Chapter 9
Jesus has just "disappeared, sort of" from the temple because the Pharisees were about to openly publicly stone him for his claims. As he passes by, he sees a blind man. Blind since birth. The disciples wonder whether the man or his parents committed the sin that made him blind. Since he was blind since birth, wouldn't this man's blindness be a curse for his parent's sins? He was blind before he'd done anything. This is how they thought about things that needed healing back then. If you had problems, they were the punishment for your sins. Jesus says in this case it was neither. Doesn't say that our problems are never sin, says sin was not the problem in this blind man's case. This one was blind so God could show his healing power. So Jesus could heal him someday as he left the temple.
2020-I think more should be made of this whole concept of sin causing physical problems. This is what people believed in Jesus' time, perhaps not only about blindness and bloody issues, but about colds also. If you were not in perfect health, perhaps all considered that you must have either sin or a demon. Surely back in Job's day they thought all his problems were due to sin. Now if they thought that, and Jesus was going around healing people right and left - without payment, without repentance, without sacrifice in the temple - and doing it for those who clearly did not "deserve" it, then...how would the Pharisees see that? They would see Jesus as removing the consequences of sin, and no price paid. They would see grace. So the miracles - the healing - proclaimed that Jesus was forgiving sin. How can the consequences of sin be removed unless the sin is forgiven? So is this right? Is blindness caused by sin? Jesus says that it certainly was not in the case of this blind man. So how is Jesus separating the healing miracles from forgiveness of sin? Saying the miracles show the power of God over the physical world, but that power to save sinners is a different thing. A faith based thing.
The Pharisees couldn't heal. They could do only a poor and temporary job of exorcism. Jesus could do both. He could do what the Pharisees could not...so he was getting help from somewhere. Either from God or from Satan. If healing implied forgiveness of sin, whose realm was sin? So in their eyes, Satan was consorting with Christ to deceive the people by...what? Unsinning these people? By "releasing" those in his power to make Jesus look good and lure people away from the true friends of God? They had to be seeing it something like this. This is how it would tie together. Because it was either that, or his power to heal was from God, and if from God, perhaps he truly could forgive sin also. And if so, then they were going to be shortly out of work. They were truly on the horns of a dilemma.
2020 - This verse:
4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. [Jhn 9:4 ESV]
KJV translates the pronoun at the start of this sentence "I". NASB and ESV use "We". I wonder why? KJV translates the word "I" 365 times, and never "we". What in the world would make ESV and NASB go against such overwhelming precedent??? Because night is coming when "no one" can work? So they didn't think it should say I work or no one works? They thought it more likely Jesus meant "We work now, because none can work later"? The word used for "We" here is transliterated "ego". Our word "ego" always refers to self doesn't it? MSB ignores this word, and moves on to the meanings of "while it is day" and "night is coming". I think those are discussed below...
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." [Jhn 9:5 ESV] Neither of the I am's in this verse use the pronoun ego. For all I know, it would be grammatically incorrect and that is why it isn't used.
These next comments are from last year, as I tried to unravel this.
2021 - Vs 4, continued.
All the modern translations use we instead of I. Young's and Darby's used I, as did the KJV before them, but right in here about Darby seems to be where it changes to we. In the Interlinear page that opens, it says that ego is a primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic). When you look at the actual words in the interlinear, it says ego is accusative plural. If it is plural, it has to be "we" and not I. So did KJV deliberately change that? The accusative is the object of the verb. The verb action is about ego. I think we have to make the use of we here a "royal" we. Who must work? WE must work - but we in the first person. I think this is the second time I've seen this kind of usage, where the subject was "one", but was referred to in the plural. If we take it this way, then what Jesus is saying is that he, and the Spirit, and very possibly also the Father, are all working...no. He separates out the one who sent him. So the we here is Son and Spirit. But night is coming when "no one" can work. That wouldn't apply to the Spirit would it? Jesus is the light as long as he is in the world. So when Jesus is gone, the light is gone. We are not speaking spiritually here. John - I think - is talking about the physical presence of Jesus. He is God in the world. As such he is a light unique in all of time. And when he left, it was the light that was leaving. Physically bodily. He left the Spirit here, but the light is no longer here. So the we is Jesus, and Jesus was working the deeds he was sent to work. It isn't that big a mystery when you dig a little deeper. It is that plural first person that gets you. I tagged it here, and searched for the other place I saw it, but I didn't find it.
2024 - This also ties in with the idea that the days during which Jesus lived and walked on earth created some exceptional circumstances, and we have to sometimes understand that it is this one time - this 33 years - that create a unique time in the history of religion. This is now the third passage I have found implying that the physical presence of Jesus was a time unlike any other in history so far as salvation is concerned. I would also add corroboration to this by noting that Jesus began to speak in parables to "reduce the guilt" of those who heard him speak but did not believe him. Better that they not understand and reject, but just reject. Wouldn't this all tie together as a period of time when special rules applied, rules as unique as the physical presence of God in the world is unique?
2022 - Jesus, in vs 4, says "We must work the works...", and then he restores sight to the blind man. So if we look at this literally, if we take the simplest easiest most direct interpretation of this, the works Jesus is talking about are miracles. I think that plural "I" is about the Son doing the will of the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit. These three are doing these miracles for a purpose - to show that God incarnate is in the world by doing what has never been done before, and what cannot be done now. He goes on to say that night is coming, and right after that he says he is the light of the world. So again, if we don't try to overcomplicate things, Jesus says it is he, himself, who is going to leave. If the light leaves, it will be dark. These works, which I think are inclusive of the miracles done by the apostles and others in the early church, were to show that Jesus was from God, because only God could do these miracles. And since then, we must take it on faith that these stories are true, and that, if true, they show that God was on earth as a man in the person of Jesus Christ. We are released from the Mosaic Law, but from us, faith without sight is required.
2023 - None of the above deals with "when no one can work". It says that too. Could it be that when Jesus said "we" his reference was to himself and his apostles, and indirectly to those coming later in the first century who would have the power to work miracles? While Jesus was in the world, he could "convey" this power to others. He did so with the 70 and then he did so again with the 12. We know that some upon whom the Spirit first fell could do some miracles and also had pronounced, recognizable gifts bestowed on them. The light was present, and we might think if this unique power over physical laws as "spreading" from Jesus - as it's source - while he was here. But once he was gone, this power began to fade. Over time, these miracles ceased entirely and darkness returned. Today, there are only charlatans pretending at miracles. Eyesight does not come to those born blind, nor hearing to those born deaf - unless it is through medical procedures. There are no miraculous healings. So finally, in 2023, and when looking not just at the "We" vs "I" argument, I think I see what Jesus meant about working while it was light.
Then Jesus seems to jump subjects. He says to his disciples that "we" must work while it is day, for darkness is coming. I took this to be a reference to the miracles. That these would continue for Jesus and his apostles for some time into the future, but that darkness is coming, when there won't be any miracles for a long time. MSB doesn't say that. It says it was light as long as Jesus was on earth. MSB goes on to reference Jn 1:4,5 notes and 1 Jn 1:5-7. John uses "darkness" 14 of the 17 times it is used in the NT, per the 1:4,5 notes. It contrasts with the light of spiritual truth. Darkness is lack of spiritual truth, both in the world and in individual lives. 1 Jn is about walking in the light. And it says there was no darkness in Jesus. Still, ESV says "we" must work. Only Jesus was about to die. Why wouldn't he have said "I" must work if that's how he meant it. I think it is about miracles. After all, he was about to do one, and the man was blind just so Jesus could heal him. (see 2023 note above. MacArthur's explanation could also be correct, but I think the miracles are in view. Jesus wasn't speaking spiritually about a literal miracle they were about to witness. The real thing was there, at that time, but would not be later.)
To accomplish this miracle, Jesus spits on the ground, makes mud (a poultice?) and applies it to the man's eyes, then tells him to go wash it off in the Pool of Siloam. The man does, and comes back with his sight. He had never before "seen" anything at all. People who know him question whether it is really him when he shows up able to see. (2021 - This miracle is so unprecedented, so unexpected, so impossible, that people doubt their own eyes. They find it easier to believe that this man that used to sit and beg - that they've seen around for decades possibly - now has a look alike who can see. No one says "Well go get the blind one then and let's look at them side by side." Surely they would have known the blind man's routine and exactly where to find him at that time of day. Was he there or not? This "seeing" man should not have been as difficult to identify as they make it.) But the man says "I am he!", confirming that he was once blind. And he tells them it was Jesus who healed him (on the sabbath again), but that he doesn't know where Jesus is now.
They take the man to the Pharisees, and he tells his story. Some of the Pharisees are upset that he was healed on the Sabbath. That is where they go with it. (2021 - remember that in the last chapter (?) Jesus points out that the Pharisees are perfectly willing to circumcise on the Sabbath if it is the 8th day. That is also work, but they think that is ok. Breaking one law to keep another is ok. But there is no law for healing, so healing on the Sabbath is wrong. As Jesus said earlier - it was in 7:24 not 8 - "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment". He was trying to break them out of religion by rote.) Since it was done on the sabbath, the one who did it cannot be from God. I hope I have not lost so much taste for salt that I don't recognize it when I see it. But others said that such a miracle could not have been done by a sinner. So at least some of them are waking up. They ask the blind man, and he says Jesus is a prophet.
They decide this can't be the same blind man, but his parents testify that this is him. But they are afraid to say Jesus healed him, lest they be put out of the synagogue. A principle here? Cares of this world preventing salvation? They were worried about being kicked out of the synagogue, and would rather deny Christ than leave the synagogue. Do we therefore stay in a church that does not teach Christ crucified? Where is the line. Surely these people should have risked being put out in this case? Or were they like Peter...and repented later?
This blind man, with no education, is questioned again. They tell him that they know Jesus is a sinner. The blind man poses an irrefutable logical argument to these learned men. First, an undeniable fact: I was blind but now I see. They ask how it was done. The man answers that he's told them once already. Why are they asking, so they can be Jesus' disciples also? The Pharisees are offended at the suggestion. They deny Jesus outright and say they are Moses' disciples, not Jesus'. The blind man says that no one, since the beginning of the world, ever restored the sight of one born blind. It has never been done. Therefore, since this man Jesus did what had never been done before, he MUST be from God. So they tell the blind man that he is such a sinner that he was born blind as a result, and has no standing to contradict them in their holy sinless purity.
2023 - Wow. Somehow this kind of argument sounds familiar. Even though the blind man is making perfect inarguable sense, he MUST be wrong because he disagrees with their "reality". Today, no matter how much sense we might make, if we are not woke, then we are racist and wrong. Facts don't matter. Observable, demonstrable, provable truth doesn't matter. You must agree with "US" no matter what your eyes tell you, or we will excoriate you publicly. Surely the point for us from this passage is to stand firm on the truth no matter the firestorm it ignites. WE serve One who restores sight to the blind. Shall we fear those who refuse to see what is right in front of them?
Possible FB post for 7/24 Monday before the trip. This is from John 9.
So they throw the formerly blind man out. He has lost his church (synagogue) but gained his sight. He lost his sin and gained salvation. The principle is that we are to follow Christ whatever it costs us, because what we lose to do so is valueless compared to what we gain. This principle is stated many different ways in the NT. The pearl of great price comes to mind.
Jesus finds the man and asks if he believes in the son of man. The man asks who that might be, and Jesus tells him "It is me". The man believes. The Pharisees hear Jesus say this. Jesus tells them that if they were blind, they would recognize him, but because the claim they can "see", they remain blind. Much spiritual meaning here.
2020 - Is it only John who "orders" things this way? It seems that in John the Pharisees ask Jesus a question, and Jesus gives them an answer that no one would understand. It comes across to me as two different conversations - the Pharisees are doing one and Jesus is doing the other. They are talking about completely different things and trying to communicate with each other while doing it. What Jesus is saying just sometimes does not seem to be a response to their questions. Yet John presents it as if it is exactly how Jesus answered that exact question. John wrote this gospel very much later than the events. John puts in a lot of the developing theology of Christ. He seems focused on the fact that only the called can come, and that the reason so many reject is because they are not called. He seems focused on the theology that says God must give you the spiritual ability to understand the spiritual meanings of what Jesus says in reference to spiritual things. Is he focused on that as a response to Gnosticism in Ephesus where he was writing from? Did he write this gospel to show that spiritual discernment was from God to individuals and not from "High Mucky Brilliances" who understand it and can reveal it to whom they will, but it has to come through them? For instance, the last verse of this chapter:
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains. [Jhn 9:41 ESV] Isn't this almost the definition of a Gnostic????
There's nothing wrong with the gospel of John being inspired to refute the cult of Gnosticism. Why wouldn't this early assault on the foundations of the church not be met by a refutation from one who was with Jesus, and knew first hand that Gnosticism was Pharisee in disguise. They were still doing the same thing. So that may be why John is here, but if so, we need to read it with that in mind. Hmm...MSB intro to the Gospel of John says not one word about Gnosticism. He does say that the book is deep, and profound, and must be meticulously studied. I am in agreement with that...and apparently I have a long way to go.
So two things today in 2020. That whole sin causes blindness/lameness/illness thing, and so if you associate with the sick you associate with sinners. Not to mention that if you heal them, you are releasing them from the consequences of their sin idea, and how that can be folded into a "league with the devil" to throw down Judaism and the Pharisees with it. AND, John may have as a not so subtle theme of his gospel that Gnostic and Pharisees are very much alike.
All I know is that I feel really bogged down in John for the last few days.
2022 - Or, as Cullman says in his Christology of the New Testament, John is written as a refutation of the claims of the sect of John the Baptist, as I have discussed in previous chapter notes in John.
2021 - vs 41 again: 41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains. [Jhn 9:41 ESV]. This is about all those, of whatever religion, whatever code, who believe they have found the way without Jesus Christ. Anyone who says they "know", that they are enlightened, that they are guides to the blind, yet does not make Christ the door - the only door - that person is still guilty before God. That person is not headed for heaven, and is not leading anyone else to heaven. Those who have knowledge of Christ - and that is pretty much the entire planet at this stage of history - and decide that they don't need him, but can have a worthy life without him, are guilty before God. Justice will come, today as it did to those Pharisees who were also blind, with the light shining right on them. They still couldn't see it.
Possible FB post.
2022 - In vs 39:
39 Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind." [Jhn 9:39 ESV]. This is the "why" of Jesus healing this man. It says first that Jesus is here to "sharpen" the line between those who see and those who don't. Between those who love God and those who profess to know him but do not. Those who accept Jesus receive their sight. But those who reject him are blind forever, and know it. He follows up with this verse:
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains. [Jhn 9:41 ESV]. If you have never heard the gospel, and have not rejected the gospel, you are lost, but not yet condemned (I can't think of a better way to say this...perhaps that you can still be saved, opportunity can still come, until you're dead. If you die in your sins, it is then that you are condemned). But if you have heard it, and are too smart to accept it, meaning "you see, but you reject" to the point that salvation will not be offered again, then you are certainly judged and condemned. We have seen this concept before:
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. [Jhn 3:18 ESV]. The blind who now see are not condemned. Those who choose not to believe - and who will not be "invited again" are already condemned. There is a third group, I believe, who have not heard at all, who have not been invited at all. These are those we must tell.
I believe that those who die having never heard the gospel still go to hell, because the sun and the stars tell of His glory, and God reveals this to them at least once in their lives. But surely hell is a far worse place for those who heard and pooh poohed the gospel than for those who never heard. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the saved are judged for their works at the bema seat, and receive in proportion to their works, then those who are lost receive punishment in proportion to their guilt? Surely that is how that works.
He was blind, and the opportunity to see just showed up. He didn't have to seek, opportunity just came. But in order to see, an act of faith was required. He had to go and wash. And when he did - when he put action to faith - he gained sight that he had NEVER BEFORE POSSESSED! THAT is why it is important to note that this man was born blind. He represents those unsaved. Who have never been saved. And once he could see, he could see from then on. His sight was not temporarily restored, conditioned on daily washing at Siloam. It was a once for all kind of thing. With that in mind, vs 39 says that the gospel came into the world so that all might receive salvation. It provides a way for all. BUT, since the gospel is here, a choice is REQUIRED. You accept the gospel and see - and are saved, or you reject the gospel and lose any chance to ever see. Permanent blindness is eventually you're lot. It is about judgment, it is either/or. There is no middle.
2023 - Vs 41. Jesus is telling them that if they had never heard at all, their guilt, though still present, would be small. But they are studied, the know the OT scriptures, and they have SEEN THE SON with their own eyes, and yet CHOOSE not to see him. Therefore, they are not just guilty, they are supremely guilty. There is disbelief by virtue of ignorance (a misdemeanor), and there is aggravated unbelief, (a felony) which has a much graver penalty.