that they should manifest such an indecent concern for thrusting the matter back on their son, with their "Ask him," their "he is of age,"³⁴ and their "he will speak for himself." It is plain that they discerned danger and had no intention of being caught up in it with their son.³⁵

22 John explains the predicament in which the parents found them-selves. It is interesting that the authorities had agreed as early as this to take action against the followers of Jesus. It is difficult to know exactly what meaning is to be attached to "confessing" Christ (NIV, "acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ"); for "Christ" see on 1:20, 41. NIV and similar trans-lations are probably not correct, for there seems to be no possibility of these people being accused of holding that Jesus was the Christ. "Confess" seems rather to be interpreted in a broad sense, as of giving support to Jesus. "Put out of the synagogue" will refer to something like excommunication.³⁶ The term is not found in LXX nor in secular writers, and precisely what it covered is not clear. But any deprivation of synagogue privileges was something to be feared by any Jew. That Christians did not suffer excommunication in the full sense as a matter of course is evidenced by the fact that Acts depicts them as moving freely in the synagogues. But the precise meaning to be attached to the word in its present context is not certain. Unless we hold that John is anachronistically reading the conditions of a later day back to this period, it seems best to understand the term to denote a temporary withdrawal of the privileges of membership in the community. But this was not yet a settled policy and it was not continued. "Already the Jews had decided" does not necessarily indicate a formal decree of the Sanhedrin. It might well mean that some of the leading men had agreed among themselves to take action against the supporters of Jesus, perhaps to exclude them from synagogues, perhaps to initiate proceedings in the Sanhedrin.

23 John repeats in abbreviated form the reply of the parents, and cites the threat of excommunication as the reason for it.³⁷

c. The Man Examined and Excommunicated (9:24-34)

24A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God,^a"they said. "We know this man is a sinner. "25He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" 26Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" 27He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?" 28Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from." 30The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. 32Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33lf this man were not from God, he could do nothing." 347b this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.

a. 24 A solemn charge to tell the truth (see Joshua 7:19)

This is the most spirited part of the chapter. The Jews press the healed man, and he withstands them with some vigor. They take their stand on their preconceived ideas, he on the simple facts that he knows. It is not possible to argue a man out of his position when he can say, "One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see." Indeed, far from shaking him, their arguments caused him to clarify his position and he finished the interrogation with a deeper appreciation of Jesus than he had had at the beginning. We should not miss this further example of John's irony. He depicts those who thought of themselves as enlightened trying to badger the once blind man into denying his certainty that he now had light.

24 "Therefore" (which NIV omits) is significant. They perceive that further interrogation of the parents would be fruitless and "therefore" switch their attack back to the son. They begin with the pious exhortation to give glory to God. This should probably be understood (in the spirit of Josh. 7:19) as an exhortation to own up and tell the truth³⁸ and confess one's misdeeds. "Remember that God sees you" is the thought, "and give him due honor by speaking the truth" (cf. GNB, "Promise before God that you will tell the truth!"). If this is the way of it the man is being told that he has not been completely frank until now. He has held back something that would show Jesus³⁹ to be a sinner. Alternatively the words may imply that all Jesus did was put clay on the man's eyes and tell him to wash. No glory is due for that. Glory is due rather to God who wrought the miracle. Jesus had nothing to do with it, and the man should ascribe glory where it is due (cf. Phillips, "You should give God the glory for what has happened to you"). They, the religious experts, can indeed assure him that this is the case. Their "we" is emphatic. "We, the religious leaders, know" (Moffatt, "we know quite well"), and therefore others ought to follow the lead we give! Significantly they leave their accusation that Jesus is a sinner in general terms and do not attempt to demonstrate their point with an example.

25 The man has a sturdy independence, as his answer shows. He does not go into the theoretical question of whether Jesus was a sinner or not. He sticks to the facts of which he has certain knowledge, and thus produces an answer that is a classic. No fine-spun web of airy theory can budge a person who can say with conviction "one thing I do know." The man had sight. Nothing could alter that.

26 But the restless questioning continues. It may be that there is matter for accusation in the circumstances of the cure? So the interrogators begin to go over the whole ground again.

27 This is not to the taste of the healed man. Forthrightly he reminds them that he has already answered these questions. Therefore the questioners can surely not be seeking information? What then are they trying to do?⁴⁰ The question, "Do you want to become his disciples, too?" is asked in such a way as to look for the answer "No," but the asking of it is the significant thing. The man did not really expect that people so plainly opposed to Jesus were changing their minds, but he was quite ready to bait them. His "too" is significant. He was now counting himself among Jesus' disciples.⁴¹

28-29 They stop arguing and abuse the man, then contrast their position with his. He, they say, can claim only to be Jesus'⁴² disciple; they are Moses' disciples. This gives them a sure basis, they think. They speak out of certainty. Whatever be the case with the rabble, such men as they know that God spoke to Moses. The perfect tense "has spoken" (NIV, "spoke") implies that these words stand. "This fellow" is contemptuous. They regard their ignorance of Jesus' origin as damaging to his cause. But some Jerusalemites have argued that when the Christ comes no one will know where he is from (7:27), so that ignorance of his origin could be urged in favor of his messiahship. Their argument is less convincing and less consistent than they may have thought.⁴³ Had they con-sidered its implications they might have been led to the truth.

30 The man continues his independent line. Far from being impressed with their argument he launches out on one of his own, designed to lead to the opposite conclusion. He finds it astonishing that they do not know whence Jesus is. This, he says, "is the marvellous thing" (NIV, "that is remarkable"), where the expression seems to have a meaning like "this is the really mar-vellous thing; your unbelief in the face of the evidence is more of a miracle than my cure!" His "you" is emphatic and may carry some sly irony: "You, the religious experts, cannot work out a simple thing like this?"

31 The man lays down his basic proposition negatively and posi-tively. He matches their "we know" with one of his own, and thus claims to share with his questioners, and perhaps with the community at large, the knowledge that God does not hear sinners. This should have been accepted by the second group mentioned in verse 16, at any rate (cf. Ps. 66:18; Prov. 15:29; Isa. 1:15). Then comes the positive, If a man is a worshiper⁴⁴ and if he does the will of God, then he will be heard.

32-33 He goes on to point out that restoration of sight to the blind is most uncommon. Indeed, it has never been heard since the age began⁴⁵ that a man born blind has received sight. His chain of reasoning is complete. Jesus could not possibly have done such a thing,⁴⁶ a thing unparalleled in all history, unless he were from God (cf. 3:2). For the man the proposition is incontestable. It is not a bad chain of reasoning for one who had hitherto been a beggar all his life, and presumably a stranger to academic and forensic argument.

34 But it is wasted on men like these. They pay no attention to the argument, but concentrate on the person of the man who has presumed to teach them. In sins, they maintain, he was altogether born. And that ends that. They probably imply that his blindess was the punishment of sin (cf. v. 2). If so, their answer gives away their case, for they are then admitting the point they had questioned (vv. 18-19), namely that the man really had been blind, though he could now see. They cast him out, which probably means much the same as "put out of the synagogue" (v. 22). It is possible that that was a technical term, and that the expression used here by contrast means no more than that they expelled the man from their assembly and from the building in which they were (cf. Barclay, "they ordered him to get out"). But it is more probable that this represents a stronger disciplinary action against a stubborn heretic.

4. Faith in the Son of God (9:35-38)

35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he foundhim, he said, "Do you believe in the Son ofMan?"36"Who is he, sir?"the man asked, "Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37Jesus said,"You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

John is interested in the way the coming of Jesus divides people. Throughout this chapter we have observed the process in operation. At the close we see the natural conclusion: on the one hand a confession of faith, on the other a plain statement of the condemnation of those who have been resisting the light.

35 The interesting thing here is the simple "when he found him" (cf. 5:14). It would have been common knowledge that the Jews had taken action against the healed man, and Jesus heard this in due course. John does not find it necessary to say that he sought him out. When the man had been persecuted for Jesus' sake it could be assumed that Jesus would not remain indifferent. So John simply tells us that he found him (Moffatt's "on meeting him" is inadequate).⁴⁷ Jesus' "you" is emphatic. He asks how it is with the man personally, whatever may be the case with others. Faith is an essentially personal thing. For "believing in" see on 1:12, and for "the Son of Man" see Additional Note C (pp. 150-52).⁴⁸ Whichever text we accept, faith in Christ is what is meant.⁴⁹

36 The man evidently recognized the voice, for though he knew that Jesus was his benefactor until now he had not seen him. He responds⁵⁰ respectfully, though whether we should translate "sir" (as NIV) or "Lord" is not so clear. Since the man does not yet know who Jesus is, it seems preferable to give the term the lesser significance (see on 4:1). His gratitude to Jesus comes out in his readiness to believe. He wants to know who the Son is so that⁵¹ he may believe.⁵² He has gathered from Jesus' question that Jesus wants him to believe. He for his part is ready to do what is right.⁵³

37 Jesus discloses his identity. His use of the verb "you have seen" must have meant a good deal to the man who until that day had seen nothing.

38 The man's instant response is "Lord, I believe," and this time there is little reason for thinking that "Lord" has anything less than the maximum content. Some translations (such as Twentieth Century, and Goodspeed) have "Sir," but this is incongruous in view of the immediately following reference to worship. This is the climax for the man of a process that has been going on throughout the chapter. His insight into the Person of Jesus has been growing, and now this final revelation puts the coping stone, on what has gone before. The man sees that Jesus is the one object of a right faith and accordingly puts his trust in him. This is the only place in this Gospel where anyone is said to worship Jesus. The verb occurs several times in chapter 4 to indicate worshiping God, and it is found in the same sense in 12:20. It can be used of paying very high respect to people,⁵⁴ but in John it is more natural to understand it of paying divine honors. The man has already recognized that Jesus came from God (v. 33). Now he goes a step further. He gives to Jesus the reverence that is appropriate to God. John began this story with the disciples raising the question of undeserved suffering: Why was the man born blind? He does not answer it in set terms, but at least he ends the story with the man entering into such a blessing that he may well have given thanks for all the way that God had led him. The healing of his blindness had resulted in sight, both physical and spiritual.

5. The Condemnation of the Pharisees (9:39-41)

39Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." 40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

The light has had its effect on the man who was ready to receive it. It remains to notice its effect on those who closed their eyes to it.

39 Were these words spoken on the same occasion? John says nothing to indicate a change of scene, but the conversation with the formerly blind man is unlikely to have been held before hostile witnesses, and it is difficult to think that the Pharisees would have witnessed the man's act of worship without protest. It seems more likely accordingly that these words were spoken a little later. They represent Jesus' account of the principle at work. In one sense he did not come to judge people (3:17; 12:47). But for all that, his coming represents a judgment,⁵⁵ for people divide according to the way they react to that coming (see on 3:18; 8:15). The coming of light shows who are spiritually blind and thus judges them; judgment is not the purpose of the coming of light, but it is an inevitable consequence. In this passage the thought is worked out in terms of sight and blindness. The result of Jesus' coming is that blind people see.⁵⁶ This has obvious relevance to the happenings of this chapter, and it must be understood to include the recovery of spiritual sight as well as of physical sight. Indeed, it is especially spiritual sight that is in mind now. We must understand the concluding words to mean "those who claim to have spiritual sight (apart from me) may be shown up for the blind people that they really are" (cf. also Isa. 6:10).⁵⁷

40 We are not told when and why some⁵⁸ of the Pharisees were with⁵⁹ Jesus, but they heard these things. Their reaction was an incredulous question:⁶⁰ "Are we blind too?" They are the embodiment of the condemnation of which Jesus has been speaking. It never occurs to them that they of all people can possibly be blind.

41 Jesus' answer is paradoxical and probably highly unexpected. The Pharisees doubtless expected Jesus to say that they were blind. That was only to be anticipated from one they had opposed so vigorously. Instead he says that blindness would have been an excuse. If the Pharisees had been really blind, if they had had no understanding of spiritual things at all, they would not have sinned in acting as they did (cf. Rom. 5:13). They could not be blamed for acting in ignorance. They would then not have been acting in rebellion against their best insights. But they claim to see. They claim spiritual knowledge. They know the law. And it is sin for people who have spiritual knowledge to act as they do. Jesus does not say that they really do see, but that they claim to see. If they really had spiritual sight they would act differ-ently toward him. Yet they are not completely blind. His meaning is that they have enough spiritual knowledge to be responsible. Had they acted on the best knowledge they had they would have welcomed the Son of God. But they did not act on their best knowledge. They claimed to have sight and acted like the blind. Therefore their sin is not taken away. It remains with them.⁶¹

———————————————

1. Cullmann sees in the story a reference to baptism, but, as in the case of his other alleged references to the sacraments, he proceeds by way of dogmatic assertion rather than by that of adducing evidence. Indeed on this occasion he seems to realize this, for he says: "The opponents of the method of examination which we apply in this study to the Fourth Gospel will not fail to stress the questionable character of the observations made by us on this passage, and we can only repeat here that each detail taken by itself does not in fact amount to much" (Early Christian Worship [London, 1954], p. 105). Exactly. And nothing else that he says removes that impression. Schnackenburg examines and rejects the view that the author intended a reference to baptism (II, pp. 257-58).

2. Barrett thinks that "This short chapter expresses perhaps more vividly and completely than any other John's conception of the work of Christ. On the one hand, he is the giver of benefits to a humanity which apart from him is in a state of complete hopelessness. . . . The illumination is not presented as primarily intellectual (as in some of the Hermetic tractates) but as the direct bestowal of life or salvation. . . . On the other hand, Jesus does not come into a world full of men aware of their own need. Many have their own inadequate lights . . . which they are too proud to relinquish for the true light which now shines. The effect of the true light is to blind them, since they willfully close their eyes to it. Their sin abides precisely because they are so confident of their righteousness." Hoskyns acutely remarks, "To become a Christian is not to recover what has been lost, but to receive a wholly new illumination."

3. For J. L. Martyn's treatment of this chapter see the Introduction, pp. 41f. He holds that we must understand the story on two levels, the one being the events that took place in Jesus' lifetime and the other those that occurred in the city in which the Gospel was written. Martyn makes frequent remarks about the Jews with whom the Evangelist interacted. There is, of course, no reason why the Evangelist should not write on two levels and emphasize local circumstances, but Martyn cites no evidence. He simply takes his assumption for granted, and this does not seem warranted. For further comments see Carson, John, pp. 360-61.

4. τυφλόν έx γενετής signifies congenital blindness, but John may also have in mind the truth that from birth we are all spiritually blind. The man blind from birth symbolizes every person. We all need the illumination that Christ alone can give. This is the only occurrence of γενετή in the New Testament.

5. For "his disciples" see the comments on 2:2. The exact meaning of the term here is not clear. If the Twelve are meant, as seems probable, this is the first indication that they were with him in Jerusalem (they are not said to have been with him in chs. 7 and 8). The alternative is to hold that there were followers of Jesus who lived in Jerusalem (cf. 7:3) and were with him on this occasion.

6. ίνα seems to express result, an unusual but not unparalleled use (see J. H. Greenlee in BT, 6 [1955], p. 14; J. L. Boyer, GThJ, 7 [1986], p. 8).

7. Shab. 55a (Soncino edn., p. 255). The latter point is proved from Ps. 89:33(32).

8. But the rabbis did not find the difficulties insurmountable. SBk cite a few

passages, mostly based on Gen. 25:22, that show that it was held that a child could sin in the womb (II, pp. 528-29). An alternative was to think of the soul as preexistent, a belief that appears in Wis. 8:20, and as sinning in the preexistent state. But views like this do not seem to have been widely held in Judaism.

9. Yet the rabbis held such things to be possible. There are sayings that speak of children as having been born epileptic or leprous on account of the sins of their parents (SBk, Π, p. 529). The untimely death of a scholar could be ascribed to his mother's dalliance with idolatry while pregnant with him (Ruth Rab. 6.4; Soncino edn., p. 79).

10. That is, in this particular case. "Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you" (5:14) indicates that there may be times when sin and suffering are connected.

11. The construction is elliptical, and it is not certain what should be supplied before ίνα. It is usually taken as "but (he was born blind) that. . . ," though it is is quite possible to understand something like "but (all was ordained) that. . . ." C. J. Cadoux thinks that this is a possible example of imperatival ίνα (see on 1:8 for this construction) with the meaning "but the works of God had to be made manifest... in his case" (JThS, XLII [1941], p. 169). This, however, is not an imperative, which would be rather "Let the works of God be manifest." But this does not appear to be the sense of the passage. Richardson sees the ϊνα as expressing result. It is, of course, possible to change the punctuation and read " . . . nor his parents. But that the works of God should be made manifest in him we must work the works of him who sent me.. . . " Morgan, for example, adopts this punctuation, but it does not seem probable. The construction seems to hint at

the divine purpose, and it seems best to adopt one of the two first-mentioned suggestions.

12. Cf. Brown, "Jesus was asked about the cause of the man's blindness, but he answers in terms of its purpose."

13. There are textual uncertainties, but it seems that we should read ήμας with p⁶⁶ ρ⁷⁵ * Β D W Or etc. rather than έμέ with * Α Θ f l f l3 lat syrs. After πέμψαντος ρ⁶⁶ ρ⁷⁵ * W* read ήμάς but here the singular is to be preferred with A Β C DA Θ f l f l3 etc. It would seem that the variants are different ways of removing the difficulty posed by the use of both plural and singular. For Jesus' associating others with himself see on 3:11.

14. Odeberg understands "night" to signify "the period beginning with the discursive judgement for those who, although having the possibility of seeing, condemn themselves to blindness because they do reject the light that comes to them" (FG, p. 312). This would accord well with John's use of "light" and "darkness," but there is a difficulty in seeing how this "night" can be said to be coming; surely it is already here. Jesus' statement envisages a time now when work may be done, followed by another time when it will be too late to work. Odeberg's view does not safeguard this thought.

15. Westcott argues from the absence of an article with φως, as compared with 8:12 that "Christ is 'light to the world' as well as 'the one light of the world'." But E. C. Colwell has shown that in the New Testament definite predicate nouns that precede the verb usually lack the article (see on 1:1), and that would cover this case. The expression means "the light of the world." John's " I am" sayings characteristically have έγώ είμι (as in 8:12), but here we have only είμι.

16. ototv. In a context like this the meaning will not be repetition or continuity but coincidence of time: "during the time I am in the world." Plummer, however, says, "όταν is important; it shews the comprehensiveness of the statement. The Light shines at various times and in various degrees, whether the world chooses to be illuminated or not." Dods thinks that δταν is used rather than εως to suggest a time when Jesus would not be in the world

17. The meaning of αύτοϋ before τόν πηλόν is uncertain. It may mean "his clay," that is, the clay Jesus has made, or "its clay," that is, the clay from the spittle.

18. There are several technical breaches of the Sabbath here. The making of the mud is a breach of the prohibition of kneading (one of the thirty-nine classes of work forbidden in the Mishnah, Shab. 7:2), and probably of mixing (Shab. 24:3). The placing of it on the eyes would be included in the class of prohibited anointings (Shab. 14:4), for one may anoint on the Sabbath only with what one employs for the purpose on other days. This section provides that if a man's loins pain him "he may not rub thereon wine or vinegar, yet he may anoint them with oil but not with rose-oil. King's children may anoint their wounds with rose-oil since it is their custom so to do on ordinary days." Healing on the Sabbath was forbidden unless the life was in danger (SBk, I, pp. 623ff.). Barrett cites a specific rabbinic prohibition of the application of fasting spittle to the eyes on the Sabbath.

19. The curative power of spittle was highly esteemed in antiquity, especially in connection with the eyes. There is a well-known incident in which a blind man sought a cure from the Emperor Vespasian by means of his spittle. Mark twice records that Jesus used spittle (Mark 7:33; 8:23). For a general account see the art. "Saliva" in ERE.

20. είς is a little curious. It may be an example of the encroachment of this preposition on the territory of έν. But BAGD cites a similar construction with νίπτω in Epictetus. In the blind man's account of the incident in v. 11 it is attached to ΰπαγε and not νίψαι.

21. The genitive τοϋ Σιλωάμ is rather strange. Probably the whole system, spring, conduit, and pool, is being thought of as a unit and it is the pool of this complex that is meant.

22. The Hebrew is . Hezekiah cut a tunnel through the rock to bring waters from Gihon (the "Virgin's Fountain") into the city. It flowed into the Upper Pool (Birket Silwan) and probably from there to the Lower Pool (Birket el-Hamra), though it is not possible to verify this archaeologically owing to the buildings on the site. See further the article in NBD.

23. In the expression δτι προσαίτης ήν Burney claims that δτι is a mistranslation of an Aramaic 1, rendered δτι instead of δτε (AO, p. 78). But this is not necessary. The δτι may well mean "because," that is they noticed him because he was a beggar (so Bernard).

24. Note the imperfect tenses. John is describing a situation in which excited talking went on continuously.

25. Actually he said " I am" (NIVinserts "the man"). The expression is Έγώ είμι; its occurrence in such a context makes it plain that it does not always convey the divine overtones we saw in 8:24, 28, and 58.

26. His word for receiving sight is άνέβλεψα, which strictly means " I saw again." The point may be, as Westcott suggests, that "sight by nature belongs to a man even though he has been born blind." But the word also means "to look up," and John may well use it with the idea in mind that the man came to look up to Jesus.

27. For John's use of άνθρωπος of Jesus see on 4:29.

28. Augustine is interested that the man immediately speaks out so clearly: "see, he preaches the gospel; endowed with sight, he becomes a confessor. That blind man makes confession, and the heart of the wicked was troubled; for they had not in their heart what he had now in his countenance" (44.8; p. 247).

29. τόν ποτε τυφλόν receives emphasis from being thrown in at the end of the sentence with no syntactical link with the preceding. As is his habit, John describes the man in different ways. In v. 17 he is "the blind man," in v. 18 "he had been blind," and in v. 19 "the one you say was born blind."

30. In the expression "this man," ούτος is separated from ό άνθρωπος by παρά θεοϋ. This unusual order may be intended to put some emphasis on "man" This is probably meant contemptuously ("this fellow," NEB). John possibly wants also to indicate their ignorance of the incarnation.

31. αμαρτωλός occurs four times in this chapter (vv. 16, 24, 25, and 31) and nowhere else in this Gospel. The principle stated by these Pharisees does not fit in with the teaching of some facts of Scripture. Thus Pharaoh's magicians were able to imitate some of the miracles performed by Aaron (Exod. 7:11, 22; 8:7; but cf. 8:18-19). A continuing possibility, against which the Israelites were warned, is the appearance of a prophet or dreamer who should perform "a miraculous sign or wonder" to lead people astray (Deut. 13: Iff.). Jesus spoke of the same kind of thing (Matt. 24:24). A reconciliation might perhaps be sought in the nature of Jesus' miracles. They were not simply "wonders," but "signs" pointing people to God. Such miracles could not proceed from a deceiver.

32. σχίσμα does not denote a schism in our sense of the term, but rather a dissension. It is a division within the group, not a splitting off from the group.

33. McClymont cites Maimonides for what he calls a common Jewish belief that a prophet had authority even over the law of the Sabbath. I f this is as early as New Testament times it will make the man's rejoinder very significant.

34. Among the Jews this would be thirteen years and one day (SBk, Π, p. 534). But the expression may well mean here "he is old enough to reason" rather than "he is legally of age."

35. Strachan suggests that their fear was not for themselves but for their son, and that accordingly they rightly leave the ultimate decision to him. But this is not the impression the passage leaves.

36. άποσυνάγωγος γένηται is found in the Greek Bible only here and at 12:42 and 16:2 (cf. Luke 6:22). The exact significance of the term is uncertain, as are the nature and procedure for xcommunication among the Jews of that day. At a later time there were two forms of excommunication: the , a temporary exclusion lasting 30 days, and the , which was a permanent ban. Both were at the discretion of the elders of the congregation. Excommunication cut a person off from all normal dealings with the Jewish community, but apparently not from worship (Mishnah, Midd. 2:2). But whether this applied in New Testament times is far from certain. The Mishnah speaks of excommunication but without giving details, and assumes the possibility of readmission (MK 3:1, 2; see also Ta'an. 3:8; Ned. 1:1; 'Eduy. 5:6; Midd. 2:2). The practice of excommunication is undoubtedly old (Ezra 10:8). Indeed, there are references to being cut off from the people in a number of places in the Law; specifically "Observe the Sabbath . . . whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people" (Exod. 31:14). We have no information about how this kind of discipline was practiced in New Testament times, but that does not mean that the rule was not enforced. Ta'an. 3:8 contains a saying threatening excommunication, which was said to have been uttered by Simeon b. Shetah c. 80 B.C. It is usually accepted that the benediction against the heretics was aimed at the Christians and was composed by Samuel the Small toward the end of the first century; many suggest that this is presupposed by the present passage. But Beasley-Murray cites W. Horbury's"exhaustive examination of the evidence" with its conclusion that the benediction "simply reinforced an earlier, more drastic exclusion of Christians" (p. 154). We have practically no information as to how it was carried out in New Testament times. J. A. T. Robinson points out that the benediction is concerned with cursing the minim, not with excluding them from the synagogue, so that it has nothing to do with the problem here (Priority, pp. 72-81). M. Hengel says of "the introduction of the cursing of the 'heretics' into the Eighteen Benedictions by the so-called 'Synod of Jamnia' " that "this event is historically problematical." He goes on to remind us that "The 'expulsion' of Christians from the synagogue took place, rather, in a lengthy and painful process which began even before Paul with the martyrdom of Stephen" (Hengel, pp. 114-15). See further E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, ii (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 59ff.; SBk, IV, pp. 293-333; TDNT, VII, pp. 845-50. Dodd points out that we have "no means of testing the accuracy of the evangelist's representation of the trial." He goes on, "But there are certain expressions in the narrative which do suggest knowledge of Jewish ideas and procedure" (IFG, p. 80). C. F. D. Moule questions "whether there is any inherent reason for declaring this to be unhistorical" (The Birth of the New Testament [London, 1962], p. 107). In any case we do not know of a formal ban on Christians (as opposed to a general curse on heretics included in the prayers) until later than the date of this Gospel. Long ago Lagrange expressed his astonishment at Loisy's assurance that such excommunication did not exist in the time of Jesus but did exist when the Fourth Gospel was written. Lagrange adds, "Plainly the excommunication of the hristians as such did not exist in the time of Jesus; but excommunication existed, and the Jews continued to employ it to stop the spread of Jesus' teaching while He lived as well as after His death." It seems best to accept the evidence of John that some form of excommunication was in use at this time as a means of opposing Jesus and all that he stood for, but that it was not a firm policy, permanently

binding.

37. In this verse έπερωτήσατε (if this is the right reading) is used in place of έρωτήσατε in the parents' statement in verse 21. But probably no significance should be attached to this in view of John's habit of making small alterations in repetitions (see on 3:5). But there is good attestation for the reading έρωτήσατε, and this may be considered the preferable reading in view of John's marked preference for the uncompounded verb (27 times elsewhere, whereas περοπάω occurs again only in 18:7, and in both places έρωτάω has support). It is clear that John used έπερωτάω considerably less than some other New Testament writers (and έρωτάω more than any of them; Luke comes a long way behind with 15 times).

38. Rieu renders "the Jews... swore him in," which gives the sense of it according to this view, even though it is scarcely a translation.

39. For John's use of άνθρωπος of Jesus see on 4:29.

40. θέλετε άκούειν is interesting because θέλω is usually followed by the aorist infinitive (as in the second half of the verse). The meaning will be "Why do you want to keep on hearing?"

41. Some exegetes hold that the expression does no more than draw attention to the known band of Jesus' disciples, and inquire whether the Pharisees wish to join them. But this seems pointless, and not at all in accord with the healed man's frank espousal of Jesus' cause. The next verse indicates that the inquisitors understood the man to be a disciple of Jesus.

42. έκείνου is probably used with a touch of contempt (so BDF, 291[1]), "that fellow."

43. Filson comments: "they admitted and took pride in the fact that they did not know the origin of Jesus (vs. 29). Just so! This was their basic failure: Jesus had come to them from God, and they did not face this fact."

44. θεοσεβής is found here only in the New Testament.

45. The expression έx τοϋ αιώνος is found here only in the Greek Bible (Gal. 1:4 is different, the expression there being qualified; έξ αιώνος occurs in LXX, e.g., in Prov.8:21; Jer. 7:7; Sir. 1:4). άπό τοϋ αιώνος or άπ' αιώνος is much more common.

46. There is an emphatic double negative, ούκ ήδύνατο ποιεΐν ούδέν

47. Cf. Cbrysostom, "The Jews cast him out from the Temple, and the Lord of the Temple found him" (59.1; p. 212). Calvin points out that an excommunication can have good results: " I f he had been kept in the syngagogue, he would have run the danger of becoming gradually alienated from Christ and plunged into the same destruction as the ungodly.. . . We have known the same thing in our own time. For when Luther, and others like him, were beginning to reprove the grosser abuses of the Pope, they had scarcely the slightest taste for pure Christianity. But after the Pope had fulminated against them and cast them out of the Roman synagogue by terrifying bulls, Christ stretched out His hand and made Himself fully known to them. So there is nothing better for us than to be far away from the enemies of the Gospel so that He may come near to us."

48. άνθρωπου is read by p66 p75 BDW syrs sa and θεού by Α Θ f l f l 3 lat. Both expressions are Johannine. We do not elsewhere find "the Son of Man" directly connected with believing (though cf. 3:14-15; 12:34ff.), but "the Son of God" is used in connection with confessions of faith (1:34, 49; 3:18; 11:27; 20:31). It is thus unlikely that an original θεοϋ would be altered to άνθρωπου, whereas the reverse process may be readily envisaged (this carries conviction to Tasker, GNT, p. 427; Metzger's committee found the reading"virtually certain"). Since the attestation of άνθρώπου is superior there seems to be no reason why it should not be accepted. A further confirmatory consideration is that the passage moves on to the thought of judgment, a topic with which "the Son of Man" is connected (cf. 5:27). M. Miiller argues that "Son of Man" here "is to be understood as a circumlocution for the speaker" (NTS, 37 [1991], pp. 291-94).

49. The question may look for an affirmative answer. Cf. Bailey, "Thou puttest thy trust on the Son of Man dost thou not?" So also Bernard.

50. BDF notes the use of καί to introduce an apodosis when the apodosis is a question with the meaning "who then" (442[8]).

51. Burney cites this verse as an example of the Semitic use of the redundant pronoun (εις αύτόν) after the relative (AO, p. 85; for the construction in John see on 1:27). But this example is not convincing, for it rests on the view that ίνα is a mistranslation of the relative, a view that is far from being established (cf. Black, AA, pp. 58-59).

52. Jesus' question uses the present, "Do you habitually believe?" The man's reply employs the aorist, ". . . that I may come to believe."

53. It has been suggested that we take ίνα here as imperatival, which would give the meaning "Would that I might believe!" (see on 1:8). More probably, we should postulate an ellipsis: "(Tell me) in order that. . . ."

54. BAGD notes that προσκυνέω is "used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or someth. holy." Of the use with regard to people it says, "to human beings who, however, are to be recognized by this act as belonging to a supernatural realm." LS shows that in later times this meaning was weakened considerably, but in the New Testament it is plain that the word is used with a very full meaning that the occasional use for people (Matt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9) does little to weaken.

55. This is the only place in this Gospel where κρίμα is found. John prefers κρίσις.

56. βλέποί is used here in the sense of άναβλέπω.

57. J. M. Lieu holds that "a theological understanding of unbelief as blindness, with a degree of tension as to the question of ultimate responsibility, had already been worked out both in direct exegesis of Isa 6.9-10 and in the interpretation of the healing of the blind in the light of that tradition" (NTS, 34 [1988], p. 90).

58. John uses the partitive έx, as often, to give the meaning "Some of the Pharisees," rather than "Those of the Pharisees."

59. Westcott speaks of these Pharisees as in some sense followers of Jesus. This, however, seems to be going beyond the meaning of μετ' αύτοϋ, which in itself signifies no more than "with him." In 3:25 μετά Ίουδαίοΰ is even used of antagonism.

60. The question is introduced by μή, thus expecting the answer "No," while their και ήμεΐς registers surprise at the suggestion that they, of all people, are blind

61. Cf. Temple, "It is a crushing, overwhelming retort. Can we escape its impact? Only in one of two ways. Either we must confess our blindess and seek the opening of our eyes; or else we must accept the light and walk by it. What we may not do, yet all strive to do, is to keep our eyes half-open and live by half the light. That kind of sight holds us to our sin and our sin to us. But the only way of avoiding it is to look with eyes wide open upon ourselves and the world as the full light reveals it; but this is the surrender of faith, and pride resists it." For the concept of "having" sin see on 15:22. Cf. H. C. Kee and F. W. Young, "those who claim that they see do not know they are blind"; further, "the sin of the Pharisees" is that they "walk in the light of their own knowledge, believing it to be the true light" (The Living World of the New Testament [London, 1971], p. 403

↑ Back to top