Craig Gaunt
Gospels & Acts
John 9
In the ancient world, stories were told quite differently than in our time where the climax is near the end of the tale. For them, the height of the story is in the middle. This can be seen throughout the Old Testament and the gospel writers picked up on this trend as well; John 9 is no different. It begins with a man suffering who encounters Jesus as a miracle worker, confirms Him as a prophet, but finally confesses Him as Lord. John structures the account using literary techniques that point to the middle of the narrative, which is the most important part. As seen below, there are certain similarities in the first and last section of the story that help the reader to see what a difference the middle makes. Likewise, as the reader moves closer to the apex of the account they notice more similarities that highlight what the middle is trying to say and so on. The climax of this account is not the miracle itself nor is it even when the healed man confesses Christ as Lord. Rather, it is the interrogation of the man’s parents and we will see below why that is.
A/A’ (John 9:1-5/40-41)
With both “A” sections from the chiasms, there are certain actions and words spoken from different groups that parallel one another but are different in that they show the intentions of them who said it. In John 9:1, it is noted that the man was born blind. It is important to see that John is stating out front that this man is not to blame for his ailment as he had no choice but to suffer with it. Contrast this with the final verses concerning the Pharisees who claming to see, they had a choice to see “the works of God” but rejected the one whom God sent; they had a choice and made the wrong one, choosing to remain blind.
In v. 2, the disciples sincerely asked what caused another’s blindness, while in v. 40 the Pharisees asked indignantly and sarcastically if they themselves were the blind ones. In the beginning, Jesus is warning against the blanket application that physical ailments are always the result of sin. However, at the end of the chapter, this same Jesus tells the Pharisees that their rejection is an outcome of their spiritual blindness. John’s point is clear. The blind man knew he could see nothing and recognized his need for Jesus, and God blessed him by opening his eyes physically, but that was only the beginning. The Pharisees thought that they were sinless and could see truth perfectly. Jesus tells them that because they claim to see, yet reject Jesus who is “the light of the world” (9:5), they continue to be in spiritual darkness, causing them blindness. This miracle, like so many others, was meant to point to the divinity of Jesus. As G. Bornkamm says, “It is he who does God’s works, and the works of the Father have basically one meaning: to show and glorify him as Revealer and bringer of salvation.”[1]
B/B’ (John 19:6-12/35-39)
The next section of chiasm is structured around the questions asked of the blind man and Jesus respectively and the answers that follow. In v. 6-12 after Jesus instructed the man to wash and be healed, the neighbors ask if he is the same man they knew, to which he answers “I am the one.” Similarly, in v. 35-38 it is the man himself asking Jesus who is the Son of Man, and Jesus responds “I am the one”. By healing the man’s physical sight in v. 6, Jesus puts him on equal footing with others who have seen His miracles and now have the proof and opportunity to believe in Him. In short, Jesus wet this man’s appetite by healing him physically, and by desiring to see and worship Him after he met Jesus again, the man was given spiritual sight to see the Messiah. Jesus here is also comforting the man by revealing to him who the true Messiah is because this man, while an outcast before for being blind, has now been thrown out of the synagogue which was the ultimate insult.
Another literary device is used by John here, and it centers on the pool of Siloam. This story is seen used in early Christian baptism to help illustrate new life in Christ.[2] The incident involving the pool of Siloam meaning “sent” is reminiscent of Elisha the prophet who sent Naaman to wash in the Jordan to be healed of leprosy. This story may have been in the man’s mind when he later identified Jesus as a prophet in v. 17. As Chrysostom notes, John is mentioning this pool to show that Jesus is the “sent” One of God.[3] The man only receives his sight from Jesus and the pool has nothing to do with it. This has parallel overtones to v. 35-39 in which Jesus asks if he believes in the Son of Man, which was a title given to an individual the Jews believed would be sent from God. Another parallel here is that, when the people asked the man where Jesus is, he answers, “I don’t know where he is” (v. 12). Later, in v. 36 he basically answers Jesus in a similar manner, but while the people could not give him an answer, Jesus certainly did. Finally, similar to some ideas involving baptism, the healed beggar went through a process of belief. By having experienced a miracle, the man knows that God is actively working in his life, but he cannot find the one whom through God acted. He then proclaims that Jesus is a prophet, but by sticking with his testimony, having simple faith, and being thrown out of the synagogue, the man is treated to the ultimate of revelations: Jesus is Lord and worthy of worship (v. 38).
C/C’ (John 9:13-17/ 24-34)
In C and C’, there are several events worth examining that John uses to convey the point. The healed man is brought before the Pharisees once in each section to find out what happened with this act and who did it. The first time, they are inquisitive into the healing and debating Jesus’ character, but the second time their verdict has already passed. The first Pharisaic investigation poses an inherent paradox: Jesus could not have been sent from God for He violates the Sabbath with His healing, but how could He have performed a miracle if He sinned? As Herman Ridderbos points out, althrough the critics of Jesus eventually won in the dispute (v. 25), it shows that no one could get around that fact that a miracle had indeed been performed.[4] In v. 13-17, although there was no doubt squabbling over the person of Jesus (who is not mentioned in name here), for the healed man, the discussion is over: Jesus is a prophet. The point deserves re-emphasis: the blind man is getting closer to the true realization of Jesus for, as Beasley-Murray notes, “not all prophets performed signs and not all miracle workers were prophets.”[5] By him experiencing one aspect and acknowledging another, he is reasoning that this Jesus could be something even greater than a prophet. This would seal his fate against the Jewish leaders who later cast him out and declared Jesus a sinner.
In the second interrogation of the man, again the Pharisees ask the man, but their minds are already made up against Jesus. In both interrogations, the Pharisees asked how the miracle itself was performed, and both times the man declares what the Pharisees cannot deny. He does not engage them in a theological tug-of-war but simply testifies what the Lord has done in His life: “I once was blind but now I see” (9:15, 25, and 30). The first time, the man was only able to describe the healing and say that he believed Jesus to be a prophet. This second time, he is able to testify more fully concerning Jesus. The Pharisees corner him saying “give glory to God”. In other words, “tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth because we know this man is a sinner” (9:24). The man basically tells them what he knows 1) he was blind and now sees 2) God does not answer prayers of a wicked person 3) these Pharisees, ignoring facts 1 & 2 do not know anything about Jesus. Finally, in verse 34, the Pharisees do nothing but assert the plain facts in an attempt to bolster their superiority, “You were born into sin, are you now trying to teach us?” The irony here is that the Pharisees only give validity to what they had been trying to refute in the first place; the man was born blind, and Jesus had plainly healed him! John structures these two interrogations to show the contrasts between the blind man who grew in spiritual sight concerning who Jesus was, and the Pharisees who only grew in their blindness, even going so far as to reject that a miracle had even happened despite plain evidence.[6]
D-Center: The Interrogation of the Parents
The apex of this story is the interrogation of the man’s parents who were called in to verify that the man had indeed been born blind. Ridderbos states the common idea that the way the Jews worded the question to the parents shows that they were not trying to clarify that matter but to embarrass the man and to discredit Jesus. If the testimony of two or three witnesses is needed then who better than the man’s own parents? However, this attempt was to no avail because, even though the parents could testify their son can now see, they were fearful of being excommunicated from the synagogue for affirming Jesus’ power.[7] As mentioned above, this would be the ultimate insult and dishonor because it cut one off from the public life of one’s community.[8] Verse 22 here becomes the high point in the story. Anyone who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah would be put out of the religious community. For the Jew, this meant everything, even possibly being cut off from family. The parents were afraid of this and so one does not know what happened to them, but the son boldly proclaimed the power of Jesus that was made so obvious to him. He suffered the punishment of being put out of fellowship. This was the make or break point for any Jewish believer of Jesus. Would they remain true to their Jewish roots or break away from every stable institution in their life to follow this new Rabbi? For the blind man, although this was the biggest turning point in his life and although he had to turn his back on everything he knew to be true, John makes it clear that this is not the ending of the story. He had to lose everything but by encountering Jesus once more, he now received everything, most of all the identity of the Messiah and acceptance into the kingdom of God. Furthermore, the Pharisees were shamed by Jesus in favor of this man because they were called blind by not recognizing the simple acts of God that pointed the way to Jesus as the Messiah.
John formulated his story to show many good points. Believers who are serious about their faith should not be surprised when close ones (even family) deny them for their own safety. There may come a time that followers of Jesus will have to put everything else in their life away, or even have it taken from them, for the sake of their faith. When that moment comes, one need not engage in fancy theological disputes to justify their beliefs but only cling to the testimony of the power of Christ working in their life, like this man did. However, even those who will accept Jesus may have to suffer estrangement from family and friends, whether estrangement or martyrdom, they will have the ultimate reward: to see their Lord face-to-face, having all blinders removed forever. Not only this, but Jesus will shame those who persecuted those loyal to him for the sake of maintaining honor for themselves as the Pharisees did.
[1] Beasley-Murray, George R. World Biblical Commentary: John, Vol. 32, 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999. pg. 155
[2] Brown, Raymond E. (trans.), The Gospel according to John, 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966-70. pg. 380-381
[3] Beasley-Murray pg. 155
[4] Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. by John Vriend, Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1997. pg. 13-17
[5] Beasley-Murray, pg. 157
[6] Brown, pg. 377
[7] Kostenberger, J. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: John, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, c2004 pg. 288
[8] Ibid.