It was rare to come across one who was blind from birth. Many became blind in later life, but to be blind from birth was so extreme that people assumed that there had to be some extreme sin somewhere in the family to account for such a radical judgment on a child.

1. John 9 Verse by Verse Commentary
Witten and edited by Glenn Pease
Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from
birth.
1. It was rare to come across one who was blind from birth. Many became blind in
later life, but to be blind from birth was so extreme that people assumed that there
had to be some extreme sin somewhere in the family to account for such a radical
judgment on a child.
2. In contrast to chapter 8 where Jesus is rejected and the leaders wanted to stone
him, this chapter starts off with a scene of Jesus showing divine grace and mercy to
one that most would not dream of helping, for he was obviously cursed of God to be
born blind. Pink comments, "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man." How blessed.
The Savior was not occupied with His own sorrows to the exclusion of those of
others. The absence of appreciation and the presence of hatred in almost all around
Him, did not check that blessed One in His unwearied service to others, still less did
He abandon it. Love "suffereth long," and "beareth all things" (1 Cor. 13). And
Christ was Love incarnate, therefore did the stream of Divine goodness flow on
unhindered by all man’s wickedness. How this perfection of Christ rebukes our
imperfections, our selfishness!"
3. I share the following paragraph to make it clear that many babies have been born
blind even in our country due to no sin related activity of the parents.
"The World Health Organization estimates that about 100,000 children each year
are born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), a major cause of severe birth
defects such as blindness, deafness, heart disease, and mental retardation. When
pregnant mothers get rubella, a highly contagious otherwise-minor illness, the
results for their babies can be devastating. Most of the 100,000 victims each year are
in developing nations – although the first nation to eliminate CRS was Cuba, who
did it in the mid 1990s with an aggressive immunization program. On March 21,
2005, the United States formally and officially declared itself free of rubella. This is
a major public health milestone. Rubella peaked in the United States in the mid
1960s when one epidemic caused an estimated 12.5 million cases of rubella in the
U.S., leading to 20,000 cases of CRS which according to the CDC was responsible
for “more than 11,600 babies born deaf, 11,250 fetal deaths, 2,100 neonatal deaths,
3,580 babies born blind and 1,800 babies born mentally retarded.” Cases of rubella

2. fell rapidly after the vaccine was introduced in 1969. In 1989, the CDC set a goal of
eliminating rubella from the United States, and 2005 is the year of celebrating this
major success." New babies around the world still suffer from this disease.
4. Blindness was one of the problems that Jesus healed in large numbers. The three
synoptic gospels describe a variety of individuals, and numbers of the blind being
healed by Jesus, whereas in John's gospel we have only one record. Examples of
indefinite numbers include Matthew 21:14 "And the blind and the lame came to
him in the temple; and he healed them." Luke 7:21 "And in that same hour he
cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that
were blind he gave sight." John's Gospel just focuses on this one blind man.
5. Larry Hiles tells of one man's compassion for the blind that led to his greatest
honor. He wrote, "The 1964 Philadelphia Phillies will always be known as the team
that suffered one of the great collapses in sports history. They let a huge division
lead slip away by losing ten games in a row at the end of the season. Despite the
collapse, the Phillies season had its share of memorable moments, including a
perfect game and a ninth-inning home run by a Phillie to win the All-Star Game.
But the most remarkable moment of the entire season occurred after a game, not
during it. Clay Dalrymple, a Phillie pitcher, was asked to assist a blind girl who had
requested a chance to walk out on the field. Dalrymple took the girl to home plate
where she reached down and felt the plate. Then they walked to first base, second
base, and third base before ending up at home plate once again.
While Dalrymple was showing the girl around the bases, he never noticed that the
fans remaining in the stadium had stopped to watch him and his companion. He just
assumed that the silence in the stands meant the fans had gone home. But when the
two of them finally reached home plate, the ballpark erupted. Dalrymple was
shocked by the applause. When he looked up, he saw thousands of fans giving him a
standing ovation. Later, Dalrymple told a Sports Illustrated reporter, “It was the
biggest ovation I ever got.”
2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this
man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
1. The disciples were products of their time, and they assumed, as was the custom of
the day, that all tragedy was the result of some sin. They were interested in knowing
just who did the sin that produced a baby that was born blind. It was a terrible
tragedy to the parents and the child, and so somebody had to be really guilty of
something seriously evil. This kind of thinking never goes away, and so even though
they had the book of Job that should have put an end to this thinking, they are still
locked into a false view of suffering. The fact is, the parents and grandparents of this
child may have been far more godly and sin free than the majority of people who

3. had perfectly normal children. The blindness had nothing to do with any personal
sin of the child or someone among its relatives. Bad things happen to good people all
the time, and they have no connection with sin in their lives. These disciples are
typical of either/or people at this point. They only have two options. Is it the parents
of the man himself. This type of thinking also leads to many false conclusions in life.
Quite often their is a third alternative, as is the case here, but people do not consider
that as an option, and so the choose one of just two and make the wrong choice
either way. Jesus is constantly rejecting either/or, and black or white issues by giving
a third way of seeing things.
1b. James Forbes writes, "Now Jesus was upset with that question they were asking
him. How disappointing the question was. Had the disciples not heard earlier in the
day how Jesus was eager to silence the sin patrollers who had brought that woman
just to judge her? Had he not condemned the judgmental spirit about holding
traditional understandings so tightly that they are more important than mercy and
compassion? Hadn't Jesus told the people, "Don't be so zealous for righteousness
that you are willing to condemn everybody who is different from yourself." So can
you feel Jesus' disappointment? "Not my own disciples, the ones who have been
learning from me these years." How could they now be like the canine crew at the
controls for customs on the conveyer belt where the dogs are sniffing frantically
trying to find some contraband? Could it be that Jesus' advocates are as blind as his
adversaries regarding what Jesus stands for and why he had been sent into the
world?"
2. One could answer the question, “Who sinned?” by saying Adam and Eve, for it
was a fallen world where many bad things can happen because it is fallen due to
their sin, but this was not what the disciples were getting at. They wanted to see a
direct link to someone’s sinful acts and this blind child. They wanted to hear that the
mother had an affair, or that the parents had sex on the Sabbath, or some other
logical reason for this child being cursed with blindness. They had simplistic minds
that saw life as black and white, with a clear link between suffering and sin.
3. A few quotes from my sermon on this passage will illustrate the folly of asking this
question about anyone's suffering. To read the whole sermon go to
http://glennpease.250free.com/ISSUES_OF_SUFFERING.htm
Show me a simple solution to the problem of suffering, and I will show you a heresy
that will fit neither the revelation of God, nor the experience of man. The Jews had a
simple answer to suffering that was superficial. If you are good you will be happy,
and if you are not happy, you are not good. Simple solutions are none the less the
most popular and widely held by the intelligent and ignorant alike. Here are the
disciples of Christ who are hand picked by the Master Himself, and they view
suffering with the same old worn out theory held by the friends of Job. They
assume that such a terrible fate as being born blind had to be the result of
somebody's sin. It was so logical and obvious to them that they did not even see the
cruelty of it. They are asking, who is guilty for such an awful thing: His parents or

4. himself. In other words, who do we blame when this horrible reality occurs? What
kind of parents must they have been to give birth to such a monstrosity as a blind
baby? Or what kind of a low life scoundrel must he be that God would punish him
at birth for the sins he foresaw that he would commit?
We want life to be simple, and we want to have easy answers that give meaning to
life. We want life to be black and white where the good guys are escaping suffering,
and the bad guys are getting their due reward of judgment. If life was only like the
movies, but it is not, and often the real life story has the bad guys getting by with
murder, and the good guys being the ones getting murdered. So it was with Able,
John the Baptist, Stephen, and on and on. Simple answers are not always false, but
they are so often foolish and cruel when applied to specific situations.
Simple answers are convenient, but they are often worthless or cruel. Harold
Kushner in his book When Bad Things Happen To Good People writes, "I once read
of an Iranian folk proverb, ' If you see a blind man, kick him; why should you be
kinder than God?' In other words, if you see someone who is suffering, you must
believe that he deserves his fate and that God wants him to suffer. Therefore, put
yourself on God's side by shunning Him or humiliating Him further. If you try to
help him, you will be going against God's justice." It is simple solutions like this
that make so many religious people cruel and without compassion.
4. These very men would one day be severely persecuted and suffer death that was
very unjust, and by then they would have learned that suffering is not linked to sin,
but sometimes suffering is due to not sinning. Had they rejected Christ and not
preached the Gospel they would not have been imprisoned and killed. They will
learn that the righteous often suffer the afflictions that even the most wicked do not
have to endure. They will understand that the world is filled with suffering of all
kinds that has no relationship to any personal sin of those who suffer. But at this
stage they are simple minded and accept the common beliefs of their age, that all
suffering is the punishment for some sin.
5. A number of commentators, including Calvin, say the Jews at this time believed in
the transmigration of souls, and that means they believed the sins of a former life
passed into another body, and that person suffered for those sins of his former life,
and so even a baby could be suffering for its sins of the past. A later rabbinic work
states that when a pregnant woman worships in a heathen temple the fetus also
commits idolatry. This is only one example of how, in rabbinic Jewish thought, an
unborn child was capable of sinning. Calvin writes, “It was truly monstrous, that so
gross an error should have found a place among the elect people of God, in the midst
of which the light of heavenly wisdom had been kindled by the Law and the
Prophets.” This would explain how they could possibly believe that the man himself
was the cause of his being born blind.
6. John MacArthur points out that today we know of medical reasons for why
children are born blind, and it is due to the sins of the parents. He writes,

5. "Medically the answer would most likely have been his parents. You say, "What do
you mean by that?" Just this, gonorrhea, the venereal disease, is in the mother, the
most common cause of total blindness in the next generation. When the mother is
infected with gonorrhea, the eyes of the baby can become infected even as it passes
through the birth canal. This has been a common disease around the world, the
infection of gonorrhea of newborn babies is very severe. It scars their eyes so that
they cannot see. For example, in Africa and in the East, there are multiplied
thousands of blind babies that are born, most of them blinded by gonorrhea." Jesus
denies that there is any such sin behind this case of blindness.
7. Intervarsity Press Commentary, “Jesus' statement touches on the theme of
suffering. There is a sense in which every aspect of our lives, including our own
suffering, is an occasion for the manifestation of God's glory and his purposes.
Scripture describes four types of suffering viewed in terms of causes or purposes (cf.
John Cassian Conferences 6.11): first, suffering as a proving or testing of our faith
(Gen 22; Deut 8:2; Job); second, suffering meant for improvement, for our
edification (Heb 12:5-8); third, suffering as punishment for sin (Deut 32:15-25; Jer
30:15; Jn 5:14); and fourth, suffering that shows forth God's glory, as here in our
story and later in the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11:4). To these should be added a fifth
form of suffering, that which comes from bearing witness to Christ, illustrated by
what happens to this former blind man in being cast out of the synagogue.”
8. Maclaren wrote, "That is all that the sight of sorrow does for some people. It
leads to censorious judgments, or to mere idle and curious speculations. Christ lets
us see what it did for Him, and what it is meant to do for us. 'Neither hath this man
sinned nor his parents, but he is born blind that the works of God may be made
manifest in him.' That is to say, human sorrow is to be looked at by us as an
opportunity for the manifestation through us of God's mercy in relieving and
stanching the wounds through which the lifeblood is ebbing away. Do not stand
coldly curious or uncharitably censorious. Do not make miserable men theological
problems, but see in them a call for service. See in them an opportunity for letting
the light of God, so much of it as is in you, shine from you, and your hands move in
works of mercy."
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said
Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God
might be displayed in his life.
1. It must have shocked them to hear Jesus rule out sin as the cause of this tragedy.
That put a big hole in their theory that all suffering is the result of sin. Sin is not a

6. part of the big picture here at all. The disciples and Pharisees, and people in general
with a false view of suffering would look down on this family and this man, for they
would suspect some sin in their past as the reason for their suffering. This is a sad
way of seeing suffering people, for it kills compassion and sympathy. Suffering
people need caring for and encouragement, and not judgment that comes from the
suspicion that they deserve their misery because of something they have done.
Pink wrote, "It is so easy to assume the role of judge and pass sentence upon
another. This was the sin of Job’s friends, recorded for our learning and warning.
The same spirit is displayed among some of the "Faith-healing" sects of our day.
With them the view largely obtains that sickness is due to some sin in the life, and
that where healing is withheld it is because that sin is unconfessed. But this is a very
harsh and censorious judgment, and must frequently be erroneous. Moreover, it
tends strongly to foster pride. If I am enjoying better health than many of my
fellows, the inference would be, it is because I am not so great a sinner as they! The
Lord deliver us from such reprehensible Phariseeism."
2. This particular tragedy of blindness was a part of the providence of God in this
man’s life, so that the special work of God might be put on display in his life, and
the miraculous and loving work of God was displayed in him being made to see. In
other words, he was an example of the healing power of God to deal with the most
difficult problems that life can throw at us. Some people may be blind due to the
sinful folly of taking drugs that lead to birth defects, but that is not the case here.
This man is blind for the glory of God, for God intends to show his loving power in
him by restoring his sight.
3. Weatherhead wrote, "Jesus says, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents. But
that the works of God should be made manifest in him I must work the works of
him that sent me while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." In
other words Jesus is saying, "Don't let us argue why the man is blind. Let us make
him better. It wasn't his own fault or that of his parents; but instead of arguing
about it, what we must get done before nightfall is the work of God in making him
better." What Jesus says is: don't argue; get on with the cure. In the cure the work
of God is made manifest." My comment here is that Jesus is not concerned with the
cause, but with the cure. When you see suffering do not bother to figure out why it
exists, but do what you can to eliminate it. You can never know all the why's of
suffering, but you can focus on the how to make it better, and that is what the Great
Physician did.
4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him
who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can
work.

7. 1. Jesus knew it was the Sabbath, and that he would be greatly condemned if he
healed this man, but he says there is an urgent need to work while it is day, for night
will come and the work will be over. In other words, he will be killed in about 6
months, and there will be no more opportunity to do works that glorify God, like
healing a blind man. Jesus is saying I have to do this now, even though it is the
Sabbath, for it will soon be too late. Jesus is saying he just cannot put this off. He
has to take the risk of causing serious trouble for himself by healing this man.
2. Jesus was a man of action. There is a legend about a man sinking into quicksand
when Confucious came by and remarked, "There is evidence men should stay out of
such places." Buddha came by and said, "Let that life be a lesson to the rest of the
world." Mohammed said, "Alas, it is the will of 'Allah." The Hindu said to him,
"Cheer up friend, you will return to earth in another form." But Jesus came by and
saw his plight and said, "Give me your hand, brother, and I will pull you out." Jesus
did not deal with suffering with philosophy or theology, but with work. The disciples
are focused on the origin of the problem, but Jesus is focused on the outcome.
Others can sit around and speculate how such a problem ever came to be, but he
goes to work to solve the problem and set the victum free.
3. Notice the word "we" in this verse. Jesus includes his disciples, and all believers
in the work of showing compassion to a suffering world. Barclay wrote, "Any kind
of suffering is an opportunity to demonstrate the glory of God in our own lives.
Second, by helping those who are in trouble or in pain, we can demonstrate to others
the glory of God. Frank Laubach has the great thought that when Christ, who is the
Way, enters into us "we become part of the Way. God's highway runs straight
through us." When we spend ourselves to help those in trouble, in distress, in pain,
in sorrow, in affliction, God is using us as the highway by which he sends his help
into the lives of his people. To help a fellow-man in need is to manifest the glory of
God, for it is to show what God is like." Practical Christianity is not in seeking for
the sin that causes suffering, but in seeking for the cure of the sufferer. The
Pharisees looked for the sin cause, and this led to condemnation, but Jesus looked
for the simple cure, and this led to compassion.
4. Matthew Henry wrote, "The period of his opportunity was at hand, and therefore
he would be busy; The night comes when no man can work. Note, The consideration
of our death approaching should quicken us to improve all the opportunities of life,
both for doing and getting good. The night comes, it will come certainly, may come
suddenly, is coming nearer and nearer. We cannot compute how nigh our sun is, it
may go down at noon; nor can we promise ourselves a twilight between the day of
life and the night of death. When the night comes we cannot work, because the light
afforded us to work by is extinguished; the grave is a land of darkness, and our
work cannot be done in the dark. And, besides, our time allotted us for our work
will then have expired; when our Master tied us to duty he tied us to time too; when
night comes, call the labourers; we must then show our work, and receive according
to the things done. In the world of retribution we are no longer probationers; it is

8. too late to bid when the inch of candle is dropped. Christ uses this as an argument
with himself to be diligent, though he had no opposition from within to struggle
with; much more need have we to work upon our hearts these and the like
considerations to quicken us."
5. What would you think of a doctor who came upon the scene of a terrible accident,
where injured people were laying on the ground broken and bleeding, and he did
not begin immediately giving his attention to how he could help these suffering
people? What if he began to measure the skid marks, and check the speedometers in
the cars involved, and did all kinds of investigating of the cause of the accident, but
did not come to the aid of the victums? Such is the case with people who do all kinds
of philosophizing about suffering, but do not lift a hand to actually help the
suffering. Jesus was the Great Physician because his first concern was not with
speculation, or with investigation, but with compassion for the suffering. He acted to
heal this man, while others would spend years speculating about why he was blind.
6. The work of God in the world is to eliminate the defects that come about due to a
fallen world. G. Campbell Morgan put it forcefully when he wrote, "Every clrippled
childl is contrary to the willl of God; every mentally deficient man or woman is
contrary to the will of god; every spiritually inefficient being is contrary to the will
of God." He is saying that it is God's will to do all we can to eliminate all the defects
that hinder people from living a normal life. Thank God there are doctors all over
the world doing just what Jesus did, and they are finding more and more ways to
prevent and cure the defects that cause people to be born abnormal, or develop
abnormally. Much has been done, but there is alway more to be done, and it is all
because it is God's will that it be done.
7. Mike Fogerson gives some historical examples where putting things off led to the
night coming when work could be done no more. He wrote, "Billy Graham was at a
hotel in Seattle, fast asleep when he was awakened with a powerful burden to pray
for Marilyn Monroe. (The next morning his burden was stronger and he had his
assistant call Monroe to set up an appointment.) A Monroe’s agent made it difficult.
She was too busy, she would meet with the Reverend Graham-sometime. "Not now,
maybe two weeks from now."Two weeks were too little too late. She committed
suicide.
D.L. Moody was preaching in Chicago on October 8, 1871. He was preaching a
message "What will you do with Jesus?" He concluded his sermon by saying, "I
wish you would seriously consider this subject, for next Sunday we’ll speak about
the cross. Then I’ll ask you, ‘What will you do with Jesus?’" They concluded the
service with a hymn, but the hymn never got completed-the roar of the fire engines
filled the auditorium. The famous Chicago fire of 1871 broke out that very night and
almost wiped the city off the map. That sermon on the cross never came. Afterward
Moody often said, "I have never since dared to give an audience a week to think of
their salvation." It haunted him . How many were ready? How many were hearing
the voice of God, and would have laid their souls before Christ that evening?"

9. 8. In the year 1269 the Mongal Emperor, Kublai Khan, sent an envoy to Rome
asking for a hundred missionaries to be sent to his capital in order that his people
might be taught a better understanding of Christ, and that the East and the West
might be tied together by religious devotion. All China, Central Asia, and Russia
were under the rule of the Mighty Kublai Khan... But Rome was too busy. The
college of Cardinals was quarreling over which one shoud be Pope, and political
squabbles went on for months. Eventually two Dominican friers were sent, but it
was too late. The church missed the chance of a lifetime to have impacted half of the
world for Christ. They did not work while it was day, and the night came when they
could work no more.
9. Maclaren has a gem of an insight into the word "must" on the lips of Jesus in this
text. He wrote, "There are two kinds of 'musts' in our lives. There is the unwelcome
necessity which grips us with iron and sharpened fangs; the needs-be which crushes
down hopes and dreams and inclinations, and forces the slave to his reluctant task.
And there is the 'must' which has passed into the will, into the heart, and has
moulded the inmost desire to conformity with the obligation which no more stands
over against us as a taskmaster with whip and chain, but has passed within us and is
there an inspiration and a joy. He that can say, as Jesus Christ in His humanity
could, and did say: 'My meat'--the refreshment of my nature, the necessary
sustenance of my being--'is to do the will of my Father'; that man, and that man
alone, feels no pressure that is pain from the incumbency of the necessity that
blessedly rules His life. When 'I will' and 'I choose' coincide, like two of Euclid's
triangles atop of one another, line for line and angle for angle, then comes liberty
into the life. He that can say, not with a knitted brow and an unwilling ducking of
his head to the yoke, 'I must do it,' but can say, 'Thy law is within my heart,' that is
the Christlike, the free, the happy man." It is not the must of I have to do this, but
the must of I get to do this that makes doing the will of God life's greatest pleasure.
10. Great Texts says, "Christ felt this necessity. With Christ it was not, " I may
if I will " ; not, " I can if I like " ; not the mere possibility and
the mere potentiality of work, but an imperious necessity "I
must! He could not help Himself. If we may use such words
concerning One who was none the less Divine that He was human,
He was under restraint ; He was bound ; He was compelled. The
cords which bound Him, however, were the cords of His Deity.
They were the cords of love which bound Him who is love. " I
must work." It was because He loved the sons of men so well
that He could not sit still and see them perish. He could not
come down from heaven and stand here robed in our mortal
flesh, and be an impassive, careless, loitering spectator of so much
evil, so much misery. His heart beat high with desire. He
thirsted to be doing good, and His greatest and grandest act,
His sacrifice of Himself, was a baptism with which He had to be
baptized, and He was straitened until it was accomplished.
As Christ s followers, this necessity is ours. " We must

10. work." Christ associates His disciples with Himself in His Divine
enterprise of mercy. They, too, are commissioned to " destroy the
works of the devil," and the range of their activity must be co
extensive with their Lord s. Physical suffering, and all that
makes for physical suffering unjust conditions of living, insanitary
dwellings, inadequate and misdirected education, harsh and
unequal laws, oppressive social conventions all the perennial
springs of human misery and disgrace are within the sphere of
that redemptive mission which was Christ s in Palestine nearly
two millenniums ago, and is Christ s still, wherever His true
disciples are found."
If you go back and read item 3 under the first verse you will see that compassion for
suffering people led to the development of a vaccine that ended the massive number
of babies being born blind. That is the continuing work of Christ in the world, and
medical missionaries are carrying on this work all over the world in the name of
Jesus who was compelled to heal this man born blind.
5While I am in the world, I am the light of the
world."
1. What better way to reveal that I am the light of the world than by opening this
man’s eyes to the light so that he can see for the first time in his life? I cannot let him
remain in darkness, for I am the light of the world and must let this man see the
light I bring to all the world. This man would not only see the light of the sun, but he
would see the light of the Son. As long as he was alive in this world Jesus had to
bring light to people, and he had to heal this blind man, for giving light was his
purpose in life. Even Jesus had a limited time to show forth the love and grace of
God in the world. He had to redeem the time and make every Sabbath count, for
this is when people would be gathered as on no other day.
I am the Light.
I will be kind.
I will end the night,
Of this man born blind.
2. John MacArthur expresses the urgency of Christ this way, "He is still the light
but He is not in the purest sense in the world physically ministering and He says I've
only got so much time as long as I'm in the world I'm the light of the world and I've
got to get at it. The Father put Me here to light this world, now let's go. You've got a
man here who needs light, let's get at him." "I like that. Don't you like that
compulsion of Jesus? If anybody could have sat back and depended on sovereignty,

11. He could, right? Relax, guys, (snap) it's all in My control. No, let's work, let's work,
we've got a blind man, let's give him light, see. Urgency was in Jesus Christ's
attitude. And He was God and He knew the end from the beginning and He was in a
hurry. And so He says I'm the light of the world as long as I'm here. You know, He
was light physically for this man, wasn't He? He was going to touch those eyes, those
sightless eyes, those motionless eyes and He was going to open them and recreate
their sight and that blind man was about to behold the light of day. For the first time
in his life He'd see the glory of the dawn. He could look at the sky, the sunset, the
irresistible hills of Jerusalem and the surrounding country and most of all, he could
see the valleys and the rivers and the people that he loved. He was the light
physically. But, oh, far beyond that, Jesus was the light of his soul. Jesus was going
to open his soul. And He did. Over in verse 38 He opened that man's soul. That man
said to Him, "Lord...what?...I believe," and he fell down and worshiped Him."
3. Henry points out that Jesus wasted no time in letting his light shine, but went
right to the task of meeting the need. He wrote, "He did not defer it till he could do
it either more privately, for his greater safety, or more publicly, for his greater
honour, or till the sabbath was past, when it would give less offence. What good we
have opportunity of doing we should do quickly; he that will never do a good work
till there is nothing to be objected against it will leave many a good work for ever
undone, Ecclesiastes 11:4, which says, "He that observeth the wind shall not sow;
and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap."
6Having said this, he spit on the ground, made
some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's
eyes.
1. Charles W. Holt wrote, "It is a fallacy and misunderstanding to think that God
always works according to certain clearly defined laws of logic and decorum. It is a
mistake to think that He cannot deviate from conventional, acceptable methods that
are easily understood by the majority. Scripture, and life’s experience, show God is
not limited by anything. These verses are a case in point.
Peter’s shadow passing over people in the street and their being healed is another.
Cloths and handkerchiefs from Paul that brings healing to the sick and drives out
demons is another.
Jesus used several "unconventional" methods to bring healing.
1. He touched a leper
2. He spoke a word while miles away from a sick person
3. He made a mudpack by spitting upon the clay soil. Placing it upon a man’s eyes
he told him to go and wash it off.
4. He forgave a man’s sins to bring healing.

12. 5. He took a dead girl by the hand and raised her from the dead
6. He stood in front of the tomb of Lazarus and called loudly for the dead to come
out.
7. He put his fingers in a deaf man’s ears, spit,touched his tongue.
8. He spit on a blind man’s eyes after leading him out of town.
9. Jesus stood over Peter’s mother-in-law and rebuked the raging fever. Etc., Etc.
1B. Spittle was a known medicine in that day, and Jesus was just using something
that had meaning to the blind man. He could have just said to him to begin seeing,
or “be healed,” but the man was blind and could not see Jesus. Jesus gave him
something he could feel on his eyes, and this gave the man a physical reason to have
faith that something was going to happen. The feel of the mud would stimulate hope
and expectation. In other words, faith needs some foundation. There has to be some
evidence to believe, and this mud was just the thing that could give the man hope.
There was no real healing power in the mud to heal blindness. It was a miracle of
Christ’s power, but he used the mud as a prop, or what we mean by the use of a
sugar pill to arouse hope and faith. Calvin wrote, “The intention of Christ was, to
restore sight to the blind man, but he commences the operation in a way which
appears to be highly absurd; for, by anointing his eyes with clay, he in some respects
doubles the blindness Who would not have thought either that he was mocking the
wretched man, or that he was practicing senseless and absurd fooleries? But in this
way he intended to try the faith and obedience of the blind man, that he might be an
example to all.”
2. William Barclay has several paragraphs on the use of spittle in the ancient world
that makes it likely that Jesus used it to give the blind man a sense of being treated
by a doctor. He writes,
"This is one of two miracles in which Jesus is said to have used spittle to effect a
cure. The other is the miracle of the deaf stammerer (Mk.7:33). The use of spittle
seems to us strange and repulsive and unhygienic; but in the ancient world it was
quite common. Spittle, and especially the spittle of some distinguished person, was
believed to possess certain curative qualities. Tacitus tells how, when Vespasian
visited Alexandria, there came to him two men, one with diseased eyes and one with
a diseased hand, who said that they had been advised by their god to come to him.
The man with the diseased eyes wished Vespasian "to moisten his eye-balls with
spittle"; the man with the diseased hand wished Vespasian "to trample on his hand
with the sole of his foot." Vespasian was very unwilling to do so but was finally
persuaded to do as the men asked. "The hand immediately recovered its power; the
blind man saw once more. Both facts are attested to this day, when falsehood can
bring no reward, by those who were present on the occasion" (Tacitus, Histories 4: 8
1).
Pliny, the famous Roman collector of what was then called scientific information,
has a whole chapter on the use of spittle. He says that it is a sovereign preservative
against the poison of serpents; a protection against epilepsy; that lichens and

13. leprous spots can be cured by the application of fasting spittle; that ophthalmia can
be cured by anointing the eyes every morning with fasting spittle; that carcinomata
and crick in the neck can be cured by the use of spittle. Spittle was held to be very
effective in averting the evil eye. Perseus tells how the aunt or the grandmother, who
fears the gods and is skilled in averting the evil eye, will lift the baby from his cradle
and "with her middle finger apply the lustrous spittle to his forehead and slobbering
lips." The use of spittle was very common in the ancient world. To this day, if we
burn a finger our first instinct is to put it into our mouth; and there are many who
believe that warts can be cured by licking them with fasting spittle.
The fact is that Jesus took the methods and customs of his time and used them. He
was a wise physician; he had to gain the confidence of his patient. It was not that he
believed in these things, but he kindled expectation by doing what the patient would
expect a doctor to do. After all, to this day the efficacy of any medicine or treatment
depends at least as much on the patient's faith in it as in the treatment or the drug
itself."
Vincent's N. T. word studies adds this information: "The spittle was regarded as
having a peculiar virtue, not only as a remedy for diseases of the eye, but generally
as a charm, so that it was employed in incantations. Persius, describing an old crone
handling an infant, says: "She takes the babe from the cradle, and with her middle
finger moistens its forehead and lips with spittle to keep away the evil eye" ("Sat.,"
2, 32, 33). Tacitus relates how one of the common people of Alexandria importuned
Vespasian for a remedy for his blindness, and prayed him to sprinkle his cheeks and
the balls of his eyes with the secretion of his mouth ("History," 4, 81). Pliny says:
"We are to believe that by continually anointing each morning with fasting saliva
(i.e., before eating), inflammations of the eyes are prevented" ("Natural History,"
28, 7)."
3. The Intervarsity Commentary adds this note about the spittle not being used
alone, but by making a sort of clay paste to put on the eye. "But for the healer to
make clay out of spittle and use it for healing is unusual. John emphasizes this mud
in the repeated recounting of the event by the former blind man (9:6, 11, 15) and
also by including it where it is unnecessary (v. 14). K. H. Rengstorf suggests that this
emphasis may be intended to draw a contrast with Aesculapius, but more likely the
allusion is to the biblical picture of God as a potter and human beings as clay (for
example, Job 10:9; Is 45:9; 64:8; Jer 18:6; Sirach 33:13; cf. Rom 9:21). Irenaeus
picks up this allusion when he interprets this story in the light of the creation of man
from the ground (Gen 2:7), for "the work of God [cf. Jn 9:3] is the fashioning of
man" (Against Heresies 5.15.2). Thus, "that which the artificer, the Word, had
omitted to form in the womb, [namely, the blind man's eyes], He then supplied in
public, that the works of God might be manifested in him" (Irenaeus Against
Heresies 5.15.2). In this way Jesus revealed his own glory, "for no small glory was it
that He should be deemed the Architect of the creation" (Chrysostom In John 56.2).
This story illustrates the truth revealed in John's prologue that Jesus, the Word, is
the one through whom all things were made, having in himself the life that is "the

14. light of men" (1:3-4). While many modern scholars would agree with C. K. Barrett
that Irenaeus's interpretation is "improbable" (Barrett 1978:358), the association
with the prologue actually makes it likely--all the more so as this story follows
directly Jesus' clear expression of his claim to divinity (8:58)."
4. Jesus was practicing medicine on the Sabbath, and this was a major issue with the
Pharisees who forbid such things. Jesus said by his acts that it is nonsense to forbid
healing and doing acts of kindness on the Sabbath.
5. Jesus used spittle in the healing of a deaf mute (Mark 7:33) and in the healing of a
blind man (Mark 8:23) “The Marcan spittle miracles seem to have been deliberately
omitted by Matthew and Luke. The use of spittle was part of the primitive tradition
about Jesus but left him open to a charge of engaging in magical practice.”
(Raymond Brown, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, V. I, p. 372)
6. Maclaren wrote, "In the other Gospels He heals sometimes because of the
pleading of the sufferer; sometimes because of the request of compassionate friends
or bystanders; sometimes unasked, because His own heart went out to those that
were in pain and sickness. But in John's Gospel, predominantly we have the Son of
God, who acts throughout as moved by His own deep heart. That view of Christ
reaches its climax in His own profound words about His own laying down of His life:
'I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world. Again, I leave the world
and go unto the Father.' So, not so much influenced by others as deriving motive
and impulse and law from Himself, He moves upon earth a fountain and not a
reservoir, the Originator and the Beginner of the blessings that He bears.
7.
Jesus healed this poor blind man’s eyes
By a method that comes as quite a surprise.
He just used the nearest thing he found,
And spit his saliva out on the ground.
The end result, you would think, was just crud,
But Jesus turned it into eye healing mud.
The blind man could have said, “I feel like a fool.”
But he obeyed what Jesus said, and washed in the pool.
That act of obedience changed his whole being,
For he came home with eyes that were seeing. Glenn Pease
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.

15. Jesus the Sent One sent him to the pool of sent. He went and reveals that miracles
are only possible by the power and grace of God, but sometimes God expects acts of
cooperation without which the miracle will not happen. He got his miracle because
he went to sent; adding his consent and content to this awesome event. Had he gone
home in disbelief in the nonsense of mud on his eye, he would have been blind from
birth till the day of his death. It is wise when we pray for a miracle to do all that we
know that may be what is expected of us if we really believe it will happen. In other
words, we are to assume that God wants us to cooperate and do our part in seeing
the miracle happen. The spit, the clay, and the water of Siloam may have had no
power to bring about the miracle, but the obedience of the blind man certainly did.
1. Many times Jesus heals on the spot with no action called for on the part of those
healed, but here he sends him away to wash in the well-known pool. Jesus is asking
this man to demonstrate his faith by action, and the man does just that, and is
greatly rewarded for his faith in action. He comes home seeing. Notice, the first
place he goes is to his home to see for the first time the parents who have loved him
through all these years of blindness. Can you imagine the joyful response of that
whole family? Henry notes, "The evangelist takes notice of the signification of the
name, its being interpreted sent. Christ is often called the sent of God, the
Messenger of the covenant (Malachi 3:1); so that when Christ sent him to the pool of
Siloam he did in effect send him to himself; for Christ is all in all to the healing of
souls. Christ as a prophet directs us to himself as a priest. Go, wash in the fountain
opened, a fountain of life, not a pool."
2. Calvin points out, “The astonishing goodness of God is displayed in this respect,
that he comes of his own accord to cure the blind man, and does not wait for his
prayers to bestow help. And, indeed, since we are by nature averse to him, if he do
not meet us before we call on him, and anticipate by his mercy us who are plunged
in the forgetfulness of light and life, we are ruined.” Calvin is pointing out that
sometimes God answers prayer even before it is uttered. This is relevant to a study
we will be doing at verse 31 on the prayers of non-believers.
3. John MacArthur has this comment, "...this is the only miracle in the gospels
where Jesus is recorded to have healed a congenitally ill person...that is it's the only
case of somebody born with a disease that Jesus healed. And I believe John makes a
key thing out of this to show that there's no possibility of criticism that Christ had
absolute and total divine miracle power to do things without the natural processes,
without any medical assistance, without any psychological dramatics, pure creative
healing."
4. The Intervarsity Commentary says, "The healing was not effected until the man
obeyed Jesus' command: Go . . . wash in the Pool of Siloam (9:7). Why didn't Jesus
just heal him on the spot, as he did others? Why send a blind man, in particular, on
such a journey? There must be something involved here that contributes to the

16. revealing of God's work. Perhaps the man's obedience is significant, revealing that
he shares a chief characteristic of Jesus' true disciples. Like Naaman the Syrian (2
Kings 5:10-14), this man obeys God's command to go and wash and is healed. Also
like Naaman, he is able to bear witness to God as a result (2 Kings 5:15). But John's
parenthetical note that Siloam means Sent (v. 7) suggests more than the man's
obedience is involved. References to Siloah, the stream associated with the pool of
Siloam (Shiloah in Gen 49:10 [NIV margin]; Shiloah in Is 8:6), were seen as
messianic (Genesis Rabbah 98:8; Gen 49:10 in Targum Onqelos; b. Sanhedrin 94b;
98b). This fits with the emphasis in John's Gospel on Jesus as the one sent from the
Father, including such an emphasis in the immediate context (8:16, 18, 29, 42;
10:36). Thus, both the healing itself and the details involved point to Jesus as the
Messiah. Here is an example of the triumph of the light over the darkness (1:5)."
5. It is almost shocking how simply this miracle is recorded. He went, he washed,
and he came home seeing. Henry says it reminded him of Caesar saying, "I came, I
saw, I conquered."
6. Bob Deffinbaugh points out, "It is not without significance that Jesus is recorded
to have performed more miracles of restoring sight than of any other kind of healing
(cf. Matthew 9:27-31; 12:22f.; 15:30f.; 21:14; Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52; Luke
7:21f.)."
7. Maclaren wrote, "He heals at a distance. We have here a parallel with the story of
the nobleman's son at Capernaum, which we have already considered. There, too,
we have the same phenomenon, the healing power sent forth from the Master, and
operating far away from His corporeal personal presence. This was a test of faith, as
the use of the clay had been a help to faith. Still He works His healing from afar,
because to Him there is neither near nor far. In His divine ubiquity, that Son of
Man, who in His glorified manhood is at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
is here and everywhere where there are weakness and suffering that turn to Him;
ready to help, ready to bless and heal. 'Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end
of the world.' "
8. “The pool of Siloam was (and still is) a real place in Jerusalem, at the southern
end of the tunnel that King Hezekiah built to bring in water to the city when it was
under seize by the Assyrians. Originally part of King Hezekiah’s tunnel, Siloam was
excavated in 1880, complete with an inscription enabling its identification.”

17. 9. Ray Stedman tells of his being here, and he wrote, "Last June my youngest
daughter and I were in Jerusalem, and we walked one afternoon from the temple
area down the deep declivity of the Kidron ravine to the pool of Siloam. It was a hot,
dusty afternoon, and there were many obstacles along the way. For a blind man to
traverse this would be very difficult. He would have to ask for directions and for
help, and he might easily fall into some of the crevices alongside the road on the way
down. It was a difficult journey the Lord sent him on, but when he found his way to
the pool, whose meaning is "Sent," then his eyes would be opened and he would be
washed and cleansed." What he is illustrating is that it took a great deal of faith on
the part of the blind man to make this journey, and so he believed Jesus was going
to heal him, and so it was worth all the effort to get to this difficult place. In other
words, it was a challenge to see if he really believed, and he did, for he made it. His
miracle did not come without a price.
10. W. Hall Harris III in his commentary gives this valuable information that shows
Jesus was fulfilling prophecy in this special miracle. He writes, "In the OT it is God
himself who is associated with the giving of sight to the blind (Exod 4:11, Ps 146:8).
In a number of passages in Isaiah (29:18, 35:5, 42:7) it is considered to be a
messianic activity:
Isa 29:17,18—”Is it not yet just a little while before Lebanon will be turned into a
fertile field, and the fertile field will be considered as a forest? And on that day the

18. deaf shall hear words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the
blind shall see…”
Isa 35:4-5—”Say to those with anxious heart, ‘Take courage, fear not. Behold, your
God will come with vengeance; the recompense of God will come, but he will save
you.’ Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will be
unstopped.”
Isa 42:6,7—”I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you
by the hand and watch over you, and I will appoint you as a covenant to the people,
as a light to the nations, to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the dungeon,
and those who dwell in darkness from the prison.”
It is in fulfillment of these prophecies that Jesus gives sight to the blind. As the Light
of the world he has defeated the darkness (cf. 1:5). Thus the miracle recorded here
has significance for John as one of the seven “sign-miracles” which he employs to
point to Jesus’ identity and messiahship. Because light and darkness is such an
important theme in the Fourth Gospel, the imagery here is particularly significant."
8His neighbors and those who had formerly seen
him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who
used to sit and beg?"
1. This blind man was a regular part of the environment, for he sat and begged for a
living for many years. It was the only occupation he could do, and so a good many
people were aware of who he was, for they had, no doubt, thrown a coin or two into
his lap. They are mystified now, for he is not sitting and begging but walking around
as a normal seeing man. He was a perfect man to receive this miracle, for he had a
place in the community that many people knew of, and so many would be touched
by this miracle. He would be the talk of the town.
9Some claimed that he was.
Others said, "No, he only looks like him."
But he himself insisted, "I am the man."
1. People can never agree on anything, and so here you have two sides to the issue of
is this really the blind man we have seen for years? There has to be two sides to

19. every issue it seems, for some know this is the man, for they have paid attention to
him over the years. Others are not sure, for they never really paid attention and got
to know him as a person. They felt it could not be the same man, for he was blind
from birth and nobody that is blind from birth ever sees again, and this guy is
seeing. How funny is this scene? The man himself has to get into the argument and
insist that he is the guy that has been sitting and begging for many years. “I am that
man,” he shouts to the skeptics. “I ought to know who I am, and I am the man.” It is
a hurorous scene to see this man trying to convince others that he is really the man
who was blind. He was fighting to prove his identity. The skeptics say, “You have got
to be kidding. How can you be the man when you are not a blind man?” We don’t
know all that went on before all the people were convinced, and maybe some went
home and never did believe he was the same man.
10"How then were your eyes opened?" they
demanded.
1. The believers in the crowd asked him how it could be that he now sees when he
was always blind from birth? They were more than just curious, for they demanded
to know how this miracle happened, for it was beyond anything they ever saw, or
even heard about.
11He 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."
1. He was a man of few words, for he told the whole story of his marvelous miracle
in three sentences, but he had all the basic information that anyone could ask for. He
had the who, the what, the where, and the how.
12"Where is this man?" they asked him.
"I don't know," he said.

20. He never went back to Jesus, but went on home, and had no idea where Jesus went
after he put the mud on him and sent him to the pool. It was quite a trip for him,
and he did not know what happened to Jesus in the meantime. This could have been
several hours from the time of the mud being applied to the time when he would be
seeing.
The Pharisees Investigate the Healing
13They brought to the Pharisees the man who
had been blind.
1. This man is seeing for the first time in his life, and not all that he is seeing this
first day is beautiful. He is going to see pride and arrogance, and unbelievable
blindness in the leaders of his people. He is going to see to what lengths men of
power will go to in order to reject what they do not want to be. He is going to see
hatred for a man who does only good, and who bring light and love to others. He is
going to see just how ugly man can be, and so his first day of sight will be far from a
pleasant one, for he has to see the Pharisees at their worst.
14Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud
and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath.
1. Calvin has some strong language about why Jesus deliberately chose to do
miracles on the Sabbath, and thereby provoke the Pharisees. He wrote, “Now it was
the Sabbath. Christ purposely selected the Sabbath-day, which must have given
ground of offense to the Jews. He had already found, in the case of the paralytic,
that this work was liable to slander. Why then does he not avoid the offense -- which
he could easily have done -- but because the defense malignantly undertaken by men
would tend to magnify the power of God? The Sabbath-day serves as a whetstone to
sharpen them, to inquire more eagerly into the whole matter. And yet what
advantage do they reap from a careful and earnest examination of the question but
this, that the truth of the Gospel shines more brightly? We are taught by this
example that, if we would follow Christ, we must excite the wrath of the enemies of
the Gospel; and that they who endeavor to effect a compromise between the world
and Christ, so as to condemn every kind of offenses, are altogether mad, since
Christ, on the contrary, knowingly and deliberately provoked wicked men. We
ought to attend, therefore, to the rule which he lays down, that they who are blind,
and leaders of the blind, (Matthew15:14,) ought to be disregarded.”

21. 2. Jesus was not ignorant of the laws of the Sabbath that the Pharisees treasured so
much, and so his actions here are a direct rejection of their whole system of legalism.
Barclay gives us this information on the laws of that time.
"(i) By making clay he had been guilty of working on the Sabbath when even the
simplest acts constituted work. Here are some of the things which were forbidden on
the Sabbath. "A man may not fill a dish with oil and put it beside a lamp and put
the end of the wick in it." "If a man extinguishes a lamp on the Sabbath to spare the
lamp or the oil or the wick, he is culpable." "A man may not go out on the Sabbath
with sandals shod with nails." (The weight of the nails would have constituted a
burden, and to carry a burden was to break the Sabbath.) A man might not cut his
finger nails or pull out a hair of his head or his beard. Obviously in the eyes of such
a law to make clay was to work and so to break the Sabbath.
(ii) It was forbidden to heal on the Sabbath. Medical attention could be given only if
life was in actual danger. Even then it must be only such as to keep the patient from
getting worse, not to make him any better. For instance, a man with toothache might
not suck vinegar through his teeth. It was forbidden to set a broken limb. "If a
man's hand or foot is dislocated he may not pour cold water over it." Clearly the
man who was born blind was in no danger of his life; therefore Jesus broke the
Sabbath when he healed him.
(iii) It was quite definitely laid down: "As to fasting spittle, it is not lawful to put it
so much as upon the eyelids."
15Therefore 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."
1. Now his story is even shorter than before, and he has it boiled down to one
sentence. It was the greatest experience of his life, and he had it summed up in one
sentence. Some people would have had paragraphs of detail, but he was truly a man
of few words.
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

22. miraculous signs?" So they were divided.
1. Here we have another controversy with two sides. He cannot be from God for he
does not keep the Sabbath says one side. The others side counters with, how can
someone not from God do things that only God can do? They could not get everyone
on the same page, for there were too many questions for a simple answer. The
doubters had their simple answer: if a man does not keep the Sabbath laws in the
way we interpret them, he has to be an enemy of God. In other words, those who
disagree with us are disagreeing with God. They then become the standard by which
all others are judged. People tend to do this, and are not open to the possibility that
they might be wrong. It is wise to always keep an open mind to exceptions to your
legalistic rules. The other side realized that it is hard to conclude that a sinner could
do such a miraculous thing. They were open to the possibility that Jesus was from
God.
2 Calvin wrote, “They bring to the Pharisees. The following narrative shows that
wicked men are so far from profiting by the works of God, that, the
more they are urged by their power, so much the more are they
constrained to pour out the venom which dwells within their breasts.
The restoration of sight to the blind man ought undoubtedly to have
softened even hearts of stone; or, at least, the Pharisees ought to
have been struck with the novelty and greatness of the miracle, so as
to remain in doubt for a short time, until they inquired if it were a
divine work; but their hatred of Christ drives them to such stupidity,
that they instantly condemn what they are told that he has done.”
3. Here we have something of a comedy, for we have blind Pharisees trying to figure
out how a man born blind has come to be able to see. They have no clue, except the
obvious one that Jesus is who he claims to be, and can give sight to the blind because
he is the Son of God. Even among these blind guides of the people you have some
who see the folly of making Jesus look all bad, for he is able to do what no other
man has ever done. It is a dilema for these leaders. Some are stubbornly blind, and
others are seeing slightly, but none are willing to accept the evidence as sufficient to
prove that Jesus is from God. They have been smacked in the face with a miracle
beyond any other, and yet they cannot make up their mind if it is God at work in
him. This is comedy because it is so ridiculous for learned men to be acting so
stupid. They were so blind that even Jesus could not cure it with such radical
evidence of God's power.
4. Edward Markquart wrote, "Some people are forever “the legalists.” Jesus is not
from God? Why? He doesn’t obey the laws that we think are important. He does not
fit our understanding, our perceptions, our expectations of what a genuine man of
God is. Jesus was not from God. Why? He didn’t observe the proper religious rules.
This narrow logic proves mixed up the Pharisees were. As one Biblical scholar said,
“They were obsessed with the observances of the law.” They were infatuated with

23. the intricacies of religious rituals. They were passionate about the particulars of
little details of the religious law. For some people, that is what it means to be
religious (keep the religious rules and regulations) and that is what it meant for the
Jews/Pharisees to be “good, strict Jews.”
5. Intervarsity Commentary says, "The Pharisees face a dilemma for Jesus' sabbath
breaking suggests he is not of God whereas his extraordinary power to heal suggests
he is of God. Some of the Pharisees ask, How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?
(v. 16). The plural, signs, indicates a larger familiarity with Jesus' activity. Perhaps
we may assume that we are hearing the voice of Nicodemus, who has already said
the same thing to Jesus himself (3:2). If so, then the one who came to Jesus at night
is now sticking up for him once again (7:50-51) while it is day."
Divided amongst themselves, the Pharisees ask the blind man for his opinion of
Jesus, given that it was his eyes Jesus had opened (v. 17). It is ironic that these
Jewish leaders, who are so proud of their possession of the law and their ability to
evaluate religious claims, are asking this man for his opinion on a religious matter.
The Christians in John's own day would have loved this verse, since they were being
persecuted by these same authorities for their loyalty to Jesus. This scene is like an
underground political cartoon that deflates the self-important persecuting officials."
6. Pink comments, "A striking contrast is this from what has just been before us.
These Pharisees had turned their backs upon the Light, and therefore was their
darkness now even more profound. Devoid of spiritual discernment they were
altogether incapable of determining what was a right use and lawful employment of
the Sabbath and what was not. They understood not that "The sabbath was made
for man" (Mark 2:27), that is, for the benefit of his soul and the good of his body.
True, the day which God blest at the beginning was to be kept holy, but it was never
intended to bar out works of necessity and works of mercy, as they should have
known from the Old Testament Scriptures. In thus finding fault with Christ because
He had opened the eyes of this blind beggar on the Sabbath day, they did but expose
their ignorance and exhibit their spiritual blindness."
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."
1. They asked the healed man what his opinion was of Jesus, and he replied that he
considered him a prophet. In other words, the power that healed me was from God,
and it came through this man Jesus. There was no question in his mind that Jesus

24. was a man of God
2. Barclay wrote, " They brought the man and examined him. When he was asked
his opinion of Jesus, he gave it without hesitation. He said that Jesus was a prophet.
In the Old Testament a prophet was often tested by the signs he could produce.
Moses guaranteed to Pharaoh that he really was God's messenger by the signs and
wonders which he performed (Exo.4:1-17). Elijah proved that he was the prophet of
the real God by doing things the prophets of Baal could not do (1Kgs.18). No doubt
the man's thoughts were running on these things when he said that in his opinion
Jesus was a prophet. Whatever else, this was a brave man. He knew quite well what
the Pharisees thought of Jesus. He knew quite well that if he came out on Jesus' side
he was certain to be excommunicated. But he made his statement and took his
stand. It was as if he said: "I am bound to believe in him, I am bound to stand by
him because of all that he has done for me." Therein he is our great example."
3 Calvin wrote, "What sayest thou of him? When they ask the blind man what is his
opinion, they do so, not because they wish to abide by his judgment, or
set any value on it, but because they hope that the man, struck with
fear, will reply according to their wish. In this respect the Lord
disappoints them; for when a poor man disregards their threatenings,
and boldly maintains that Christ is a Prophet, we ought justly to
ascribe it to the grace of God; so that this boldness is another
miracle. And if he so boldly and freely acknowledged Christ to be a
Prophet, though he did not as yet know that the Lord Jesus [263] was
the Son of God, how shameful is the treachery of those who, subdued by
fear, either deny him, or are silent respecting him, though they know
that he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and that he will come
thence to be the Judge of the whole world! Since this blind man did not
quench a small spark of knowledge, we ought to endeavor that an open
and full confession may blaze forth from the full brightness which has
shone into our hearts."
4. Pink wrote, "He said, He is a prophet." This is not the first time we have had
Christ owned as "prophet" in this Gospel. In John 4:19 we read that the woman of
Samaria said to the Savior at the well, "I perceive that thou art a prophet." In John
6:14 we are told, "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did,
said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." Once more, in
John 7:40 we read, "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying,
said, Of a truth this is the prophet." These references are in striking accord with the
character and theme of this fourth Gospel. A prophet was the mouthpiece of God,
and the great purpose of John’s Gospel, as intimated in its opening verse, is to
portray the Lord Jesus as "the Word"!

25. 18The Jews still did not believe that he had been
blind and had received his sight until they sent for
the man's parents.
1. They were still skeptics about the identity of the man. How can this man blind
from birth be seeing? It could be a hoax, and this is not the blind man at all. They
needed more proof, and so they sent for the parents. They did not want this miracle
to be a fact, and so they kept digging in hopes they would find a flaw in the whole
story, and be able to prove it was all a hoax.
2. Calvin wrote, "But the Jews did not believe. There are two things here which
ought to be observed; that they do not believe that a miracle has been
performed, and that, being wilfully blinded through a perverse hatred
of Christ, they do not perceive what is manifest. The Evangelist tells
us that they did not believe. If the reason be asked, there can be no
doubt that their blindness was voluntary. For what prevents them from
seeing an obvious work of God placed before their eyes; or, after
having been fully convinced, what prevents them from believing what
they already know, except that the inward malice of their heart keeps
their eyes shut? Paul informs us that the same thing takes place in the
doctrine of the Gospel; for he says that it is not hidden or obscure,
except to the reprobate, whose understandings the god of this world hath
blinded, (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4.)"
19"Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one
you say was born blind? How is it that now he can
see?"
1. These three questions could reveal a plot to deceive, but the first two they
answered outright. He is our son, and yes, he was born blind. The third question
they could not answer because they were not there when he was healed.
20"We know he is our son," the parents
answered, "and we know he was born blind.
1. They were open to identify their son and acknowledge his being blind from birth,

26. but they were reluctant to go beyond this basic information, for they knew the
Pharisees could use anything they said against them if they began to praise Jesus as
the one who gave them back their son as a seeing person. They kept quiet about any
opinion they had about the miracle, and they were wise to do so.
2. Henry wrote, "These parents were poor and timorous, and if they had said that
they could not be sure that this was their son, or that it was only some weakness or
dimness in his sight that he had been born with, which if they had been able to get
help for him might have been cured long since, or had otherwise prevaricated, for
fear of the court, the Pharisees had gained their point, had robbed Christ of the
honour of this miracle, which would have lessened the reputation of all the rest. But
God so ordered and overruled this counsel of theirs that it turned to the more
effectual proof of the miracle, and left them under a necessity of being either
convinced or confounded."
21But 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."
1. Legal age for giving testimony in court was 30, and so this man was 30 at least. He
was not old, however, for you do not say of an old man that he is of age, for that is
too conspicuous to mention. Other commentaries say the age 13 was when a boy
would be considered of age.
2. Intervarsity Commentary says, "This scene is full of tragedy, for these parents are
not allowed to give thanks to God for the great thing he has done for their son. They
must have agonized over his blindness and the begging he was forced into. Now he
has been miraculously healed, and they must put aside the overwhelming parental
joy and knuckle under to the goons from the committee for the investigation of un-
Jewish activity, as it were. The parents' agony would have been very great, given the
guilt over the possibility that it was their sin that had been responsible for their son's
blindness. In such a situation Jesus' healing would have far-reaching implications
concerning God's gracious acceptance of sinful humanity. Not only was their son
released from the bondage of his blindness and its related life of begging, but they
and their son would see themselves in a new relation to God. Yet they had to stifle all
of these feelings of joy and gratitude when they were called in by the authorities for
questioning."

27. 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.
1. The parents had an opinion about Jesus, but they kept quiet rather than expose
themselves to the Pharisees who had threatened people with expulsion from the
synagogue if they acknowledged Jesus as the Christ. They were being dishonest out
of fear, and who can blame them? They were not willing to challenge the Pharisees
and lose their standing in the community. They may have come to believe in Jesus as
their Messiah, but why tell this to the people who would use it against them? It is
true that they did not take a stand for Jesus, if they did, in fact, believe in him, but it
was not a necessary sacrifice, for they could pass the buck to their son to see how he
would handle the pressure.
2. Barnes give us an idea of the problem they faced. He writes, “It refers to
excommunication from the synagogue. Among the Jews there were two grades of
excommunication; the one for lighter offences, of which they mentioned twenty-four
causes; the other for greater offences. The first excluded a man for thirty
days from the privilege of entering a synagogue, and from coming nearer to his
wife or friends than 4 cubits. The other was a solemn exclusion for ever from the
worship of the synagogue, attended with awful maledictions and curses, and an
exclusion from all intercourse with the people. This was called the curse, and so
thoroughly excluded the person from all communion whatever with his
countrymen, that they were not allowed to sell to him anything, even the
necessaries of life (Buxtorf). It is probable that this latter punishment was what
they intended to inflict if anyone should confess that Jesus was the Messiah; and
it was the fear of this terrible punishment that deterred his parents from
expressing their opinion.”
3. Barclay adds some detail that makes it clear why his parents had such fear.
"The synagogue authorities had a powerful weapon, the weapon of
excommunication, whereby a man was shut off from the congregation of God's
people. Away back in the days of Ezra we read of a decree that whosoever did not
obey the command of the authorities "his property should be forfeited and he
himself banned from the congregation" (Ezr.10:8). Jesus warned his disciples that
their name would be cast out for evil (Lk.6:22). He told them that they would be put
out of the synagogues (Jn. 16:2). Many of the rulers in Jerusalem really believed in
Jesus, but were afraid to say so "lest they should be put out of the synagogue" (Jn.
12:42).
There were two kinds of excommunication. There was the ban, the cherem

28. (HSN2764), by which a man was banished from the synagogue for life. In such a
case he was publicly anathematized. He was cursed in the presence of the people,
and he was cut off from God and from man. There was sentence of temporary
excommunication which might last for a month, or for some other fixed period. The
terror of such a situation was that a Jew would regard it as shutting him out, not
only from the synagogue but from God. That is why the man's parents answered
that their son was quite old enough to be a legal witness and to answer his own
questions. The Pharisees were so venomously embittered against Jesus that they
were prepared to do what ecclesiastics at their worst have sometimes done--to use
ecclesiastical procedure to further their own ends."
4. What we see here is a valid program of God built into the religious system of his
people to eliminate that which contaminates it. Evil people who pervert the ways of
God need to be cast out, and false teachers need to be excluded from the people of
God, and so excommunication is a good thing ordained of God. Yet this good thing
could be used to hurt people who were innocent of any evil. It was power, and power
in the hands of tyrants is always used for evil. Good things are never safe when they
are in the control of those who are not good themselves.
5 Calvin comes down strong on these parents, but there is little basis for it. We have
no idea how much they knew, or how convinced they were of who Jesus was. The
son himself was not yet sure just who Jesus was, and so why do we expect that his
parents knew more than he did. And why should we expect them to take a stand for
Jesus which would cost them so dearly when they would just be falling into the
hands of those who hated Jesus? Here are the comments of Calvin, which I consider
unjustified.
"By their silence they show their ingratitude; for, having received so
distinguished a gift of God, they ought to have burned with desire to
celebrate his name. But, struck with terror, they bury the grace of
God, as far as lies in their power, with this exception, that they
substitute in their room, as a witness, their son, who will explain the
whole matter as it happened, and who will be heard with less prejudice,
and will be more readily believed. But though they prudently avoid
danger, and continue this middle path, of testifying indirectly about
Christ by the mouth of their son, yet this does not prevent the Holy
Spirit from condemning their cowardice by the mouth of the Evangelist,
because they fail to discharge their own duty. How much less excuse
then will they have, who, by treacherous denial, utterly bury Christ,
with his doctrine, with his miracles, with his power and grace!"
23That was why his parents said, "He is of age;
ask him."

29. 1. This statement is recorded twice to make it clear that the parents were not going
to stick their neck out where the Pharisees could chop it off. They were not eye
witnesses to the healing, and they did not meet with Jesus, or claim to know
anything about him. They could quickly see that the Pharisees were on a witch hunt
against Jesus, and they had no reason to make them angry at themselves.
24A second time they summoned the man who
had been blind. "Give glory to God," they said.
"We know this man is a sinner."
"Give glory to God," This is a technical term meaning tell the truth!
1. The man had been kept under watch someplace, and they brought him before the
Pharisees again. They urge him to give glory to God and denounce this Jesus as a
sinner. They were so sure that he was such, and they wanted him to feel just like
they felt about Jesus. When leaders try to impose their feelings about someone on
other people they are tyrants, and that is what the Pharisees were. They would not
allow for freedom in this matter. Jesus was a sinner to them, and they made it their
law that all must agree that he was a sinner.
2. Barclay wrote, "They did not believe at first that the man had been blind. That is
to say, they suspected that this was a miracle faked between Jesus and him. Further,
they were well aware that the law recognized that a false prophet could produce
false miracles for his own false purposes (Deut.13:1-5 warns against the false
prophet who produces false signs in order to lead people away after strange gods).
So the Pharisees began with suspicion. They went on to try to browbeat the man.
"Give the glory to God," they said. "We know that this man is a sinner." "Give the
glory to God," was a phrase used in cross-examination which really meant: "Speak
the truth in the presence and the name of God." When Joshua was cross-examining
Achan about the sin which had brought disaster to Israel, he said to him: "Give
glory to the Lord God of Israel, and render praise to him; and tell me now what you
have done; do not hide it from me" (Josh.7:19)."
3. Vincent's N. T. Word Studies says, " Give God the praise (dov doxan tw Qew).
Rev., give glory to God. Compare Josh. vii. 19; 1 Sam. vi. 5. This phrase addressed
to an offender implies that by some previous act or word he has done dishonor to
God, and appeals to him to repair the dishonor by speaking the truth. In this case it
is also an appeal to the restored man to ascribe his cure directly to God, and not to
Jesus."

30. 4. Intervarsity Commentary says, "They begin their interrogation on a solemn,
formal note: Give glory to God (v. 24). This is not an invitation to sing a hymn of
praise for his healing! The expression means the man is being exhorted to confess his
guilt (cf. Josh 7:19; m. Sanhedrin 6:2). The man has told them the truth, but they
don't really want the truth, they want their own answer. These people, whom Jesus
called liars (8:55), are trying to force this man to lie, and they are doing so in the
name of truth. (Double talk is not an invention of the twentieth century.) The terms
they use are full of irony. These people who care only for the glory of men, not God
(12:43; cf. 5:44), are telling him to give glory to God. They are demanding that he
give glory to God by confessing his sin, but the man has given glory to God by
bearing witness to Jesus."
5. Pink wrote, "The passage before us records the persistent efforts of the Pharisees
to shake the testimony of this one who had received his sight. Their blindness, their
refusal to be influenced by the most convincing evidence, their enmity against the
beggar’s Benefactor, and their unjust and cruel treatment of him, vividly forecasted
the treatment which the Lord Himself was shortly to receive at their hands. On the
other hand, the fidelity of the beggar, his refusal to be intimidated by those in
authority, his Divinely-given power to non-plus his judges, his being cast out of
Judaism, and his place as a worshipper at the feet of the Son of God on the outside,
anticipated what was to be exemplified again and again in the history of the Lord’s
disciples following His own apprehension."
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!"
1. They were trying to trap him, but he was wise enough to know that he was not
qualified to make a judgment on whether he was a sinner or not. All he knew for
sure was that he was blind, but now he could see. That was a sure thing, and that is
all he knew for sure. He was not going to make some big profession of belief in Jesus
as the long awaited Messiah, for he was not stupid. He could see his parents being
wise in what they would say, and he followed their example. Don’t cooperate with
evil men by falling into their trap. He just told them what he knew, and that was
that he had experienced an amazing miracle, and that was the issue they had to deal
with. In other words, the facts say he was a man of God, and if you disagree, it is up
to you to explain how he could do a miracle like this. I won’t say it, but the evidence
is clear to me that he is a man of God, and all I lay before you is this evidence. You
do with it what you will.

31. 2. He was a plain man blind from birth and so had limited education, and no ability
to argue theology with these men of learning, but he knew what he had experienced,
and there was no argument against that. Barclay wrote, ""Say what you like," he
said, "about this man; I don't know anything about him except that he made me
able to see." It is the simple fact of Christian experience that many a man may not
be able to put into theologically correct language what he believes Jesus to be, but in
spite of that he can witness to what Jesus has done for his soul. Even when a man
cannot understand with his intellect, he can still feel with his heart. It is better to
love Jesus than to love theories about him."
3. Stedman wrote, "That is one of the greatest models of how to bear a witness as a
believer. Many people are afraid to say anything about the Lord because they think
they will be dragged into a theological argument that will be over their heads. But
witness is simply doing what this man did -- saying what Jesus did for you, that is
all. "Once I was blind, now I can see" -- that is what a witness is. You are the
world's greatest authority on what happened to you. As someone has well said, "A
man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with only an argument."
When you stand on your experience no one can deny what the Lord has done in
your life. You are a positive, powerful witness for Christ. This man teaches us great
things in that regard."
4. Pink wrote, ""One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." These are
words which every born-again person can apply to himself. There are many things
of which the young believer has little knowledge: there are many points in theology
and prophecy upon which he has no light: but "one thing" he does know—he knows
that the eyes of his understanding have been opened. He knows this because he has
seen himself as a lost sinner, seen his imminent danger, seen the Divinely-appointed
refuge from the wrath to come, seen the sufficiency of Christ to save him. Can a
man repent and not know it? can he believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to the saving
of his soul and not know it? can he pass from death unto life, be delivered from the
power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, and not
know it? We do not believe it. The saints of God are a people that "know." They
know Whom they have believed (2 Tim. 1:12). They know that their Redeemer liveth
(Job 19:26). They know the), have passed from death unto life (1 John 3:14). They
know that all things work together for their good (Rom. 8:28). They know that when
the Lord Jesus shall appear they shall be like Him (1 John 3:2). Christianity treats
not of theories and hypotheses, but of certainties and realities. Rest not, dear reader,
till you can say, "One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."
26Then they asked him, "What did he do to you?
How did he open your eyes?"

32. 1. They had nowhere else to go, and so they go back to the same old question. They
were hoping to catch him in some contradiction that would blow up in his face and
prove the whole thing was a hoax.
2 Pink wrote, ""Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he
thine eyes?" This illustrates again how that unbelief is occupied with the modus
operandi rather than with the result itself. How you were brought to Christ—the
secondary causes, where you were at the time, the instrument God employed—is of
little moment. The one thing that matters is whether or not the Lord has opened the
sin-blinded eyes of your heart. Whether you were saved in the fields or in a church,
whether you were on your knees at a "mourner’s bench" or upon your back in bed,
is a detail of very little value. Faith is occupied not with the manner in which you
held out your hand to receive God’s gift, but with Christ Himself! But unbelief is
occupied with the "how" rather than with the "whom."
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?"
1. This blind man now healed almost blew it here, for he could not resist being a
smart aleck. He says you guys just don’t listen when I tell you what happened. Why
do you want to hear it again? Is it because you too want to become his disciples? He
was being sarcastic, but they took him seriously and did not like his tone. He was not
blind to their motives, for he could see that they did not want to see the truth. They
just wanted him to cooperate in trying to bring Jesus down. He could see clearly
that they could not see who Jesus really was.
2. His use of the word "too" implies that he is saying, "Do you want to follow this
man just as I do?" "Are you as convinced as I am that he is a true prophet of God
worthy of being the godly leader we should all be following?" "Are you so insistent
in hearing the facts over and over again because you cannot wait to join with his
disciples, which is exactly how I feel?" He knows this is not the case,and so he is
being sarcastic.
3. Pink wrote, "With honest indignation he turns upon his unscrupulous inquisitors
and refuses to waste time in repeating what he had already told them so simply and
plainly. It is quite useless to discuss the things of God with those whose hearts are
manifestly closed against Him. When such people continue pressing their frivolous
or blasphemous inquiries, only one course remains open, and that is "Answer a fool
according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (Prov. 26:5). This Divine
admonition,, has puzzled some, because in the preceding verse we are told, Answer
not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." But the seeming
contradiction is easily explained. When God says, "Answer not a fool according to

33. his folly, lest thou also be like unto him," the meaning is, I must not answer a fool in
a foolish manner, for this would make me a sharer of his folly. But when God says,
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit," the
meaning is, that I must answer him in a way to expose his folly, lest he imagine that
he has succeeded in propounding a question which is unanswerable. This is exactly
what the beggar did here in the lesson: he answered in such a way as to make
evident the folly and unbelief of his judges."
4. Henry wrote, "But it rather seems to be spoken ironically: “Will you be his
disciples? No, I know you abhor the thoughts of it; why then should you desire to
hear that which will either make you his disciples or leave you inexcusable if you be
not?” Those that wilfully shut their eyes against the light, as these Pharisees here
did, First, Make themselves contemptible and base, as these here did, who were
justly exposed by this poor man for denying the conclusion, when they had nothing
to object against either of the premises. Secondly, They forfeit all the benefit of
further instructions and means of knowledge and conviction: they that have been
told once, and would not hear, why should they be told it again? Jer_51:9. See
Mat_10:14. Thirdly, They hereby receive the grace of God in vain. This implied in
that, “Will you be his disciples? No, you resolve you will not; why then would you
hear it again, only that you may be his accusers and persecutors?” Those who will
not see cause to embrace Christ, and join with his followers, yet, one would think,
should see cause enough not to hate and persecute him and them."
28Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You
are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of
Moses!
1. They start calling the man names as they hurl insults at him and accuse him of
being a disciple of Jesus. It was one of the worst things they could say of him. In
pride they identify themselves as disciples of Moses, which they considered the
highest level of loyalty. You are a disciple of this man we don't even know where he
is from. You are willing to follow an uneducated nobody, but we have the wisdom to
follow the known leader God appointed for our people. You are an ignorant layman,
and we are the educated and trained leaders. Do you think we are so stupid that we
will listen to you?
2. Pink wrote, "The Greek word signifies that the Pharisees hurled their anathemas
against him by pronouncing him an execrable fellow. How true to life! Unable to
fairly meet his challenge, unable to justify their course, they resort to villification. To
have recourse to invectives is ever the last resort of a defeated opponent. Whenever

34. you find men calling their opponents hard names, it is a sure sign that their own
cause has been defeated."
3. Henry wrote, "For this they scorn and revile him, Joh_9:28. When they could
not resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke, they broke out into a passion,
and scolded him, began to call names, and give him ill language. See what Christ's
faithful witnesses must expect from the adversaries of his truth and cause; let them
count upon all manner of evil to be said of them, Mat_5:11. The method commonly
taken by unreasonable man is to make out with railing what is wanting in truth and
reason.
First, They taunted this man for his affection to Christ; they said, Thou art his
disciple, as if that were reproach enough, and they could not say worse of him. “We
scorn to be his disciples, and will leave that preferment to thee, and such scoundrels
as thou art.” They do what they can to put Christ's religion in an ill name, and to
represent the profession of it as a contemptible scandalous thing. They reviled him.
The Vulgate reads it, maledixerunt eum - they cursed him; and what was their curse?
It was this, Be thou his disciple. “May such a curse” (saith St. Augustine here) “ever
be on us and on our children!” If we take our measures of credit and disgrace from
the sentiment or rather clamours of a blind deluded world, we shall glory in our
shame, and be ashamed of our glory. They had no reason to call this man a disciple of
Christ, he had neither seen him nor heard him preach, only he had spoken
favourably of a kindness Christ had done him, and this they could not bear."
29We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for
this fellow, we don't even know where he comes
from."
1. Barnes forces us to be honest here and not use fellow as a basis for criticism of the
Pharisees. There is plenty by which they are to be judged without using what is not
authentic. He writes, "As for this fellow. The word fellow is not in the original. It is
simply "this." The word fellow implies contempt, which it cannot be proved they
intended to express."
2. The whole battle of the Pharisees with Jesus is over the law of Moses. They
interpret the law as legalists, but Jesus interprets it as one whose focus is on the idea
that the Sabbath was made for man's good and benefit. It was legitimate to do what
is good and helpful to those who are suffering on the Sabbath. They hated this idea,
for it made for exceptions to the rule, and that would lead to a great deal of grace
and mercy, which would rob them of the right to maintain legalistic control of
people's lives.

35. 30The man answered, "Now that is remarkable!
You don't know where he comes from, yet he
opened my eyes.
1. This healed blind man is getting bolder by the minute under that onslaught of all
these questions by the skeptics. He is making a joke of them, for they are the ones in
the know, and yet here you have a man doing miracles on the same level with Moses,
and you guys don’t even know where he is from. Do you see why I question your
intelligence on this matter? Leaders are supposed to be up on what is coming down,
and you guys don’t seem to have a clue as to who Jesus really is. You would think
that God would keep leaders like you better informed when he sends someone like
Jesus into your midst. You guys are really out of the loop on this miracle worker.
Don't you think this is strange?
2. Pink wrote, "Quick to seize the acknowledgement of the ignorance as to whence
Christ came, the beggar turned it against them. Though he spoke in the mildest of
terms yet the stinging import of his words is evident. It was as though he had said,
"You who profess yourselves fully qualified to guide the people on all points, and yet
in the dark on a matter like this!" A poor beggar he might be, and as such cut off
from many of the advantages they had enjoyed, nevertheless, he knew what they did
not—he knew that Christ was "of God" (verse 33)! How true it is that God reveals
things to babes in Christ which He hides from the wise and prudent! hides because
they are "wise"—wise in their own conceits. Nothing shuts out Divine illumination
so effectively as prejudice and pride: nothing tends to blind the heart more than
egotism. "If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a
fool, that he may be wise" (1 Cor. 3:18); "Proud, knowing nothing" (1 Tim. 6:4)."
3. Henry wrote, "Those that are ambitious of the favours of God must not be afraid
of the frowns of men. “See here,” saith Dr. Whitby, “a blind man and unlearned
judging more rightly of divine things than the whole learned council of the
Pharisees, whence we learn that we are not always to be led by the authority of
councils, popes, or bishops; and that it is not absurd for laymen sometimes to vary
from their opinions, these overseers being sometimes guilty of great oversights.”
4. So often in history it is the leaders of religion who are the least aware of what God
is doing in the world around them. Anne Graham Lotz, as the daughter of Billy
Graham, had a terrible time in her ministry because of the leaders in the church
who opposed her being a public speaker. She gives us this interesting testimony that
revolves around this very passage we are studying. She wrote, "God told me to tell
you that you are supposed to marry me." I received that astonishing bit of
information on a lined sheet of notebook paper that had food stains on it when I was
fourteen years of age! It was a personal letter to me from some delusional young
man that had been forwarded from my father's organization. I remember writing