OUTLINE OF CHAPTER 9:

The entirety of this chapter evolves around Jesus’ healing of a man born blind from birth.

Vss.1-12 records Jesus’ healing the man and the corroborating witness regarding the event.

Vss.13-34 records the questioning of the man, to include his parents, regarding the incident, by the Pharisees.

Vss.35-41 records a second meeting between the man and Jesus, to include some of the Pharisees being present.

EXEGESIS VERSES 1 – 2:

GNT John 9:1 Kai. para,gwn ei=den a;nqrwpon tuflo.n evk geneth/jÅ

NAS John 9:1 And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. kai, (cc) para,gwn para,gw (circ. ptc./p/a/nm-s; "as He passed by/to go past"; used 10x; the ptc. denotes linear action; John uses it in the passive to denote something "disappearing or passing away in the course of time" -1Joh.2:8 & 2:17; here it has a strong implicit reference of relating back to Jesus' disappearance from the hostile crowd of Joh.8:59b, but explicitly relates to a literal and separate action.) ei=den o`ra,w (viaa--3s) a;nqrwpon a;nqrwpoj (n-am-s) tuflo.n tuflo,j (adj-am-s; "blind"; used 50x; it can refer to both physical and spiritual blindness, exs. Joh.5:3 cp. 9:40-41) evk(pAbl; "from the source of") geneth/jÅ geneth, (n-gf-s; "birth"; hapax; denotes the exact point or time of birth as illustrated in Homer's writings where it is translated "hour of birth"; emphasizes that this man was blind from the womb.)

GNT John 9:2 kai. hvrw,thsan auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ le,gontej( ~Rabbi,( ti,j h[marten( ou-toj h' oi` gonei/j auvtou/( i[na tuflo.j gennhqh/|È

NAS John 9:2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" kai, (cc) auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) oi` o` maqhtai. maqhth,j (d.a. + n-nm-p) hvrw,thsan evrwta,w (viaa--3p; "asked/inquired") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) le,gontej( le,gw (circ. ptc./p/a/nm-p) ~Rabbi,( r`abbi, (n-vm-s; case of polite address; "Rabbi/Teacher") ti,j (interr. pro./nm-s; "who?") h[marten( a`marta,nw (viaa--3s; "sinned") ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s; "this man/this one") h; (comparative conj.; "or") auvtou/( auvto,j (npgm3s) oi` o` gonei/j goneu,j (d.a. + n-nm-p; "parents/begetters/progenitor"; used 20x; always in the plural, always translated parents) i[na (ch; denotes result; "resulting that") gennhqh/|È genna,w (vsap--3s; "he might be born") tuflo,j (a--nm-s; "blind")

ANALYSIS VERSES 1 – 2:

This chapter possesses no certain chronological note, but the context of chapter eight is naturally continued.

This is the sense of the opening phrase, "And as He passed by".

It denotes that the scenario at hand occurs during the continuing natural course of events during Jesus’ ministry.

It has further implications grammatically that the present event has a direct tie contextually to chapter 8, specifically Jesus’ disappearing act of 8:59.

This points to a primary purpose of the following context in relating to why it was necessary for Jesus to be hidden in 8:59, i.e., because of His claim of Deity in 8:58.

It is John’s purpose to now provide evidence of His claim in that regard, through the unprecedented miracle about to take place.

Therefore, John is not emphasizing any particular time frame; rather he is maintaining contextually the emphasis at hand.

Some have suggested that this took place on the last day of the feast of chapter 7, just as chapter 8 does.

As the previous analysis has shown, the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, the 8^th day, is called a Sabbath (Lev.23:36), and the present miracle occurs on a Sabbath (Joh.9:14).

While it is possible, John’s grammar tends to lean away from this notion, since in 7:37 he refers to the last day as "the great day of the feast", and in 9:14 he simply uses the term "a Sabbath" (without the d.a.).

In other words, if it was John’s intent to tie in the Sabbath of 9:14 with the Sabbath of 7:37, he would grammatically in some way denote "a" Sabbath of 9:14 as that definite Sabbath (by using the d.a. or other modification), of the great day of feast in 7:37.

Chronologically, chapters 9 and 10:1-21 occur surrounding the same event of Jesus’ healing of this blind man.

In Joh.10:22, John skips in time to the Feast of the Dedication, which occurs in mid-December, some two months away from the Feast of Tabernacles.

Therefore, it makes better sense that John is only relating to an event sometime between these two feasts, purposely avoiding any inference chronologically in order to emphasize the validity/proof of Jesus’ claim as God, a major theme of the Gospel.

Therefore, at some undetermined period down the road in the natural course of Jesus’ ministry, He saw a man blind from birth.

As the Greek makes clear, this man came forth from the womb in this condition.

He is the subject of this chapter and his healing forms the catalyst for yet another confrontation between light and darkness.

The OT does not contain any story of documentation of anyone giving sight to someone born blind, nor is there any other known documentation medically in this regard to date.

As the blind man will say, "since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind". Joh.9:32

In the OT, it was understood that the giving of sight to the blind is an activity associated with God Himself. Exo.4:11; Psa.146:8

It is also clearly taught that such activity would be a regular feature of the Messianic kingdom. Isa.29:18; 35:5; 42:7; cp. Luk.7:19-22

That this is a unique function of the Christ is obvious, and that there were many miracles of the giving of sight is recorded in the NT. Mat.9:27ff; 12:22ff; 15:30ff; 21:14; Mar.8:22ff; 10:46ff; Luk.7:21ff

One could hardly observe such activity and not have to consider the Divine nature of the One who could do such a thing.

The man whom Jesus observed is seen as somewhat of a colorful character as his exchanges with the Pharisees bear out.

He is presented contextually as an unbeliever when Jesus healed him, but manifests +V after the fact, coming to saving faith. Joh.9:35-38

Therefore, he provides for those who are observing him during his discourse with the Pharisees, an example of the mental process of one that manifests they are +V.

As we will see, he observes his healing by:

Sticking strictly to the facts of the healing (vs.15).

Provides answers to questions that he can logically deduce based on his frame of reference and the facts (vss.17, 25, 30-33).

Is not deterred by any contradicting thinking that opposes the facts (vs.24-25).

Is not willing to "fold" under pressure in his stand for the truth in this regard.

And is not afraid to stand toe-to-toe with the opposition and take issue with their illogical repudiation of the facts, calling a "spade a spade/heart a heart" (vs.27).

In essence, this man is a perfect example of the intellectual honesty inherent in the manifestation of +V (vss.35-38).

That a different/later time frame is in view than that of chpt.8, again has support in that the immediate twelve not mentioned in chpts.7-8 (not saying they weren’t there), reappear contextually into the picture in vs.2, showing a distinct division, "And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?’"

As they saw the man who was begging (vs.8), they inquire of Jesus with regard to why this particular person was in his current physical condition.

Their question reflects the mentality of Judaistic thinking in that day regarding suffering and why people suffer.

As previously recorded in John, there is a legitimate place for attributing suffering and physical malady to sin as the case of the paralytic pointed out. Joh.5:1-15 cp. vs.14

However, to attribute all suffering and illness to sin is a very shallow approach to the problems of mankind.

How the disciples knew that this man had been born blind from birth is not stated, only that they do have knowledge of this very important fact.

Their view was that blindness was punishment for sin, and the only question to be resolved in their thinking was that of whose sin was responsible.

The two alternatives that reflect present Judaistic thinking is that either the man himself had sinned or his parents.

Considering the nature of his blindness being from the womb, their first possibility points to a very ludicrous teaching and failure in understanding –V and the STA in interpretations of such passages as Psa.51:5; 58:3 and the events surrounding the birth of Jacob and Esau (Gen.25:23).

To entertain the idea that infants might sin in the womb goes against all understanding of the process of birth, imputation of the soul, expression of volition and places injustice upon God for punishing someone for a sin or sins that are impossible to commit.

So this suggestion was human viewpoint of the worst sort.

The second suggestion is that this man was in this state due to some sinning on the part of his parents.

This principle of "cursing by association" has merit based on such passages as Exo.20:5; 34:7; Num.14:18 and Deu.5:9.

As those passages proclaim, certain sin activity can carry with it future repercussions effecting even the innocent, including infant children.

That parents can and do make sinful decisions that directly and physically effect their newborn is evident even today, in the transmission of such diseases and problems associated with AIDS, venereal disease (herpes), drug addiction and incest.

Therefore, it is a distinct possibility that a child could be born into a family with some congenital defect due to the sins of his/her parents.

But, as we will see, this is not the case for this man.

Observation: As an adjusted believer, it is wise to leave matters of judgment, such as this, in the hands of God, unless there is explicit verifiable facts to substantiate a claim otherwise.

EXEGESIS VERSES 3 – 5:

GNT John 9:3 avpekri,qh VIhsou/j( Ou;te ou-toj h[marten ou;te oi` gonei/j auvtou/( avllV i[na fanerwqh/| ta. e;rga tou/ qeou/ evn auvtw/|Å

NAS John 9:3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; VIhsou/j( (n-nm-s) avpekri,qh avpokri,nomai (viad--3s) "it was" supplied Ou;te (cc; "ou;te ..... ou;te" = "neither...nor") "that" supplied ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s; "this man") h[marten a`marta,nw (viaa--3s; "sinned") ou;te (cc; "nor") auvtou/( auvto,j (npgm3s) oi` o` gonei/j goneu,j (d.a. + n-nm-p; "parents") but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him. avllV avlla, (strong adver.) "it was" supplied i[na (conj. of purpose; "in order that") ta. to` e;rga e;rgon (d.a. + n-nn-p; "the works") tou/ o` qeou/ qeo,j (d.a. + n-subjective gen./m-s; it is God who produces the "works") fanerwqh/| fanero,w (vsap--3s; "might be displayed/manifested") evn (pL) auvtw/|Å auvto,j (npLm3s)

GNT John 9:4 h`ma/j dei/ evrga,zesqai ta. e;rga tou/ pe,myanto,j me e[wj h`me,ra evsti,n\ e;rcetai nu.x o[te ouvdei.j du,natai evrga,zesqaiÅ

NAS John 9:4 "We must work the works of Him who sent Me, as long as it is day; h`ma/j evgw, (npa-1p; "We"; accusative of reference. Literally, "With reference to us" or "For us") dei/ (vipa--3s; "it is necessary/a must") evrga,zesqai evrga,zomai (compl. inf/p/dep-; "to work"; though a deponent, it has the nuance of a passive to denote that God is the agent behind the act of "working") ta. to` e;rga e;rgon (d.a. + n-an-p) tou/ o` pe,myanto,j pe,mpw (d.a. + subs. ptc./a/a/gm-s; "of Him who sent/the One having sent") me evgw, (npa-1s) e[wj (cs; when followed by an indicative = "for a time/as long as") evsti,n\ eivmi, (vipa--3s) h`me,ra (n-nf-s) night is coming, when no man can work. nu,x (n-nf-s; "night") e;rcetai e;rcomai (vipd--3s; "is coming") o[te (adv. of time; "when/while") ouvdei,j (card. adj./nm-s; "No man/no one/not even one") du,natai du,namai (vipd--3s; "is able/can") evrga,zesqaiÅ evrga,zomai (compl. inf./pd-; "to work")

GNT John 9:5 o[tan evn tw/| ko,smw| w=( fw/j eivmi tou/ ko,smouÅ

NAS John 9:5 "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." o[tan (cs; "While/When/Whenever") w=( eivmi, (vspa--1s; "I might be") evn (pL) tw/| o` ko,smw| ko,smoj (d.a. + n-Lm-s) eivmi, (vipa--1s) fw/j (n-nn-s; no d.a.; "a light") tou/ o` ko,smouÅ ko,smoj (n-objective gen./m-s; receives the action of the illumination)

ANALYSIS VERSES 3 – 5:

How Jesus answered His disciples, does not mitigate for or against the validity of either of their suggestions as He stated, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents".

What He does, is offer a third explanation not commonly considered when those with a physical handicap were observed.

For Jesus to dismiss an opportunity to explicitly address their erroneous ideas by design points to:

The subjective nature of human viewpoint approach to life and the need for objectivity to be employed by individuals to overcome this "spiritual" handicap.

This subjectivity must first be attacked by employing intellectual honesty that demands a consideration for "all" the facts surrounding any given subject or situation.

That Jesus simply denotes that there is a third alternative to this particular situation, "but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him", is sufficient for His disciples to recognize their "narrow-mindedness" of their particular views in this regard.

That His alternate view indeed provides that stark contrast is seen in Jesus’ use of the strong adversative "avlla,/but", coupled with the purpose conjunction "i[na/in order that".

His approach in this fashion, points to the principle that some erroneous views of God’s plan are based on more fundamental/base problem areas in one’s thinking and understanding.

In essence, Jesus cuts through the more superficial problem (the "peeling" on the apple) to get to the "core" of the problem in their thinking.

Therefore, He utilizes an approach that will in the long run not only correct any erroneous views they may have regarding this particular situation, but will lay a foundation of thinking in such a way that will help them avoid subjectivity in all areas of their thinking.

Only by approaching subjects and situations in life in a purely intellectually honest and objective fashion, accumulating all the facts while employing discernment, will the believer find a balanced approach to the extremes in life and as depicted in Scripture.

Jesus response points out that while there is a purpose to all that God does, does not mean necessarily that in all cases it is due to some blame upon the individual in view.

What it does point out is a higher principle that in the approach to those in need, the first consideration should be is there a purpose for their state of being that includes a contribution on our part so the works of God might be displayed in him, not an immediate act of subjective condemnation.

However, this is not teaching that we should be foolish do-gooders, who rush in to aid every charity case that we find.

What it does teach is that there are legitimate cases of spiritual need that may be accessed through the physical need.

The believer then, must approach each individual case in an objective way with some measure of doctrinal discernment and prayer when they come across those in life with severe physical afflictions.

To foolishly rush in and attempt to alleviate all suffering would be a mistake; to avoid all suffering and place the blame on the sufferer would be equally wrong.

Only by an objective and openly honest approach, while avoiding overreacting in a subjective manner, can one ascertain what the true will of God is for not only the individual, but for the applications of others in their periphery towards them.

In this case, it is God’s will that an opportunity for Divine good production to be seized.

We recognize that Jesus had complete insight into all men and knew that this man would believe if given the chance. Joh.9:38

We do not have such insight and so must proceed with more caution in such matters.

We do not accept the premise that the relief of physical suffering that may provide an opportunity to address spiritual needs, is the primary mandate of believers. Exs., Salvation Army, Feed the World, etc.

If this premise were true, why then did not Jesus heal all of the afflicted and physically handicapped in Israel at the first advent? Ex. At the pool of Bethesda of Joh.5:1ff, He only picked one man out of the multitude of sick, lame, etc.

We recognize the principle that in some cases, the STA is the cause of suffering and "if you rescue him, you will only have to do it again". Pro.19:10

We also recognize the reality that God allows certain people to suffer in order to bring them around spiritually. Dan.4:28ff of King Nebuchadnezzar

On the other hand, some people can suffer, and suffer intensely, and no spiritual adjustment is forthcoming. Ex. Pharaoh of the Exodus

We also understand that God has established priorities in our acts of good towards others as Paul so directly puts it in Gal.6:10, "So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, especially though/de.-"but" (corrected) to those who are of the household of the faith (those a part of the local church)".

Therefore, what must be determined is the appropriate thinking and application to each individual case at hand.

And this demands that we avoid narrow-minded or subjective/emotional analysis that may not fully deal with the facts and concern ourselves with walking in FHS and assimilating BD, so we can know how to deal with situations with which we may come into contact.

That the principle at hand is applicable to all who adjoin themselves to Christ, is observed in vs.4 where Jesus uses the plural of the pronoun evgw,/We, to include those who were there with Him as He states, "We must work the works of Him who sent Me".

This verse constitutes an important observation of Dvgd (Divine good) production for the positive believer.

He points out that there is a time for activity and there is a time when activity is impossible in the remainder of the verse, "as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work".

He uses a fact regarding work that denotes that normal productive hours of labor are accomplished during the day, while night is provided for rest and sleep.

"Day" contextually corresponds with the time of life; "night" refers to the time of physical death, after which work is not possible.

The conjunction of time, "e[ws/as long as" denotes the uncertainty of the length of life allotted by God to each of us. Ecc.3:1-2 cp. 7:17

The nuance of His declaration is that the time for working is during the day and if the work is not completed in a timely manner, tomorrow may be too late.

The Bible categorically denies any time after death when one can make any adjustment or contribution to the POG. Heb.9:27

When one dies, that is it; they are not given any further opportunity to believe or to excel in the POG.

The works of God refers to those specific works that God endorses in His directive will of BD, and hence approves.

Bible class is the place where one first learns of Dvgd production and where one learns what works are sanctioned by God compared to that which is to be avoided under the principle of hmgd (human good), being a waste of time.

BD is designed to make the man of God "mature, equipped for every good work". 2Tim.3:17

The verb "must/dei//it is necessary", underscores the fact that this issue of Dvgd production is not an optional feature of the CWL, but an absolute necessity.

It is our works as believers that will be evaluated for SG₃ at the Bema. 1Cor.3:12-15

That Jesus includes Himself with His disciples in this aspect underscores the principle that the works of His disciples under His authority are to be compatible with His own ministry.

Jesus, as God’s Divinely sent emissary to these men, is the example given for them to discern what constitutes working "the works of Him who sent Me".

This observation denotes that under the authority of one’s right P-T, his teaching and ministry, one is apprised of that which constitutes the works of God and that the opportunities will come into your niche that allow you to actually engage in Dvgd production and in compatibility and sync with the ministry of each local church.

Failure to know or failure to follow through and do the works of God is failure in fulfilling God’s directive will in your life.

Much must be overruled in life in order to fully excel in the matters of Dvgd production, to include:

Lack of knowledge.

Laziness.

Wrong priorities.

Procrastination.

Rationalization.

Emotionalism and the STA.

In vs.5, Jesus sets Himself forth as the status quo in this example as He proclaims, "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world".

He denotes that even His time remaining on the planet was limited and therefore, there is a sense of urgency to His mission.

For Him, less than six months remains for His departure to Ph₃ and He is totally motivated to continue in producing maximum Dvgd to the end.

He understands that in that time allotted to Him, He must remain totally focused on His purpose of existence as the light of the world.

While He knew precisely His time remaining, we do not and therefore must seize every opportunity that comes to us in the A/C.

That Jesus once again refers to His Person as "light", but in this context of Dvgd, illustrates that the illuminating effect of BD is manifested in the very application of it.

The absence of the d.a. with the word "light", is intentional to remove any subjective conclusions that the principle at hand is limited only to His Person and ministry as Messiah.

Rather, it is equally applicable to any that claim to be a light of the world.

The very nature and effect of +V’s existence as "light" is dependent upon a discerning ability as to how and when to apply Dvgd in all areas of life.

This teaching is compatible with what Jesus taught concerning spiritual priorities of one’s life in Joh.4:32ff, when He informed the disciples that certain applications took precedence even over necessary functions of life, like eating.

In this case, the emphasis is on the short and unknown duration of the believer’s Ph₂.

In addition, it is teaching that relates exactly to the emphasis in the book of James that knowledge of BD in and of itself is insufficient before God to be counted as light, but application of it must follow or it is worthless. Jam.2:17,26 cp.1:17

Therefore, Jesus who was perfect light understood that inhale faith of BD demanded exhale faith in order that the works of God might be displayed in others around Him.

It points to the reality that it is one’s application of BD that opens the door for God to reveal/illustrate to others the power of His word as light, which encompasses life, truth, Divine love, etc.

And for those who are ultimately +V, the act of application towards them will be considered with intellectual honesty leading to spiritual illumination.

Review Doctrine of Divine Good Production.

EXEGESIS VERSES 6 – 7:

GNT John 9:6 tau/ta eivpw.n e;ptusen camai. kai. evpoi,hsen phlo.n evk tou/ ptu,smatoj kai. evpe,crisen auvtou/ to.n phlo.n evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou.j

NAS John 9:6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, eivpw.n le,gw (circ. ptc./a/a/nm-s; "When or After He had said") tau/ta ou-toj (near dem. pro./an-p; "this/these things") e;ptusen ptu,w (viaa--3s; "He spit"; used 3x; The Jews held that saliva was efficacious/effectual for eye-trouble, but its use was forbidden on the Sabbath; in the OT, the act of spitting in one's face denoted a failure of obedience [Deu.25:9] and denoted the shame of one rendered unclean [Num.12:14]. To spit out or to spit at someone also denotes a condescending act of judgment towards one considered to be cursed or unworthy before the one spitting [Job 17:6; Rev.3:16]) camai, (adv.; "on the ground/earth"; here the emphasis is on the "dirt/soil", since the product of "clay" is produced) and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, kai, (cc) evpoi,hsen poie,w (viaa--3s; "made/kneaded") phlo.n phlo,j (n-am-s; "clay/mud"; used 5x; Used of potter's clay in Rom.9:21, where God is seen as having the right to use His creation as He sees fit.) evk (pAbl.; "from the source of") tou/ to, ptu,smatoj ptu,sma (d.a. + n-Abln-s; "that which one spits/saliva/spittle") kai, (cc) evpe,crisen evpicri,w (viaa--3s; "to apply/spread something on something/ to anoint"; used 2x) to.n o` phlo.n phlo,j (d.a. + n-am-s; "the clay") evpi, (pa; "to/upon") auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou.j ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "eyes")

GNT John 9:7 kai. ei=pen auvtw/|( {Upage ni,yai eivj th.n kolumbh,qran tou/ Silwa,m ¿o] e`rmhneu,etai VApestalme,nojÀÅ avph/lqen ou=n kai. evni,yato kai. h=lqen ble,pwnÅ

NAS John 9:7 and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). kai, (cc) ei=pen le,gw (viaa--3s) auvtw/|( auvto,j (npdm3s) {Upage u`pa,gw (vImp./pa--2s; "Go") ni,yai ni,ptw (vImp./am--2s; "wash yourself") eivj (pa) th.n h` kolumbh,qran kolumbh,qra (d.a. + n-af-s; "the pool"; same as Joh.5:2,7) tou/ o` Silwa,m (d.a. + n-gm-s; "Siloam") ¿o] o[j (rel.pro./nn-s) e`rmhneu,etai e`rmhneu,w (vipp--3s; "being translated/interpreted/explained in words") VApestalme,nojÀÅ avposte,llw (adj. ptc./PF/p/nm-s; "having been sent with a commission") And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing. ou=n (infer. conj.; "And so/therefore") avph/lqen avpe,rcomai (viaa--3s; "he went away") kai, (cc) evni,yato ni,ptw (viam--3s; "washed himself") kai, (ch) h=lqen e;rcomai (viaa--3s; "returned/came back") ble,pwnÅ ble,pw (circ. ptc./p/a/nm-s; "seeing")

ANALYSIS VERSES 6 – 7:

Having made His statement about performing the works of God, as denoted in the phrase, "When/After He had said this", Jesus proceeds to heal the man who was born blind.

Though He does not tell anyone what He is doing, His words and now actions may well inferred that there was to be a miracle.

He begins with a series of actions followed by words of command.

His actions are in the order of 3 parts as "He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes".

The use of saliva in the miracles of Jesus is recorded on at least two other occasions involving deafness and blindness. Mar.7:31ff; 8:22ff

Questions have naturally arisen as to why Jesus would employ some physical action when He healed certain people.

To claim that it was some supernatural formula in order to heal is only mysticism and denies other acts of healing where He simply gave a command and it was done. Cp. Joh.5:8-9

One cannot limit the Son of God by exact procedures and what He did, He did by His own sovereign hand at the direction of the Father.

As John has made clear, all of Jesus’ miracles are "signs" and therefore the miracle and actions accompanying them point to a greater spiritual revelation. Joh.2:11,23; 6:2; 20:30; et al

Having applied the mud to the man’s eyes, He immediately follows up with instructions to complete the miracle and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam".

The pool of Siloam has been identified as located in Southern Jerusalem called the Lower City, within the city wall.

This pool came into existence at the time of Hezekiah under the threat of Assyrian invasion by King Sennacherib. 2Chr.32:1-4

During the siege of the city, Hezekiah determined to stop all water supplies outside the city and in the region as deterrence of the invasion.

He then created secure water supplies within the city by tunneling between Gihon Spring under the wall and into the city.

The Jews created a tunnel 1200 cubits (approx. 2000 ft.) between the Siloam reservoir and the spring.

They tunneled through shear rock with iron twisting and turning to avoid constructions or rock faults or to follow a fissure, with the tunnel being 6 ft. in height and as narrow in width as 20 inches.

In 1880, an inscription was found about 15 ft. inside the tunnel that read: "...was being dug out. It was cut in the following manner....axes. each man towards his fellow, and while there were still 3 cubits (4.5 ft.) to be cut through, the voice of one man calling to the other was heard, showing that he was deviating to the right. When the tunnel was driven through, the excavators met man to man, axe to axe, and the water flowed for 1,200 cubits from the spring to the reservoir".

The tunnel, known as Hezekiah’s Tunnel, was engineered by starting at two ends and meeting in the middle, and that apart from tunneling in a straight line.

This engineering feat is a definite reflection of God’s hand and grace applied towards the Jews from impending defeat from the hands of their enemies.

John in vs.7, provides a parenthetical insert regarding the name of Siloam, "(which is translated, Sent)".

The verb "Sent/avposte,llw" literally means "to send with a commission" and denotes that the act of sending carries with it delegated authority to carry out a prescribed mission or certain duties.

In vs.7b, the commands to the blind man by Jesus are carried out resulting in the actual healing as John records, "And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing".

The spiritual representations behind the healing as a "sign" explained:

The man born blind represents mankind born into this world under spiritual death that equates to spiritual blindness.

That there is no guilt of actual sin placed upon this particular man by either himself or his actual parents, points to the reality that all men enter the world under spiritual death apart from any sin(s) accounted against them on their part personally or those responsible for their procreation. Rom.5:12-15

It reflects the true cause of spiritual death being the sin nature, not actual or personal sinning.

Though cursing by association remains a viable principle in the case of spiritual death, Jesus omitted further discussion concerning that principle in vs.3, to emphasize that placing blame on another for one’s spiritual condition is not the primary issue before men.

Rather, the real issue is simply that the condition of spiritual death/blindness exists for all men.

And for some, it is for the purpose of God’s works to be manifested in them personally.

Jesus’ actions represent His Person in answer to the spiritual dilemma of men:

The act of spitting represents the judgment of His Deity demanded by His absolute righteousness in its evaluation of men under spiritual death.

The nuances in this regard can be gleaned from what the use of spitting in the Scriptures reveal, as documented in Deu.25:9; Num.12:14; Job 17:6 and Rev.3:16.

It denotes that under the reality of death due to the nature and volitional propensity of men, men cannot depend upon other like men to secure a heritage of life beyond death. Deu.25:5-9

Mankind in their condition of spiritual blindness reflects shame and is rendered unclean before God. Num.12:14

It demands an act of judgment of separation between men and God. Rev.3:16

His view is that men are under a curse and fail to attain to His standard of +R. Job 17:6

That the target of His emission is on the ground denotes that the earth and those in it are His target destination of manifesting His +R/+J.

The term ground further relates contextually to dirt/soil, which is used to represent volition. Mat.13:3-9, 18-23 cp. Heb.6:7

Therefore, it is volition/souls of mankind that God specifically targets under His +R/+J. Psa.34:22; Mat.10:28

That Jesus makes clay from the saliva represents that there is one vessel of honor among men that God’s +R/+J is found to be completely pliant/adaptable/compatible with, in order to generate spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead.

It illustrates His Person as God the Son who condescended into humanity under the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, a union that was formed into one entity. Phi.2:6-11

It denotes volition of such positive character that Deity could unite with it and provide the necessary +R to satisfy God’s +J regarding spiritual death.

Therefore, it is the unique Person of Jesus Christ that is the prescribed anointing by God for men to be healed spiritually.

That Jesus physically applied the clay to his eyes denotes that salvation is the free gift provided to men by God, through His person, and men are helpless otherwise. Rom.6:23; Eph.2:8

That the application contextually is directed towards a man who is ultimately +V to the SAJG emphasizes that the prescribed anointing provided for men is only beneficial to those who are +V. 1Tim.4:10

That the man could not see Jesus actions physically points to the spiritual reality of His actions.

It demonstrates God’s love for men in that He gave His Son even while mankind continues to exist under spiritual death and demonstrates unlimited atonement. Rom.5:8; 6:10; 1Pet.3:18

That He physically touched the man illustrates that it is His Person that evokes hope from men concerning their destitute state.

Jesus commands and Johns parenthetical insertion in vs.7 denotes mans role in the spiritual healing process:

The double imperatives to "go", "wash" indicates two necessary acts of obedience by men to be spiritually healed.

The command to "go" illustrates that man must seek the answer to their spiritual dilemma in their normal course of life. Act.17:26-27

The term "wash" is a middle voice and literally means to "wash oneself" and here represents the exercise of faith necessary to be healed from spiritual blindness.

That washing is accomplished in a pool of water represents that the truth of BD (Eph.5:26), here specifically to the gospel presentation Ph₁, is the avenue and source from which one will find the correct object in which to exercise their faith.

John’s parenthetical translation "Sent with a commission" identifies the object of faith as Jesus Christ being the Divinely commissioned emissary of God sent to absolve the issue of man’s spiritual blindness.

That the blind man was obedient illustrates that +V in their quest of seeking the answer, exercising faith in Christ as stipulated in BD, will result in a spiritual reversal from death/blindness to sight/life.

It is noted that this is not a miracle of restoration of sight, but a creation of sight in a person who had never seen before.

It was a miracle of such magnitude that people could readily recognize the supernatural power demanded for its existence.

As a side note, it is recognized that technically, Jesus violated the current laws of legalistic Judaism regarding the Sabbath in the following ways:

The making of clay violated the prohibition of kneading, one of the 39 classes of work that was forbidden.

The placing of the mud on they eyes was a violation of their laws of anointing on the Sabbath.

The medical procedure of the actual healing was a violation of the law concerning healing on the Sabbath, unless the life was in danger.

EXEGESIS VERSES 8 – 12:

GNT John 9:8 Oi` ou=n gei,tonej kai. oi` qewrou/ntej auvto.n to. pro,teron o[ti prosai,thj h=n e;legon( Ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` kaqh,menoj kai. prosaitw/nÈ

NAS John 9:8 The neighbors therefore, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, Oi` o` gei,tonej gei,twn (d.a. + n-nm-p; originally meant "Those of the same land"; hence, "The neighbors") ou=n (infer. conj.) kai, (cc) oi` o` qewrou/ntej qewre,w (d.a. + subs. ptc./p/a/nm-p; "those who saw/to observe as a spectator" +) to. o` pro,teron pro,teroj (d.a. + adverbial accusative/n-s; "previously/before/of former time" +) auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) o[ti (declar. conj.; "that"; goes with the verb qewre,w; "previously saw that") h=n eivmi, (viIPFa--3s; "he was") prosai,thj (n-nm-s; "a begger"; used 2x) e;legon( le,gw (viIPFa--3p; "were saying") "Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?" Ouvc ouv (neg. +) evstin eivmi, (vipa--3s; "Is not") ou-to,j ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s; "this man") o` kaqh,menoj ka,qhmai (d.a. [governs both ptc's] subs.ptc./p/dep/nm-s; "he who sits/to be seated/to sit down"; used 16x) kai, (cc) prosaitw/nÈ prosaite,w (subs. ptc./p/a/nm-s; "he who begs/to ask for/to ask for alms or begs"; hapax)

GNT John 9:9 a;lloi e;legon o[ti Ou-to,j evstin( a;lloi e;legon( Ouvci,( avlla. o[moioj auvtw/| evstinÅ evkei/noj e;legen o[ti VEgw, eivmiÅ

NAS John 9:9 Others were saying, "This is he," a;lloi a;lloj (ap-nm-p; "Others"; denotes others of a different kind) e;legon le,gw (viIPFa--3p) o[ti (declarative conj. not translated) Ou-to,j ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s +) evstin( eivmi, (vipa--3s; "This man is he") still others were saying, "No, but he is like him." still supplied a;lloi a;lloj (ap-nm-p) e;legon( le,gw (viIPFa--3p) Ouvci,( (emphatic neg.; "No/by no means/not so") avlla, (strong adver.; "but"; in stark contrast to) evstinÅ eivmi, (vipa--3s; "he is") o[moioj (adj--nm-s; "like/resembles/is similar to in form or appearance"; same as 8:55) auvtw/| auvto,j (npdm3s; "to him") He kept saying, "I am the one." evkei/noj (remote dem. pro./nm-s; "That one/He/the begger") e;legen le,gw (viIPFa--3s; "kept saying/was saying") o[ti (declarative conj.; not translated) VEgw, (npn-1s +) eivmiÅ (vipa--1s; "I Myself am he")

GNT John 9:10 e;legon ou=n auvtw/|( Pw/j hvnew,|cqhsa,n sou oi` ovfqalmoi,È

NAS John 9:10 Therefore they were saying to him, "How then were your eyes opened?" ou=n (infer. conj.; "Therefore"; based on the fact that he convinced them that he was one and the same person) e;legon le,gw (viIPFa--3p) auvtw/|( auvto,j (npdm3s) Pw/j (interr. adv.; "How then/In what way?") sou su, (npg-2s) oi` o` ovfqalmoi,È ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-nm-p; "the eyes") hvnew,|cqhsa,n avnoi,gw (viap--3p; "were opened/have been opened/caused to open up"; used 4x)

GNT John 9:11 avpekri,qh evkei/noj( ~O a;nqrwpoj o` lego,menoj VIhsou/j phlo.n evpoi,hsen kai. evpe,crise,n mou tou.j ovfqalmou.j kai. ei=pe,n moi o[ti {Upage eivj to.n Silwa.m kai. ni,yai\ avpelqw.n ou=n kai. niya,menoj avne,bleyaÅ

NAS John 9:11 He answered, "The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, evkei/noj( (remote dem. pro./nm-s; "He/that one/the begger") avpekri,qh avpokri,nomai (viadep--3s) ~O a;nqrwpoj (d.a. + n-nm-s) o` lego,menoj le,gw (adj. ptc./p/p/nm-s; "who is called/the one being called") VIhsou/j (n-nm-s) evpoi,hsen poie,w (viaa--3s; "made") phlo.n phlo,j (n-am-s; "clay") kai, (cc) evpe,crise,n evpicri,w (viaa--3s; "anointed/spread on") mou evgw, (npg-1s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou.j ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "eyes") and said to me, 'Go to Siloam, and wash'; so I went away and washed, and I received sight." kai, (cc) ei=pe,n le,gw (viaa--3s) moi evgw, (npd-1s) o[ti (intro. indir. disc.) {Upage u`pa,gw (vImppa--2s; "Go") eivj (pa) to.n o` Silwa,m (d.a. + n-am-s; "Siloam") kai, (cc) ni,yai\ ni,ptw (vImpam--2s; "wash yourself") ou=n (infer. conj.; "So/therefore") avpelqw.n avpe,rcomai (circ. ptc./a/dep/nm1s; "after going away/departing") kai, (cc) niya,menoj ni,ptw (circ. ptc./a/m/nm1s; "after washing myself") avne,bleyaÅ avnable,pw (viaa--1s; "I received sight/I looked up able to see"; used 2x)

GNT John 9:12 kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( Pou/ evstin evkei/nojÈ le,gei( Ouvk oi=daÅ

NAS John 9:12 And they said to him, "Where is He?" He *said, "I do not know." kai, (cc) ei=pan le,gw (viaa--3p) auvtw/|( auvto,j (npdm3s) Pou/ (interr. adv.; "Where?") evstin eivmi, (vipa--3s) evkei/nojÈ (remote dem. adj./nm-s; "He/that man") le,gei( le,gw (vipa--3s; "He was saying") Ouvk ouv (neg. +) oi=daÅ (viPFa--1s; "I do not know")

ANALYSIS VERSES 8 – 12:

While it is not specifically stated where the man came after returning from the pool of Siloam, it is obvious it was the general area where he used to sit and beg. Cp.9:7b

Two distinct groups of people are mentioned in our verses that were familiar with the blind begger, "The neighbors and those who previously saw him as a beggar".

His neighbors are those people that lived in his neighborhood and would have seen him regularly and had opportunity for a more intimate relationship with him.

The second group, and undoubtedly the largest, were those people that passed by and saw him in his regular spot each day as he begged for aid.

Unlike today, there was little in the ancient world that one who was blind could hope to do; so begging was a regular way of life for those with such serious handicaps (oops, challenges to be politically correct).

People would recognize such fixtures as this blind beggar as they went about their daily business, and no doubt, some had contributed to this man.

The sight of this man walking around and seeing would obviously prompt questioning as therefore, the were saying, "Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?"

Their question is rhetorical in nature and phrased in such a way as to anticipate a "yes" answer.

It denotes the initial response and amazement of all that had come in some regular contact with the man in now seeing him healed.

However, after some due consideration of what everyone thought they were beholding, John records a conflict of conclusion and difference of opinions rendered by these people.

Though at first, all perceived that this was possibly the blind beggar, some were thoroughly convinced, while others chose to deny the reality.

This difference of conclusions is brought out by the use of the adjectives "a[lloj/others", denoting distinct differences of opinions.

Of the people that initially considered him to be that very man, some had to think no further, while retaining their belief, others needed further time before being thoroughly convinced as they were saying, "This is he", and still others rejected the initial premise and were saying, "No, but he is like him".

The differing reads on the man point to the nature of men when confronted with an unexpected reality thrown in their face.

Some will immediately and without further question will accept what they see, others will eventually accept it, while others will end up denying it.

Its intriguing to note that some people still did not believe the miracle even after they saw the results with their own eyes.

Apparently the cliche, "Seeing is believing", is not always true.

The crowd’s reactions point to a reality concerning people and that is when it comes to the issue of the truth of reality, not everyone is readily amenable to accept it.

It in turn points to the stubbornness of some people to reject reality, even when it is in their face.

While some of these people are standing around the man debating his identity, He was consistently interjecting the truth regarding his person and kept saying, "I am the one".

After some time of the beggar’s insistence that he was the one formerly blind, John records the natural question of all concerned as therefore they were saying to him, "How then were your eyes opened?"

That John records the question as a generic response by the people as a whole, by design and intent points to the following:

Those who never questioned his identity would obviously be asking from a pure sense of wanting to know more regarding the reality of the miracle.

Those who ultimately came to believe their eyes, in addition to wanting to know more are also looking for a reaffirmation to their belief.

Those who still didn’t want to believe what they were seeing, the question has a nuance of their need for even additional proof, before they would believe.

As subtle as it might or might not be, John is picturing the reality of people’s volitional propensity when confronted with the truth.

For some, they immediately accept it without further question and honestly desire to know more.

For others, they will come to accept it on their own, but are to some degree insecure in their belief and will look for more confirmation to strengthen their belief.

For still others, while they may ultimately come to believe these things, they will fight even the facts and continue to look for additional proof before their minds are thoroughly made up, one way or the other.

When it comes to people facing the reality of truth, there are those with absolutely no doubt to its validity, others will carry some doubt, but generally just a little that is not detrimental to their faith and others that will perpetuate strong doubt.

That John does not record the ultimate decisions made by those with strong doubt is because he is not seeking to determine ultimately what people will or will not believe, only to point to the nature of people’s believing.

Observation: While we may recognize one or even all of these volitional characteristics in others, or ourselves, it is not grounds to impute ultimately the final outcome of one’s faith.

Observation: However, it would be remiss not to "see" the most desirable of these propensities as being to accept the facts of reality upon the face value of presentation.

The formerly blind man answered their questioning in a straightforward manner, succinct and accurate.

He makes no attempts to embellish the occasion, emotionally or otherwise as he states, "The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me ‘Go to Siloam, and wash’; so I went away and washed, and I received sight".

He relates exactly what happened in a matter of fact way and thus leaves any additional questioning regarding the miracle itself upon the shoulders of those around him to ascertain as truth or not.

Too, it is obvious he knows little about Jesus, save His name, and expects his questioners to investigate on their own if they want more in-depth answers on the miracle.

Therefore, for whatever motivational reasons each of those around him may have had, they said to him, "Where is He?"

As honestly and readily the beggar was capable of telling them what he did know, just as honestly now, he said, "I do not know".

Contextually then, the blind man that now sees becomes an example of those too who have experienced the reality of truth in our own lives (though not of such a physically miraculous miracle, spiritually just as miraculous), when confronted by those around us who are inquisitive for whatever reasons.

And that is, tell the truth, sticking with the facts that you know, while not trying to explain what you do not know, and let your questioners make their own decisions as to how to proceed for themselves.

And it is this man’s intellectual honesty that provides the framework for a satisfying and amusing scenario for John’s readers in vss.13ff, as well as spiritual advancement for himself in vss.35-38.

EXEGESIS VERSES 13 – 17:

GNT John 9:13 :Agousin auvto.n pro.j tou.j Farisai,ouj to,n pote tuflo,nÅ

NAS John 9:13 They *brought to the Pharisees him who was formerly blind. :Agousin a;gw (vipa--3p; "They brought/to lead/to bring"; historic present) pro,j (pa; denotes a face-to-face encounter) tou.j o` Farisai,ouj Farisai/oj (d.a. + n-am-p; "the Pharisees") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) to,n o` tuflo,nÅ tuflo,j (d.a. + adj.-am-s; "the blind man") who was - supplied pote, (adv.; "formerly/at some previous time")

GNT John 9:14 h=n de. sa,bbaton evn h-| h`me,ra| to.n phlo.n evpoi,hsen o` VIhsou/j kai. avne,w|xen auvtou/ tou.j ovfqalmou,jÅ

NAS John 9:14 Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. de, (cs; "Now") h=n eivmi, (viIPFa--3s) sa,bbaton (n-nn-s; "a Sabbath") evn (pL of time; "on") h-| o[j (rel. pro./Lf-s; "that") h`me,ra (n-dL-s) when - supplied o` VIhsou/j (d.a. + n-nm-s) evpoi,hsen poie,w (viaa--3s) to.n o` phlo.n phlo,j (d.a. + n-am-s; "the clay") kai, (cc) avne,w|xen avnoi,gw (viaa--3s; "opened") auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou,jÅ ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "eyes")

GNT John 9:15 pa,lin ou=n hvrw,twn auvto.n kai. oi` Farisai/oi pw/j avne,bleyenÅ o` de. ei=pen auvtoi/j( Phlo.n evpe,qhke,n mou evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou,j( kai. evniya,mhn( kai. ble,pwÅ

NAS John 9:15 Again, therefore, the Pharisees also were asking him how he received his sight. pa,lin (adv.; "again"; after the questioning of the inquisitors of vs.8) ou=n (infer. conj.) oi` o` Farisai/oi Farisai/oj (d.a. + n-nm-p) kai, (adjunctive conj.; "also") hvrw,twn evrwta,w (viIPFa--3p; "asking/inquiring/questioning") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) pw/j (interr. adv.; "how/in what way") avne,bleyenÅ avnable,pw (viaa--3s; "he received sight") And he said to them, "He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see." de, (ch; "Then/And") o` (dnms; "the man" +) ei=pen le,gw (viaa--3s) auvtoi/j( auvto,j (npdm3p) evpe,qhke,n evpiti,qhmi (viaa--3s; "He applied/placed on/to lay upon/put something on something") Phlo.n phlo,j (n-am-s; "clay") evpi, (pa; "upon/to") mou evgw, (npg-1s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou,j( ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "eyes") kai, (cc) evniya,mhn( ni,ptw (viam--1s; "I washed myself") kai, (ch) ble,pwÅ ble,pw (vipa--1s; "I am seeing")

GNT John 9:16 e;legon ou=n evk tw/n Farisai,wn tine,j( Ouvk e;stin ou-toj para. qeou/ o` a;nqrwpoj( o[ti to. sa,bbaton ouv threi/Å a;lloi Îde.Ð e;legon( Pw/j du,natai a;nqrwpoj a`martwlo.j toiau/ta shmei/a poiei/nÈ kai. sci,sma h=n evn auvtoi/jÅ

NAS John 9:16 Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath." ou=n (infer. conj.; "Therefore") tine,j( ti.j (indef. pro./nm-p; "some") evk (pAbl; "of/from") tw/n o` Farisai,wn Farisai/oj (d.a. + n-gm-p) e;legon le,gw (viIPFa--3p) ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s; "This one") o` a;nqrwpoj( (d.a. + n-nm-s; "the man") Ouvk ouv (neg. +) e;stin eivmi, (vipa--3s; "is not") para, (pAbl) qeou/ qeo,j (n-Ablm-s) o[ti (causal conj.) ouv (neg. +) threi/Å thre,w (vipa--3s; "He does not keep/guard/watch over/keep in view") to, sa,bbaton (d.a. + n-an-s) But others were saying, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?" de, (ch) a;lloi a;lloj (adj.-nm-p; "others of a different kind") e;legon( le,gw (viIPFa--3p) Pw/j (interr. adv.; "How?") du,natai du,namai (vipdep--3s; "can/is it possible") a;nqrwpoj (n-nm-s) a`martwlo,j (a--nm-s; "who is a sinner"; lit. "a sinful man"; one who engages in evil, loving sin) poiei/nÈ poie,w (compl. inf./pa-; "perform"; completes the verb "can/du,namai") toiau/ta toiou/toj (dem. adj./an-p; "such/of such a kind/of this sort/) shmei/a shmei/on (n-an-p; "signs") And there was a division among them. kai, (ch) h=n eivmi, (viIPFa--3s; "there was") sci,sma (n-nn-s; "division/rift/ conflict/dissension") evn (pL; "among") auvtoi/jÅ auvto,j (npdm3p)

GNT John 9:17 le,gousin ou=n tw/| tuflw/| pa,lin( Ti, su. le,geij peri. auvtou/( o[ti hvne,w|xe,n sou tou.j ovfqalmou,jÈ o` de. ei=pen o[ti Profh,thj evsti,nÅ

NAS John 9:17 They *said therefore to the blind man again, "What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?" le,gousin le,gw (vipa--3p; "They said"; historical present) ou=n (infer. conj.) tw/| o` tuflw/| tuflo,j (d.a. + pro. adj.-dm-s; "to the blind man"; ref. to his former state) pa,lin (adv.; "again"; indicates this was not their first question as to how he perceived Jesus) Ti, ti,j (interr. adj./an-s; "What thing do") su, (npn-2s) le,geij le,gw (vipa--2s) peri, (pg; "about/concerning") auvtou/( auvto,j (npgm3s) o[ti (causal conj.; "since") hvne,w|xe,n avnoi,gw (viaa--3s; "He opened") sou su, (npg-2s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou,jÈ ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "eyes") And he said, "He is a prophet." de, (ch; "And/then") o` (dnms; "he/the man" +) ei=pen le,gw (viaa--3s) o[ti (ind. disc.) evsti,nÅ eivmi, (vipa--3s) Profh,thj (n-nm-s; "a prophet")

ANALYSIS VERSES 13 – 17:

It becomes obvious that the conflict at hand in deciding the man’s veracity and claim is of such a nature that a decision was made to let the religious experts investigate the case as they brought to the Pharisees him who was formerly blind.

John provides a key note that at least in part would motivate a feeling of necessity for these people to proceed in this fashion in vs.14, "Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes".

Therefore, no matter what opinions they may have held regarding the man’s claims, these people concluded that there were religious issues involved that should be addressed by their spiritual guides and authorities.

No doubt, many if not most of these people had at least heard about Jesus and the fact that He liked to spend His Saturday’s healing would be no secret at this time in His ministry. Joh.5:16

That Jesus’ name is mentioned in connection with the miracle implicates Him as a collaborator to the act.

The people knowing that His actions of this sort put Him at odds with Jewish leadership would naturally turn the situation over to them, if nothing more than to absolve themselves personally from any incrimination.

The irony is that those, to whom they would turn to, to resolve this matter, are spiritually blind from birth.

The Pharisees in view are not random Pharisees, but are official Sanhedrin authorities of one of the minor synagogue courts established in Jerusalem at the time.

This gives leverage to the fear of the parents in their questioning in vss.22-23.

That these local courts did not normally meet on festival days and Sabbaths would indicate that a special meeting convened to address this issue.

After enduring the bombardment of questioning from the previous crowd, the man now finds himself in front of these religious leaders again explaining himself, as therefore, the Pharisees also were asking him how he received his sight.

It further denotes that the Pharisees had already heard the account by others and now were seeking his personal testimony regarding the matter.

And again, the man is seen to "tell it like it is" as he said to them, "He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and now I see".

As previously noted, these actions coupled with the resultant healing constituted a violation of working on the Sabbath under the legalistic laws of Judaism.

The man’s reply causes dissension among those who were investigating the matter as recorded in vs.16.

Two opposing views are expressed, and no doubt some lively discussion ensued.

And as will be noted, there are two differing approaches to the analysis of the matter by those involved.

The first group adheres to a subjective approach of interpretation and therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath".

It is this group that reveals the most legalist and religious doctrinaire of Judaism as they seize an opportunity to condemn a breach of Sabbath law as they saw it.

Their condescending attitude and preconceived conclusion that God was no way possibly behind this act is seen in their perception of Jesus as they refer to Him as "ou=toj o` a;nqrwpoj/this one, the man". (ex. of eyes on man, not on God/reality)

Their reasoning was simple and straightforward; if a man violated the laws of the Sabbath, which God established, then he could not be considered a representative of God.

However, while their conclusion was correct, their initial assumption was incorrect.

Though God did establish the principle of the Sabbath observance, He did not establish their multitude of rules and regulations about the Sabbath.

This group represents the establishment of mainline religiosity and that their compromise of clear principles of Scripture and their intent produces a distortion of even the principles that would otherwise be true.

They fail here to consider the one other possibility and that is that their established and accepted interpretations and laws were flawed.

The second group represents those in total contrast to the first group, who was willing to look beyond their laws to the facts in an objective manner, as John notes, "But others were saying, ‘How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?’"

The term "sinner" indicates someone who is devoted to sin as opposed to God, a wicked man with his own agenda.

It denotes the predominate view of the Pharisees in their attitude towards Christ.

It was a label they placed on those who were in disagreement with mainline Judaistic beliefs in contradiction to their interpretations. Cp.8:34

A label of this sort was tantamount to referring to individuals as "unbelievers", who fail to attain to the legalistic standard of righteousness set forth in Judaism.

Though these Nicodemus-like Pharisees too adhered to Judaistic laws, what is illogical to labeling Jesus in this way is how anyone could not be of God and consistently perform such miracles.

In other words, the overt evidence of His works was incongruous/irreconcilable to the depiction of His character as a sinner.

It denotes that this group looked at the overall picture of Jesus’ performing of miracles as noted in the plural use of "signs".

As John later records, Jesus performed more miracles than one could "shake a stick at" (Joh.20:30; 21:25), and it is obvious that their impact stimulated at least some degree of intellectual honesty and logic, even among the Pharisees.

The word "toiou/toj/such" signs, qualifies the miracle concept and says that His miracles were of such a character so as to stand out as obviously done by God and not a mere man.

Though the opposition could point out that Deu.13:1-5 warns against false prophets that might arise and deceive people with miracles, these men could as easily argue that that is not the case here due to the magnitude and nature of Jesus’ miracles.

In fact, His miracles are of mercy, and considering the nature of the present miracle that no one had ever performed in history, of healing a congenital blindness, would indeed indicate that Divine power was involved.

And, as Jesus Himself so aptly put it that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Mat.10:34), there was a division among them.

As will become apparent, even though intellectual honesty may be employed and no matter how many times they hear the truth of the matter, those totally engrained in their –V, will not be satisfied.

The nature of –V is such that when the issues of the truth are clearly and cogently explained, and even with the evidence right before their eyes, they will continue to reject the obvious facts (vs.18).

Though a division among the Pharisees does occur, it is obvious that any continuous attempt to defend Jesus’ actions overtly weakens and those who might adhere to this premise succumb to pressure of the mainline approach to Judaism.

This is not to say that any or all of the 2^nd group inwardly changed their minds, only that they obviously are of the minority and do not have the spiritual backbone to fight on.

Since they are reaching an impasse among themselves, and apparently no minds are readily being changed, another irony is revealed as they now turn to the blind man again and said therefore, "What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?"

Their frustration is evident, since this man was of no authority on law or religion and his opinion would have mattered little to them.

However, he has had some direct dealing with Jesus and so they invite his opinion.

He does not hesitate and said, "He is a prophet".

Recognizing his ignorance regarding Jesus and frame of reference, this was the highest thing he could say about Him, at this point.

It may be that after listening to the arguments and views of Pharisees, he too has concluded that if Jesus was not from God, then He could not have such power.

We will observe the progress of the man’s perception of Jesus in this chapter:

A man named Jesus. vs.11

A prophet. vs.17

He is God-fearing and does God’s will. vss.31-33

Jesus is Messiah. vss.36,38

Jesus is worthy of worship. vs.38

In turn we can contrast the Pharisees, who begin with the belief that Jesus is not from God, question the veracity of the miracles, are willing to consider Him a sinner, and are declared to be blind sinners themselves.

Further, it is interesting to note that human viewpoint would conclude that the best course of action, when opportunity is given to apply Divine good to unbelievers (or others), is to immediately present the gospel or opportunity is lost and the individuals may fall into the wrong hands and be lead astray.

This is tantamount to the fundie philosophy that people are dying and going to hell or people are missing the "boat" spiritually because believers are not evangelizing with the gospel Ph₁ or Ph₂ at every given opportunity.

Under this thinking, one would conclude then that in this case, Jesus failed miserably. (Of course I speak as if insane.)

Does Jesus not, in this case, after taking the opportunity to apply Divine good towards the blind man, disappear and seemingly abandoned him to face a bunch of negative religious idiots who now have opportunity to "sway" him spiritually?

The fact that Jesus handles the situation in the recorded manner, points to the following:

The number one responsibility for adjusted +V is to determine God’s will in each situation of applying towards others.

Not in all cases, is it God’s will for the believer to immediately "shove" the truth down people’s throats just because an opportunity seemingly arises.

In fact, the first opportunity believers should be sensitive to, is the availability to apply Divine good towards others. Joh.9:4; Gal.6:10; 1Pet.3:1 (Obviously, 1Pet.3:1 is qualified by Col.3:18, "....as is fitting in the Lord.")

The principle is that actions/modus operandi and vivendi of believers speak louder than words.

Those who employ intellectual honesty will evaluate the applications made into any overall character assessment of individuals.

This in no way diminishes the importance of the intake of BD or its articulation to others.

The purpose of acquiring the knowledge of BD is in order to provide the impact of witnessing through Dvgd, which level of application comes with increased knowledge. Col.1:9-10 (One’s spiritual level is manifested and measured in their level of application of Dvgd.)

The present scenario of the blind man, who is potentially +V, denotes that all +V will be given an opportunity to hear the truth in God’s own timing. Joh.9:35

For this particular man, it is God’s will that after the application of Dvgd towards him, he first is confronted with false views before he is given the gospel.

This points to the principle that God knows exactly what each individual needs in order for their +V to surface.

He is given opportunity to weigh the evidence of the application towards him in light of alternative views.

This in turn gives the intellectual honesty of +V an opportunity to be exercised.

Via God’s perfect timing and when Jesus does present the gospel to him, his +V is primed and immediately surfaces.

This points to the principle that +V sees through all the human viewpoint garbage and will ultimately come to a correct understanding of the truth, which is provided at God’s perfect timing.

Therefore, Jesus’ act of Dvgd set the groundwork for consideration by the man, even in the face of railing opposition, that when Jesus did speak, He spoke the truth.

Just as the consistent acts of Dvgd production of believers establishes a basis for consideration by those around them, when the timing is appropriate for the believer to evangelize, that what they have to say is not words only, but words of truth supported by their actions.

It is our application of BD that provides the "weight" to the validity of that which we speak.

All cases are not the same, and each individual believer must discern the appropriate time for applications apart from evangelizing vs. a time to simply evangelize.

For the adjusted believer that is truly focused on producing maximum Divine good production, God will use that believer’s applications to further open the doors for evangelizing according to the recipient’s volition and per His perfect Divine timing.

Because God truly knows all men, all the believer has to do is keep his/her nose to the "grindstone" of BD in their niche, and God will provide the opportunities to evangelize accordingly.

EXEGESIS VERSES 18 – 23:

GNT John 9:18 Ouvk evpi,steusan ou=n oi` VIoudai/oi peri. auvtou/ o[ti h=n tuflo.j kai. avne,bleyen e[wj o[tou evfw,nhsan tou.j gonei/j auvtou/ tou/ avnable,yantoj

NAS John 9:18 The Jews therefore did not believe it of him, that he had been blind, and had received sight, oi` o` VIoudai/oi VIoudai/oj (d.a. + ap-nm-p) ou=n (infer. conj.) Ouvk ouv (neg. +) evpi,steusan pisteu,w (viaa--3p; "did not believe"; to accept without empirical proof) peri, (pg +) auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s; Lit. "concerning him/it of him") o[ti (cc; "that"; intro. content of their unbelief) h=n eivmi, (viIPFa--3s) tuflo,j (a--nm-s; "blind") kai, (cc) avne,bleyen avnable,pw (viaa--3s; "had received sight") until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight, e[wj (pg; prep. acting as a temporal conjunction; "until/till" +) o[tou o[stij (+ adj. pro./-aprgn-s; acts as compound conj.; "such a time/which time"; not translated) evfw,nhsan fwne,w (viaa--3p; "they called/summoned") tou.j o` gonei/j goneu,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "the parents") auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s; "of him/of the very one") tou/ o` avnable,yantoj avnable,pw (adj. ptc./a/a/gm-s; "who had received sight")

GNT John 9:19 kai. hvrw,thsan auvtou.j le,gontej( Ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o.j u`mw/n( o]n u`mei/j le,gete o[ti tuflo.j evgennh,qhÈ pw/j ou=n ble,pei a;rtiÈ

NAS John 9:19 and questioned them, saying, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? kai, (cc) hvrw,thsan evrwta,w (viaa--3p; "questioned/inquired/asked") auvtou.j auvto,j (npam3p) le,gontej( le,gw (circ.ptc./p/a/nm-p) evstin eivmi, (vipa--3s) Ou-to,j (near dem. pro./nm-s; Lit. "this man") u`mw/n( su, (npg-2p) o` ui`o,j (d.a. + n-Pred.nm-s) o]n o[j (rel. pro./am-s; "who") u`mei/j su, (npn-2p) le,gete le,gw (vipa--2p) o[ti (cc; intro. ind. disc.; not translated) evgennh,qhÈ genna,w (viap--3s; "was born") tuflo,j (a--nm-s; "blind/a blind man") Then how does he now see?" ou=n (infer. conj.; "then/therefore") pw/j (inter. adv.; "how?") ble,pei ble,pw (vipa--3s; "does he see/is he seeing") a;rtiÈ (adv.; "now"; as opposed to when you say he was blind)

GNT John 9:20 avpekri,qhsan ou=n oi` gonei/j auvtou/ kai. ei=pan( Oi;damen o[ti ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o.j h`mw/n kai. o[ti tuflo.j evgennh,qh\

NAS John 9:20 His parents answered them and said, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; ou=n (infer. conj.; not translated) auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) oi` o` gonei/j goneu,j (d.a. + n-nm-p; "parents") avpekri,qhsan avpokri,nomai (viad--3p) kai, (cc) ei=pan( le,gw (viaa--3p) Oi;damen oi=da (viPFa--1p; "We know"; PF tense denotes knowledge with absolute certainty) o[ti (ch; intro. indi. disc.; "that") ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s) evstin eivmi, (vipa--3s) h`mw/n evgw, (npg-1p) o` ui`o,j (d.a. + n-Pred.nm-s) kai, (cc) o[ti (ch; continues indir. disc.) evgennh,qh\ genna,w (viap--3s; "he was born") tuflo,j (a--nm-s)

GNT John 9:21 pw/j de. nu/n ble,pei ouvk oi;damen( h' ti,j h;noixen auvtou/ tou.j ovfqalmou.j h`mei/j ouvk oi;damen\ auvto.n evrwth,sate( h`liki,an e;cei( auvto.j peri. e`autou/ lalh,seiÅ

NAS John 9:21 but how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not know. de, (cc) pw/j (inter. adv.; "how?") nu/n (adv. ; "now/right not") ble,pei ble,pw (vipa--3s; "he is seeing") ouvk ouv (neg. +) oi;damen( oi=da (viPFa--1p; "we do not know"; again, the PF denotes a statement of absolute certainty) h; (cc; "or") ti,j (interr. pro./nm-s; "who?") h;noixen avnoi,gw (viaa--3s; "opened/caused to open") auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou.j ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "eyes") h`mei/j evgw, (npn-1p) ouvk ouv (neg. +) oi;damen\ oi=da (viPFa--1p; "we at no time have known") Ask him; he is of age, he shall speak for himself. " evrwth,sate( evrwta,w (vImpaa--2p; "Ask/question/inquire") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s; "actually is before the verb "ask", "Him, Ask"; it begins their comment for emphasis and refocuses the leaders attention on the son again) e;cei( e;cw (vipa--3s; "he has") h`liki,an h`liki,a (n-af-s; "time of life/maturity/adulthood/is of legal age") auvto.j auvto,j (npnm3s; "He"; again places emphasis on the son) lalh,seiÅ lale,w (vifa--3s; "will speak") peri, (pg; "concerning/for" +) e`autou/ (reflex. pro./gm3s; "himself"; "he will speak on his own behalf")

GNT John 9:22 tau/ta ei=pan oi` gonei/j auvtou/ o[ti evfobou/nto tou.j VIoudai,ouj\ h;dh ga.r sunete,qeinto oi` VIoudai/oi i[na eva,n tij auvto.n o`mologh,sh| Cristo,n( avposuna,gwgoj ge,nhtaiÅ

NAS John 9:22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) oi` o` gonei/j goneu,j (d.a. + n-nm-p; "parents") ei=pan le,gw (viaa--3p) tau/ta ou-toj (near dem. pro./an-p; "this - Lit. these things") o[ti (causal conj.) evfobou/nto fobe,omai (viIPFpass--3p; "were afraid/have been made afraid") tou.j o` VIoudai,ouj\ VIoudai/oj (d.a. + ap-am-p) for the Jews had already agreed, that if anyone should confess Him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. ga,r (explan. conj.; gives reason for their fear) oi` o` VIoudai/oi VIoudai/oj (d.a. + ap-nm-p) h;dh (adv; "already/by this time") sunete,qeinto sunti,qhmi (viPluPFm--3p; "had agreed/came to a mutual understanding amongst themselves/resolved/ determined"; used 3x) i[na (purpose conj.; "in order that") eva,n (part. intro. 3rd class cond.; "if") ti.j (ind. pro./nm-s; "anyone") o`mologh,sh| o`mologe,w (vsaa--3s; "should or might confess/acknowledge/agree with"; same as 1:20) auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) to be - supplied Cristo,n( Cristo,j (n-am-s; "a Christ") ge,nhtaiÅ gi,nomai (vsad--3s; "he should become") avposuna,gwgoj (a--nm-s; compound adj. " avpo, - away from" and "sunagogh - synagogue"; "put out of the synagogue/to be excluded/excommunicated"; to be separated from the religious life of Israel; used 3x, all in John, cp. 12:42; 16:2; there were 3 kinds of excommunication, 30 days, for 30 more and indefinitely)

GNT John 9:23 dia. tou/to oi` gonei/j auvtou/ ei=pan o[ti ~Hliki,an e;cei( auvto.n evperwth,sateÅ

NAS John 9:23 For this reason his parents said, "He is of age; ask him." dia, (pa +) tou/to ou-toj (near dem. pro./an-s; "For this reason/because of this") auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) oi` o` gonei/j goneu,j (d.a. + n-nm-p; "parents") ei=pan le,gw (viaa--3p) o[ti (intro. ind. disc.; not translated) e;cei( e;cw (vipa--3s; "he has") ~Hliki,an h`liki,a (n-af-s; "adulthood" - "he is of age") evperwth,sateÅ evperwta,w (vImpaa--2p; "ask") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s)

ANALYSIS VERSES 18 – 23:

As John continues the narrative, the shift from identity of the Pharisees to now simply "The Jews", cannot be dismissed.

John uses this term 61x in his gospel and of the majority of uses, it emphasizes Israel corporately under the religious system of Judaism.

It emphasizes those who at least overtly are the most hostile and antagonistic to Jesus.

Therefore, it is representative of the predominate legalistic sect of Judaism that Israel corporately adhered too.

It ties in all of Judaism and its followers as the responsible party corporately leading to the demise of their Messiah.

This does not mean that of those, some were not +V to the SAJG (Joh.11:45; 12:11).

But, as a people corporately because of their religious reversionism and failure to separate from it, their religious system under their –V was the underwriter to all that occurred in opposition to Christ.

The Jews therefore of vs.18 maintains the division of the Pharisees mentioned in vs.16, while emphasizing the first group, who persist in supporting the current legalistic view of Judaism in antagonism to the truth.

The presupposition of that group was that Jesus was not from God, because of their legalistic stand on what constituted works on the Sabbath.

That being the case logically then, they conclude that He could not have performed a miracle by the power of God.

That they are unwilling to consider the objective reasoning of the second group of Pharisees and obviously have no real argument against them, they take the next course of defense for themselves and declare there was no miracle.

Their first attempt in promoting their premise is to discredit the testimony of the blind man that they did not believe it of him, that he had been blind, and had received sight.

They reach for a "loophole" flaw in the opposing arguments that they can present as a viable option in this "alleged" miracle.

Their move smacks of legal wrangling of a defense technique to avoid an inevitable in order to find other avenues to rebuild their case.

Their "slick Willie" approach is seen in that if some had accused them of prejudice and lack of intellectual honesty, they would have stated that they were merely seeking to get to the truth of the matter.

However, this move is not one of seeking the truth; rather of seeking to discredit the truth.

So much for the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Deu.19:15

The time bought is indeed temporary, as the next order of events would demand to call in the appropriate witnesses in this regard.

But either way, it was time bought to regroup until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight.

The inquisitors propose two questions to the man’s parents, and questioned them, saying:

"Is this your son, who you say was born blind?"

"Then how does he now see?"

While it is subtle, their questioning betrays their legal methodology.

Though the first part of their first question may be legitimate, "Is this your son", they reveal that it is not a question to really get at the facts as they admittedly proclaim, "who you say was born blind?"

Their question reveals that this is information they have concluded as true and are ready to accept.

It is the second question that reveals their true intent and motive of questioning as they ask, "then how does he now see?"

It is a question that seeks to transfer the burden of proof of the miracle from the son, a hostile witness to the prosecution, to the parents.

Again, it points to the fact that they are not trying to really get at the truth, but are only looking for any avenue possible to put holes in the truth.

Their intent of questioning then, is to find a way of being able to admit the truth that he can now see without loosing face.

In addition, they propose a question that if answered in any way agreeing with their son, will open them up to all kinds of possible scenarios of continued interrogation and who knows what avenues might open up for these Jews then.

Again, in either case, distraction from their fallacies and the real issue at hand would be effective.

His parents answered their first question straightforward and honestly and said to them, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind".

They testify that their relationship with the man and his congenital blindness is indeed who and what the first question inferred.

The perfect tenses of the verbs "to know/oi=da" in all of the parent’s answers has the force of what they are saying is with absolute certainty and nothing but the truth.

However, the answer to the second question, "but how he now sees, we do not know" is less than completely honest.

They tell on themselves by continuing to answer a question never asked, "or who opened his eyes, we do not know".

That they volunteer this answer completely without coercion reveals the fact that they do know that another person was involved.

It they would have stuck with the question as to how the miracle happened, any further judgments of their words would be withheld.

However, since they reveal that a "who" was involved, then they are not telling all that they do know.

After denial of any knowledge concerning the miracle itself, they immediately shift the focus back in this regard to their son, as they insist that the Jews ask him; he is of age, he shall speak for himself.

By Jewish law, a witness had to be at least 13 years old, and this man was obviously beyond those years.

And before anyone might rationalize the parent’s response of "who opened his eyes" as being merely information they just heard in passing and therefore questionable as factual, John makes it clear why they lied in vs.22.

He notes that their act of cowardice and deception was due to sin fear, as he records, "His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews".

And that the parents were privy to knowing that Jesus was indeed involved in the miracle is revealed as to why the fear existed, "for the Jews had already agreed, that if anyone should confess Him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue".

The Jews had previously conspired together to kill Jesus and part of their thinking was to place pressure on all Jews to conform to their view by renouncing Jesus.

To be put out of the synagogue was to be excommunicated from all religious life of Israel.

The ramifications were not merely religious, but had political, social, financial, familial, etc., impacts as well.

In short, one risked everything if they admitted any belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

It is doubtful that this was binding in all Israel at this point, but was more likely restricted to Jerusalem due to the impact that Jesus’ ministry was having there.

The fact that Jesus is the focal point as reason for excommunication reveals that the parents knew beyond a doubt that it was Him who performed the miracle.

Therefore, their denial in this regard in vs.21, was a blatant lie in order to avoid any possible incrimination upon themselves.

To what degree if any, the parents personally had in believing that Jesus was indeed Messiah is unknown, however they were sufficiently intimidated that they wanted no part of discussing His Person in front of these religious zealots.

Therefore, they took the first opportunity they could to get out of the hot seat and put that monkey back on their son’s shoulders as John states in vs.23, "For this reason his parents said, ‘He is of age; ask him’".

It is clear that they are of very weak character and do not rise to any level of integrity and ethical grit portrayed in their son, as it will be revealed.

They represent those in life who have their eyes on men and not on God and therefore are easily intimidated by others and have no real courage to present the truth, when opportunity is provided.

These parents would not risk the ostracism of the synagogue, even to defend their own son.

They were predetermined not to get involved in the controversy and so left their son alone to fend for himself.

They are of the ilk of this world whose only concerns are for themselves and will let even the closest to them "hang out to dry" for their own protection.

Obviously, the Jew’s strategy backfires, since all that the parents have confirmed is that this is their son and that he was born blind.