EXEGESIS VERSES 24

EXEGESIS VERSES 24 – 27:

GNT John 9:24 VEfw,nhsan ou=n to.n a;nqrwpon evk deute,rou o]j h=n tuflo.j kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( Do.j do,xan tw/| qew/|\ h`mei/j oi;damen o[ti ou-toj o` a;nqrwpoj a`martwlo,j evstinÅ

NAS John 9:24 So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, ou=n (infer. conj.; "So/therefore") evk (pAbl +) deute,rou deu,teroj (ord. adj./gn-s; used adverbially; "from a second time/from a succession of times that the blind man formally took the stand") VEfw,nhsan fwne,w (viaa--3p; "they called") to.n o` a;nqrwpon a;nqrwpoj (d.a. + n-am-s) o[j (rel. pro./nm-s; "who") h=n eivmi, (viIPFa--3s; "had been/was continually in the past") tuflo,j (a--nm-s) kai, (cc) ei=pan le,gw (viaa--3p) auvtw/|( auvto,j (npdm3s) "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner." Do.j di,dwmi (vImp/aa--2s; "You give") do,xan do,xa (n-af-s; "glory/praise") tw/| o` qew/|\ qeo,j (n-dm-s) h`mei/j evgw, (npn-1p; "we ourselves") oi;damen oi=da (viPFa--1p; "know without a doubt") o[ti (conj. intro. ind. disc.) ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s; "this one") o` a;nqrwpoj (d.a. + n-nm-s; "the man") evstinÅ eivmi, (vipa--3s) a`martwlo,j a`martwlo,j(a--nm-s)

GNT John 9:25 avpekri,qh ou=n evkei/noj( Eiv a`martwlo,j evstin ouvk oi=da\ e]n oi=da o[ti tuflo.j w'n a;rti ble,pwÅ

NAS John 9:25 He therefore answered, "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; ou=n (infer. conj.) avpekri,qh avpokri,nomai (viad--3s) Eiv eiv (part.; intro. 1st class cond.; "Whether/If"; assuming the statement as true) evkei/noj( (remote dem. pro./nm-s; "He/that One") evstin eivmi, (vipa--3s) a`martwlo,j (a--nm-s) ouvk ouv (neg. +) oi=da\ (viPFa--1s; "I do not know") one thing I do know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." e]n ei-j (card. adj./an-s; "one thing") oi=da (viPFa--1s) o[ti (conj. intro. ind. disc.) w'n eivmi, (circ. ptc./p/a/nm1s; its action is concessive to or antecedent to the main verb; "while being previously/whereas I was") tuflo,j (a--nm-s) a;rti (adv.; "now/at this moment") ble,pwÅ (vipa--1s; "I see")

GNT John 9:26 ei=pon ou=n auvtw/|( Ti, evpoi,hse,n soiÈ pw/j h;noixe,n sou tou.j ovfqalmou,jÈ

NAS John 9:26 They said therefore to him, "What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?" ei=pon le,gw (viaa--3p) ou=n (infer. conj.) auvtw/|( auvto,j (npdm3s) Ti, ti,j (interr. pro./an-s; "What?") evpoi,hse,n poie,w (viaa--3s) soiÈ su, (npd-2s) pw/j (interr. adv.; "How?") h;noixe,n avnoi,gw (viaa--3s; "cause to open") sou su, (npg-2s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou,jÈ ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "the eyes")

GNT John 9:27 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j( Ei=pon u`mi/n h;dh kai. ouvk hvkou,sate\ ti, pa,lin qe,lete avkou,einÈ mh. kai. u`mei/j qe,lete auvtou/ maqhtai. gene,sqaiÈ

NAS John 9:27 He answered them, "I told you already, and you did not listen; avpekri,qh avpokri,nomai (viad--3s) auvtoi/j( auvto,j (npdm3p) Ei=pon le,gw (viaa--1s; "I told") u`mi/n su, (npd-2p) h;dh (adv.; "already") kai, (ch) ouvk ouv (neg. +) hvkou,sate\ avkou,w (viaa--2p; "did not listen/did not hear") why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?" ti, ti,j (interr.; "Why?) qe,lete qe,lw (vipa--2p; "do you want/wish/desire") avkou,einÈ avkou,w (comp. inf./pa-; "to hear") it - supplied pa,lin (adv.; "again") u`mei/j su, (npn-2p; "You yourselves") mh, (neg. +) qe,lete qe,lw (vipa--2p +) gene,sqaiÈ gi,nomai (compl. inf./ad-; "do not want to become") auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) maqhtai. maqhth,j (n-nm-p; "disciples/students") kai, (adjunct.; "also/too") do you? – supplied

ANALYSIS VERSES 24 – 27:

As previously noted, the tactic of the Pharisees in their call of a "foul" regarding the veracity of the blind man’s claim of an actual miracle occurring fails, and they find themselves back to square one.

While the testimony of the parents may have lacked in certain ways, it did establish beyond question that this man had been born blind.

This placed them into a position of accepting non-disputable physical evidence indicating that a bona fide miracle had occurred, since the man could now see.

All of the facts also indicated that Jesus was the one who had performed this miracle, and the power of God was manifested in His life exceedingly.

The natural conclusion then would be that Jesus was some sort of representative of God that should be acknowledged.

However, this conclusion was totally unacceptable to these religious reversionists.

Though clearly beaten at their game, these legalistic rulers continue to pursue their agenda and so a second time they called the man who had been blind, to the witness stand.

That they cannot refute the evidence, their interrogation now takes on intimidation tactics under abuse of their authority, "and they said to him, ‘Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner’".

The force of their command to give glory to God takes on a dual emphasis:

Like the command of Joshua 7:19 that has the force of "to tell the complete truth".

A command to disassociate this miracle from this man Jesus, and only attribute it to God.

The first meaning insinuates that they feel there is still some fact that is being hidden from them and if they can just find it, the entire affair will be cleared up.

The second suggests that Jesus’ role in the miracle is really bogus and in spite of His role, God apart from Him healed the man for whatever reason.

The force of intimidation and concluding reasoning is seen in the perfect tense of "we know" and that what they knew was there was no way anyone could be of God and engage in the breaking of their Sabbath laws.

Their statement is tantamount to saying, "Certainly, we of all people, the religious leadership of Israel, know the law and have insight into such matters as this, and will not be taken in by a subordinate.

They knew that Jesus was a sinner and therefore the man’s explanation of the miracle isn’t for real and thus, "What are you hiding?"

However, again their strategy fails and far from intimidating the man, the pressures only cause him to further clarify what he indeed does know.

He refrains from moving into the realm of what they profess to know and merely confines himself to the facts as He therefore answered, "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see".

Via intellectual honesty, he is unwilling to pass judgment of Jesus, as they are doing, and sticks to the real issue at hand that whereas I was blind, now I see.

His physical testimony has become the spiritual testimony of many throughout the ages.

And, like the blind man and his detractors, the same situation spiritually has played itself out innumerable times.

Observation: No matter at what stage of growth you are at spiritually, by maintaining intellectual honesty and sticking with the facts of BD, you too will have a clear read when confronted by those seeking to disparage your witness.

Obviously his answer leads the Pharisees to nowhere and they said therefore to him, "What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?"

The force of the man’s honesty is such that the Pharisees are again "backpedaling" and really are back to square one, asking him the same questions as during the initial questioning.

It is another "legal" effort by them to cast doubt upon the veracity of his initial answers, while seeking to find any discrepancies with the man’s statements in order to save face.

The questioning now is not acceptable to the man, who now demonstrates that he has little fear of these men, if any, as he answered them, "I told you already, and you did not listen".

He knows that they have heard the facts of this case and readily understand the issues involved.

There is nothing to be gained by going over the same old ground again.

He knows that they have no intention on investigating the incident in an honest way.

They are simple intent on discrediting the truth and proving their preconceived ideas.

Again, the Pharisees point to the nature of –V in religious reversionism and that is even though they hear the truth, they will not listen openly and objectively to it.

It is the mindset of religious reversionists to promote their religious agendas come "hell or high water" and seek to discredit any contradicting views with extreme prejudice.

This is in contrast to intellectually honest adjusted believers that are always open to objective criticism that is based on factual evidence of BD.

In vs.27b, the man engages in a little sarcasm as he asks his own questions, "why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?"

He twits them by submitting his own hypothesis that he knows will surely get under their skin, maybe because they were beginning to irritate him with their incessant stupidity and stubbornness.

And before we judge him as being disrespectful to his authorities, it must be made clear that his authorities have already set the ground rules of interchange and questioning, which he is now following suit.

Some observations to be gleaned from this scenario:

As an authority, how you deal with people must project clear guidelines and boundaries of objectiveness and fairness.

To do otherwise, you open yourself to rebuttals projecting a like judgment upon yourself for your own refraction’s/STA twists or bends.

For an authority to insist that all must adhere to their point of views, no matter whether the authority refuses to accept the facts and deal with others in less than an objective and honest/righteous way (Joh.7:27), in essence is tantamount to a dictatorial rule and gross abuse of authority.

This does not mean that those under these types of authority are not obligated to continue to submit to their authority, only that they have a right to appeal to a higher authority (here, an appeal to the truth of the facts), in their own defense.

This points to the principle that truth should always stand as the final authority in all aspects of life and for the adjusted believer that truth is the entire realm of BD.

If as an authority, you are arrogant, condescending, subjective, or abusive in other areas in dealing with others, then you set precedence to those under your authority as to their response.

Righteous authorities deal with others strictly within the boundaries and guidelines of BD, while applying objectiveness in their discerning of the facts.

And the return judgment to the Pharisees is seen in that the man’s hypothetical opinionated questions are in reality, just as ludicrous as the Pharisee’s have been in their approach to him.

Truly the universal principle is accurate in what goes around comes around and what one sows, so shall one reap in their applications or misapplications. Cp. Pro.22:8; Gal.6:7

The force of his questions is rhetorical and expects a "no" answer.

His first question denotes that he understands the motive of their questioning is not really because they want to hear it again, but for ulterior reasons.

His second question, in addition, denotes that he knows they are not interested in attaching themselves to Jesus’ cause, either.

He basically uses "fire" to fight "fire" in such a way that when combined, his questions relate to the Pharisees that he clearly sees through their agenda of discrediting the facts and will not be "taken in" by their tactics.

He reads their intellectually dishonest approach like a book.

In addition, it has a nuance that he has chosen which side of the case he stands for.

That the man has determined himself to be on Jesus’ side is brought out by the word "too/also".

He has in essence declared that he will not be intimidated and back down from the truth just because the Pharisees are who and what they are.

In contrast to his parents who view these authorities under fear, he represents those that under authority are truly innocent and have no reason to fear. Rom.13:3-4

This man represents the fact that though we may all be under authorities, we are not obligated to submit to their demands or imperatives that in effect will compromise the truth.

Obviously, the man’s approach of shoveling the same "sku,bala/skubala/dung" down their throats as they have been attempting to do to him, does not set well with them, giving them terrible STA gas, which will erupt into immediate spiritual flatulence in vs.28.

EXEGESIS VERSES 28 – 29:

GNT John 9:28 kai. evloido,rhsan auvto.n kai. ei=pon( Su. maqhth.j ei= evkei,nou( h`mei/j de. tou/ Mwu?se,wj evsme.n maqhtai,\

NAS John 9:28 And they reviled him, and said, "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. kai, (ch) evloido,rhsan loidore,w (viaa--3p; "they reviled/reproached/hurled abusive and derogatory insults/railed upon"; used 4x) auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) kai, (cc) ei=pon( le,gw (viaa--3p) Su. su, (npn-2s) ei= eivmi, (vipa--2s) evkei,nou( evkei/noj (apdgm-s; "His/that man's") maqhth,j (n-nm-s; "disciple"; actually the subject of the verb for emphasis) de, (ch) h`mei/j evgw, (npn-1p) evsme.n eivmi, (vipa--1p) maqhtai,\ maqhth,j (n-nm-p) tou/ o` Mwu?se,wj Mwu?sh/j (d.a. + n-gm-s)

GNT John 9:29 h`mei/j oi;damen o[ti Mwu?sei/ lela,lhken o` qeo,j( tou/ton de. ouvk oi;damen po,qen evsti,nÅ

NAS John 9:29 "We know that God has spoken to Moses; but as for this man, we do not know where He is from." h`mei/j evgw, (npn-1p) oi;damen oi=da (viPFa--1p; PF indicates fact still on record in the OT) o[ti(cc; indir. disc.) o` qeo,j( (d.a. + n-nm-s) lela,lhken lale,w (viPFa--3s; "has spoken/communicated to") Mwu?sei/ Mwu?sh/j (n-dm-s) de, (cc/ch) tou/ton ou-toj (near dem. pro./am-s; emphatic position; "as for this fellow/man") ouvk ouv (neg. +) oi;damen oi=da (viPFa--1p) po,qen (adv. of origin/used adjectivally; "from where or what place/what condition or origin") evsti,nÅ eivmi, (vipa--3s)

ANALYSIS VERSES 28 – 29:

As graphic and inevitable as "Scotty" would picture the situation, "I can’t hold it any longer Captain, she’s goin’ a blow", the certain frustration and anger of the Pharisees now expresses itself, "And they reviled him".

The term, "reviled" has the nuance of casting a barrage/salvo of verbal abuses that are totally derogatory, insulting and defaming in nature.

It would be commensurate of slamming the character of individuals through the use of idiomatic language designed to express a repugnant or vile quality seen as inherent in the person or thing.

It has the force of verbal retribution in a most demeaning and hostile way.

It appears that the man’s comment in vs.27, definitely had gotten under their skin and as the Jews saw that they could not effectively advance their tactics, resort to outright verbal anger in release of their frustrations.

They know at this point that they were not going to resolve this in a manner that would make them happy and discredit Jesus, which is what they are seeking to do.

That they cannot discredit the man’s testimony nor the parents forces all concerned to come to the conclusion that a bonafide miracle has taken place in the hands of Jesus.

And that the blind man has seen through their agenda and verbally has challenged them to acknowledge Jesus in this fashion has totally kicked their "skunk".

However, even with the truth forced upon them, it does not produce any acknowledgment on their part and they continue to reject and fight against its very premise.

It is clear also that the man’s challenge came across that he was divided from them as to which side of the case he would stand as the Jews said, "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses".

That they continue to reject any Divine expression on Jesus’ part is noted as they contemptuously refer to Him as "that man/one", with the demonstrative pronoun, "evkei/noj/His", in vs.28.

Their tone reflects that only an idiot would attached himself to someone that mainline religion rejects as an emissary from God, giving the readers a taste of the focus of their reviling.

And as is the habit of the Jews when forced to account for their reasoning and logic theologically, they claim allegiance to their racial human predecessors considered great by all, this time Moses.

Their sense of being Moses’ disciples contextually has emphasis as it pertains to his giving of the Law to Israel.

They view their current positions of being Pharisees as a direct authoritative inheritance of the Mosaic Law through the lines as established by Moses.

God imparted the Law to Moses, who in turn imparted to Joshua, who in turn to the elders and judges, in turn to the prophets and ultimately delivered to the great men of the synagogue, according to Jewish writings. Deu.34:9-10; Jos.1:7-9, 23:2,6; 24:1,25-28; 2Kgs.17:13

Therefore, they view themselves as not only descendants of Moses, but spokesmen and experts on the Law given by God to Moses.

This is the force of vs.29a, "We know that God has spoken to Moses", while implying "and therefore us".

The perfect tense of "has spoken" denotes that the certainty of their stand in this regard lies in the very Scriptures that have recorded this fact.

While this premise is indeed correct, their fallacy lies in the fact that simply because they are custodians of the Law, in and of itself does not mean they have GAP’d the Law.

But via their subjective arrogance, they consider their approach and interpretations of the Law as perfect as God and Moses speaking themselves.

Hence, they ought to know if the Sabbath law has been broken and that Jesus is a heretic.

The irony is that they place their confidence in themselves and their authoritative positions, not on God and what He actually was communicating to Moses.

Their tone is one of complete certainty and they lack no confidence in their position as Moses’ disciples.

And in contrast as to how they truly view themselves as such experts of the Law and their "bestowed" religious authoritative positions, it is no wonder they reject anyone, who contradicts their beliefs as they continue, "but as for this man, we do not know where He is from".

Because Jesus did not fit within their legalistic clique and was constantly opposing their religious and authoritative views, they consider Him as a complete spiritual reprobate from an unknown origin.

This statement by implication is a slam against Jesus that questions His racial and spiritual heritage regarding Him as less than a true Jew. Cp. Joh.8:48

However, another irony is seen in that they have unwittingly again spoken truth because Jesus had already informed them that they were ignorant of His true origin and destiny. Joh.8:14

Because of their –V in unbelief, they not only have arrogantly subverted the Law, they are blind to the fact that Jesus was given by God to fulfill the Law, an irony not lost on our author that recognized that the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. Joh.1:17

Vs.29 is a feeble attempt to arrogantly exalt their authoritative positions and views before the man while claiming that via their expertise in understanding of Scripture, they are ignorant of any like authority being bestowed upon Jesus.

But the reality is, and again another irony, the true ignorance is of themselves, not on the Scriptures or Jesus.

And again, the perfect tenses of the verbs "know" states that they are confident in their ignorance.

And in their arrogant admission of ignorance in their appeal to the Scripture is their "Achilles heel" the blind man cuts, as he proceeds to win the debate in vs.30ff.

EXEGESIS VERSES 30 – 34:

GNT John 9:30 avpekri,qh o` a;nqrwpoj kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j( VEn tou,tw| ga.r to. qaumasto,n evstin( o[ti u`mei/j ouvk oi;date po,qen evsti,n( kai. h;noixe,n mou tou.j ovfqalmou,jÅ

NAS John 9:30 The man answered and said to them, o` a;nqrwpoj (d.a. + n-nm-s) avpekri,qh avpokri,nomai (viad--3s) kai, (cc) ei=pen le,gw (viaa--3s) auvtoi/j( auvto,j (npdm3p) "Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, ga,r (conj. illative sense; intro. reasoning; "Well/Why" +) VEn evn (pL +) tou,tw| ou-toj (near dem. pro./Ln-s; Lit. "Why in this thing or concept/Well, in reasoning this thing") evstin( eivmi, (vipa--3s) to, qaumasto,n qaumasto,j (adj.-nn-s; "the marvel/wonder/ amazement"; something which cause one to wonder or marvel; something surprising or extraordinary; used 6x; the entire phrase Lit. "For, in reasoning of this thing [the Pharisee's statement of vs.29b] the marveling is") o[ti (introduces that which is amazing; defines "in this thing") u`mei/j su, (npn-2p) ouvk ouv (neg. +) oi;date oi=da (viPFa--2p) po,qen (adv.; "from where/what place") evsti,n( eivmi, (vipa--3s) and yet He opened my eyes. kai, (cc; adversative sense; "yet") h;noixe,n avnoi,gw (viaa--3s; "opened") mou evgw, (npg-1s) tou.j o` ovfqalmou,jÅ ovfqalmo,j (d.a. + n-am-p; "eyes")

GNT John 9:31 oi;damen o[ti a`martwlw/n o` qeo.j ouvk avkou,ei( avllV eva,n tij qeosebh.j h=| kai. to. qe,lhma auvtou/ poih/| tou,tou avkou,eiÅ

NAS John 9:31 "We know that God does not hear sinners; oi;damen oi=da (viPFa--1p) o[ti (ch; explains what is known) o` qeo,j (d.a. + n-nm-s) ouvk ouv (neg. +) avkou,ei( avkou,w (vipa--3s) a`martwlw/n a`martwlo,j (adj.-gm-p; "sinners") but if anyone is God-fearing, and does His will, He hears him. avllV avlla, (strong adversative) eva,n (cs; intro. 3rd class cond.) ti.j (indef. pro./nm-s; "anyone) h=| eivmi, (vspa--3s; "might be") qeosebh,j (a--nm-s; "God-fearing/God worshipping"; compound from qeoj - God and sebomai - to worship/revere; hapax) kai, (cc) poih/| poie,w (vspa--3s; "does/might do") auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s; ref. God) to, qe,lhma (d.a. + n-an-s; "will") avkou,eiÅ avkou,w (vipa--3s) tou,tou ou-toj (near dem. pro./gm-s; "him/this one")

GNT John 9:32 evk tou/ aivw/noj ouvk hvkou,sqh o[ti hvne,w|xe,n tij ovfqalmou.j tuflou/ gegennhme,nou\

NAS John 9:32 "Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. evk (pAbl) tou/ o` aivw/noj aivw,n (d.a. + n-gm-s; "From the age/Since the beginning of time") ouvk ouv (neg. +) hvkou,sqh avkou,w (viap--3s; "it has not been heard") o[ti (cc. intro. indir. disc.) ti.j (indef. pro./nm-s; "anyone") hvne,w|xe,n avnoi,gw (viaa--3s; "opened") ovfqalmou.j ovfqalmo,j (n-am-p; "eyes") gegennhme,nou\ genna,w (circ. ptc./PF/p/gm-s; "of one having been born/having been brought forth") tuflou/ tuflo,j (adj.-gm-s; "blind")

GNT John 9:33 eiv mh. h=n ou-toj para. qeou/( ouvk hvdu,nato poiei/n ouvde,nÅ

NAS John 9:33 "If this man were not from God, He could do nothing." eiv (part. intro. 2nd class condition) ou-toj (near dem. pro./nm-s) mh, (neg. +) h=n eivmi, (viIPFa--3s; "were not"; 2nd class assumes this is not true, hence He is) para, (pg) qeou/( qeo,j (n-gm-s) ouvk ouv (neg. +) hvdu,nato du,namai (viIPFd--3s; "he would not be able") poiei/n poie,w (compl. inf./pa-; "to do") ouvde,nÅ ouvdei,j (card. adj./an-s; "nothing/not one thing")

GNT John 9:34 avpekri,qhsan kai. ei=pan auvtw/|( VEn a`marti,aij su. evgennh,qhj o[loj kai. su. dida,skeij h`ma/jÈ kai. evxe,balon auvto.n e;xwÅ

NAS John 9:34 They answered and said to him, "You were born entirely in sins, avpekri,qhsan avpokri,nomai (viad--3p; ref. the Pharisees) kai, (cc) ei=pan le,gw (viaa--3p) auvtw/|( auvto,j (npdm3s) su, (npn-2s; "You yourself") evgennh,qhj genna,w (viap--2s; "were born") o[loj (adj.--nm-s; "entirely/wholly") VEn evn (pL) a`marti,aij a`marti,a (n-Lf-p) and are you teaching us?" And they put him out. kai, (cc; adversative sense; "yet/and") su, (npn-2s) dida,skeij dida,skw (vipa--2s; "are teaching") h`ma/jÈ evgw, (npa-1p) kai, (ch) evxe,balon evkba,llw (viaa--3p; "to cast out/put out/throw out/expelled") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) e;xwÅ (adv.; "outside/without")

ANALYSIS VERSES 30 – 34:

For the reader to have a full appreciation of vss.30-33, a recap of the scenario at hand must be kept in focus:

The man in view is still an unbeliever at this point.

He is the recipient of "the works of God", to reveal the impact those works can have in a person who is potentially +V. Joh.9:4 cp. vs.35-38

Therefore, the entire scenario is designed to show the process of thinking involved in +V through the exercise of intellectual honesty, objectivity and logic in their evaluation of circumstances in life.

He is left to defend for himself in the face of those who will not accept the facts of the miracle, to include the highest religious authorities of Israel.

He has not allowed himself to stray from the facts at hand.

He has had opportunity to hear arguments concerning himself, the miracle and Jesus from those who reject the facts as opposed to those who accept the facts.

Of those who continued to reject the facts, he has had opportunity to observe their approach to the situation to include:

Their premise of belief as grounds for their denial. 9:16a

Their attack upon his own integrity. 9:18a

His integrity vindicated. 9:18b-20

How they utilized the opportunity of his abandonment by his parents to engage in intimidation tactics in his isolation. 9:22-24

The necessity for them to "backpedal" in the pursuit of maintaining their initial premise. 9:26

Their unbridled verbal abuse in reaction to his unveiling their dishonest approach to the facts. 9:28a

Their demanding attitudes for him to comply with their way of thinking simply based on their positions of authority implying that they are right even in light of contradictory evidence. 9:28b

Their final point of argument that by omission of facts, the truth is really revealed.

It now becomes totally apparent, if not before, that the man has come to completely opposite conclusions than his inquisitors.

Though he is still an unbeliever, his intellectual honesty and common sense reasoning has not been shut down.

By being confronted with those who oppose the truth, he has been given opportunity to evaluate the truth of light, to the darkness they have promoted.

Because he has approached what has happened to him in an unbiased and unprejudiced way, he is able to see clearly all of the discrepancies and contradictions inherent in the opposition.

He now succinctly puts together the facts as presented in the preceding interchanges into a perfect logical conclusion.

He begins by cutting down the opposition to their knees in addressing the very core problem inherent in their argument.

And that is their admission of ignorance in their appeal to their authoritative positions as he answered and said to them, "Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from".

The force of the phrase, "Well, here is an amazing thing" denotes that what he has to say is a line of thinking based on a logical deduction of what has been previously presented.

The sarcasm of his statement is laced with innuendoes to include:

His statement is in light of the Jew’s claim as experts and authorities of the facts of Scripture and the religious life of Israel.

Just as they have set themselves up to be extraordinary/amazing before God and men as religious leaders and experts in evaluating things, isn’t it extraordinarily remarkable that they have done no further investigating into the origin of Jesus, who they claim is a fraud.

For someone who has created so much controversy between even the religious leaders of Judaism, isn’t it unbelievable that no one knows from where He hails.

It is in light of their insistence that he is ignorant, yet so are they, as they too are lacking in knowledge.

Their claim smacks of trying to hide something and not really reporting all that they do know; the same accusations they implied of him. Cp. Joh.7:52 (Reflects the inconsistency/deceit in the arguments of reversionists.)

It implies that their ignorance is due to simply rejection/dismissing or omission of facts, not that the facts are not readily available.

It has the force of intimidation returned upon them, based on the very authority of which they stood as religious experts that they tried to use to intimidate him. (He uses their positions as Pharisees and hence religious leaders against them, as they are ignorant to Jesus origin and thus failures as "shepherds" of Israel.)

Needless to say, the man finds their ignorance regarding Jesus to be something totally remarkable.

However, the real satisfaction to the readers comes in vss.31-33, where the man whom they claim as ignorant, abases totally all of the high and mighty appearances and forces that these Jews have tried to pass off as being.

He does so by recapping the very basis of opposing arguments as presented by the two groups of Pharisees themselves in vs.16:

"We know that God does not hear sinners".

In stark contrast to that fact, "but if anyone is God-fearing, and does His will, He hears him".

He effectively articulates and summarizes the very "intent" of what the arguments were meant to present.

He has correctly ascertained as an astute observer of the debate that God does not aid anyone opposed to Him, but does respond to all that pay Him His due respect.

The man changes the second person of "you do not know" in vs.30 to the first person of "We know" in vs.31 to emphasize that no matter who of the crowd may reject any truth based on its omission of or ignorance, none present (including himself) can disregard the premise of opposing arguments as clearly presented earlier.

Therefore, the simple fact is that on the negative side, anyone opposed to God, any request placed before Him falls on deaf ears and on the positive side, those who are God-fearing and does His will, He hears their prayers.

These two principles are true and are confirmed by both the Old and New Testaments. Psa.4:3; 17:1; 34:17; Pro.15:8,29; 1Joh.5:14-15

With these two facts stipulated and clearly defined, it clears the air regarding any superfluous or complicating speculations regarding the miracle and Jesus and puts it all under a clear and straightforward form of evaluation.

As all would have to agree, not only on the basic premise of argument, but that God is ultimately behind the miracle (including the opposition, vs.24b; Give glory to God), the one and only fact needing consideration is Jesus’ participation.

In other words, apart from everything else, since God must provide the power to heal him, logically and according to their theology, Jesus would have to make request.

Therefore, on what side of the coin Jesus falls on, sinner or God-fearing, would be determined by God’s answer.

And it is vs.32 that reveals the magnitude of God’s answer as the man states, "Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind".

The proof is "in the pudding", as the very nature of this miracle rules out human means and must have only been accomplished by God Himself.

The Jews would have been very well aware that there was no recorded history on anyone born congenitally blind having ever been given the gift of sight.

And since it is accepted that Jesus initiated the acts and indeed is involved in the miracle, only one logical and rational conclusion can be ascertained and that is, "If this man were not from God, He could do nothing".

The second class condition of "If this man were not from God" automatically assumes this premise as false, otherwise, He literally could not initiate with success all of the miracles of His ministry, let alone especially this one.

His statement is of the full realization and logical deduction that ipso facto, God obviously hears Jesus’ request and therefore must of necessity fall under the category of God-fearing and doing His will.

There is no other logical and honest explanation.

With all of the sophisticated rhetoric and tactics employed by the Pharisees, it is the simple logic of an openly honest poor ex-blind beggar that slices through the garbage of debate and reveals the true analysis and answer to the situation.

And he does so by weighing the evidence of the very theology the Pharisees are espousing.

Though he may not yet recognize Jesus as God, (prep. para – along side vs. ek – from the source of), there is no doubt in His mind that God is behind all that Jesus does.

The man represents the methodology of all potential +V that when confronted with the truth and facts, though that exposure may be countered by others false views, they will see through it and come to the correct conclusions.

Contextually, he serves to represent the minority of Israel, unlike the subjective Pharisees in view and hostile and subjective Jews of chapter 8, who were intellectually honest and objective in their thinking making the correct decisions regarding Christ.

John uses this man as a compliment to the apologetic intent of Chapter 9 that Christ was indeed God as He claimed in 8:58.

He serves to prove that in stark contrast to those such as pictured in 8:59, the evidence of the veracity of Jesus’ claims and ministry was extremely obvious, and he is a premier example that those who were –V, were totally without excuse.

He points to the reality that +V in their seeking will truthfully and honestly evaluate the things they hear and experience and the truth against the backdrop of cosmic views will stand out as the only logically correct conclusions to adhere to.

It points to the fact that a correct understanding of God’s Divine revelation of His Person and works to men stands upon the foundation of veracity/honesty and objective reasoning.

And all +V have these qualities inherent at least to some degree, in them.

The more the individual applies these qualities, the more they will "see" the truth of God.

And the more they will "see" through all of the discrepancies, contradictions and intellectual dishonesty inherent in those who are –V and reject the truth.

The man’s reasoning is incontestable.

Jesus indeed must be some very special representative of God and this miracle proves it so.

He has advanced his thinking thus far from a man named Jesus (vs.11), to at least a prophet (vs.17) to with no shadow of doubt from God (vs.33).

And again ironically, it has been the intense desire of the Pharisees to discredit Jesus and the truth and laughable attempts to force this man into their line of thinking that has caused him to reason through the facts and come to these conclusions.

Oh, to be a mouse in the pocket of the minds of the second group of Pharisees who are reasoning like him, as in their cowardly silence are still probably going "right on brother". (Speculative point, but not without reasonable merit.)

And the man’s reasoning ability and honest conclusions of the very theology the –V Jews have espoused further infuriates them.

That his arguments are airtight gives them no grounds for further debate and again they fall back on abusing their authoritative positions to deal with him.

In so doing, they again expose their condescending and subjectively judgmental natures as they answered and said to him, "You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?"

Their judgment that he was born entirely in sins harks back to the subjective presuppositions of the disciples in vs.2.

It points to their persons as the religious leaders of Israel, as the responsible parties in teaching this ideology.

The adjective "entirely/wholly" infers a "doubly whammy" of guilt upon the man indicating that both he and his parents are cursed with sin and therefore he is nothing but sin. (Funny, the irony is they have just proclaimed a true doctrine, but their application is completely evil.)

It is an inference that he is an unbeliever of the worst sort and is not therefore qualified to impart any explanations or reasoning involving spiritual matters.

This is the force of the remainder of the response literally translated; "Yet, you yourself are teaching us?"

They reflect the narrow-mindedness of religious reversionists not willing to accept the errors of their way and with misplaced loyalty to their agenda resort to condemning all aspects of the individual’s character. (The attitude/inference that those who oppose them are completely screwed up in every facet of their thinking.)

These being supposedly the keenest religious minds in Israel at the time, will exercise no tolerance to someone who may come in challenging their doctrinaire stand and prove them wrong.

They reflect a total lack of intellectual honesty.

And they can’t swallow the fact that some rank unbeliever has just come in and put them to shame.

Observation: Certain types of –V religious reversionists would not admit their wrong even if their life depended upon it, which unfortunately it does.

John then records a natural reaction those of this ilk would take in dealing with anyone that might threaten the validity of their "circle", "And they put him out".

Some have interpreted this to mean that the Jews formally excommunicated him.

However, John does not use the same word "to be put out/avposuva,gwgoj/ excommunicated" as in vs.22, but literally says "they cast out/threw out/evkba,llw him outside/e;xw".

Literally, the Jews physically forced the man to completely leave the premises.

The Jews functioned as "bouncers" and physically escorted him outside the synagogue.

Whether or not excommunication formally took place after the fact, their actions were sufficient to relay the message that he was not welcome back there again.

And while many might look at him and say, "Poor man!"; the reality is that it was God’s way of effectuating the necessary logistical separation for him to now be free to be introduced to the truth of the gospel. Vss.35ff

His being cast out represents that God will provide all of the logistics for those potentially +V, to be delivered from the clutches of religious reversionism/hmvwpt into the hands of the truth.

Observation: +V will find that they just don’t fit in with mainline churches that "lack" in providing the truth.

God knew exactly what this man needed to go through to cause his +V to be "primed" and ready to "jump" on the truth like a "frog on a june-bug".

EXEGESIS VERSES 35 – 38:

GNT John 9:35 :Hkousen VIhsou/j o[ti evxe,balon auvto.n e;xw kai. eu`rw.n auvto.n ei=pen( Su. pisteu,eij eivj to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pouÈ

NAS John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had put him out; VIhsou/j (n-nm-s) :Hkousen avkou,w (viaa--3s) o[ti (cc; indir. disc.) evxe,balon evkba,llw (viaa--3p; "they cast out/put out/ejected") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) e;xw (adv.; "outside") and finding him, He said, " Do you believe in the Son of Man? " kai, (cc) eu`rw.n eu`ri,skw (circ. ptc./a/a/nm-s; "after finding/having found") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) ei=pen( le,gw (viaa--3s) Su. su, (npn-2s) pisteu,eij pisteu,w (vipa--2s) eivj (pa; "into") to.n o` ui`o.n ui`o,j (d.a. + n-am-s) tou/ o` avnqrw,pouÈ a;nqrwpoj (d.a. + n-gm-s)

GNT John 9:36 avpekri,qh evkei/noj kai. ei=pen( Kai. ti,j evstin( ku,rie( i[na pisteu,sw eivj auvto,nÈ

NAS John 9:36 He answered and said, "And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" evkei/noj (remote dem. pro./pnm-s; "That one") avpekri,qh avpokri,nomai (viad--3s) kai, (cc) ei=pen( le,gw (viaa--3s) Kai. kai, (cc) ti,j (interr. pro./nm-s; "who?") evstin( eivmi, (vipa--3s; "is He") ku,rie( ku,rioj (n-vm-s; vocative of address; "Lord/Sir") i[na (conj. purpose) pisteu,sw pisteu,w (vsaa--1s; "I may believe") eivj (pa) auvto,nÈ auvto,j (npam3s)

GNT John 9:37 ei=pen auvtw/| o` VIhsou/j( Kai. e`w,rakaj auvto.n kai. o` lalw/n meta. sou/ evkei/no,j evstinÅ

NAS John 9:37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." o` VIhsou/j( (n-nm-s) ei=pen le,gw (viaa--3s) auvtw/| auvto,j (npdm3s) Kai. kai, (cc + cc = "both...and") e`w,rakaj o`ra,w (viPFa--2s; "You have seen") auvto.n auvto,j (npam3s) kai, (cc) evkei/noj (remote dem. pro./nm-s; "that One") evstinÅ eivmi, (vipa--3s) o` lalw/n lale,w (adj. ptc./p/a/Prednm-s; "talking/speaking") meta. meta, (pg) sou/ su, (npg-2s)

GNT John 9:38 o` de. e;fh( Pisteu,w( ku,rie\ kai. proseku,nhsen auvtw/|Å

NAS John 9:38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. de, (ch) o` (dnms; "he/the man") e;fh( fhmi, (viaa--3s; "said/to declare/make known one's mind/affirmed/asserted"; same as 1:23) ku,rie\ ku,rioj (n-vm-s) Pisteu,w( pisteu,w (vipa--1s) kai, (cc) proseku,nhsen proskune,w (viaa--3s; "worshiped/to fall down in reverence/to pay homage to"; In John it is always used to express Divine worship) auvtw/|Å auvto,j (npdm3s)

ANALYSIS VERSES 35 – 38:

News concerning the man circulates quickly getting back to Jesus as He heard that they had put him out of the synagogue.

An occurrence of this nature would obviously be a "news flash" for all of Jerusalem.

To be physically expelled from the synagogue would be reason enough in everyone’s minds to conclude that the Pharisee’s were serious regarding anyone who supported the cause of Christ.

However, his expulsion was not that he so much espoused Jesus’ claim as the Christ, but had merely made the appropriate and logical observations of discussion and observations of the miracle.

Jesus upon hearing seeks the man out and finding him, He then proceeds to present the gospel as He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

The scenario in view now becomes a perfect example of the doctrine that Christ does not abandon those who are ultimately +V and have been ostracized for the sake of truth.

Rather, God knows exactly the perfect timing to intercede on behalf of potentially +V in order to advance the manifestation of their intellectual honesty and +V.

Jesus uses a common title of Himself, "the Son of Man" as the object of the faith the man needs to believe literally, "into/eivj".

It points to the reality that Messiah is literally God in likeness of flesh. Dan.7:13

Jesus’ does not use the title "Son of God" with this man to emphasize that via the man’s intellectual honesty and +V, he will continue to put two and two together, understanding that indeed Messiah is God in the flesh.

In other words, it is not necessary for Jesus to verbally claim His Deity, as the miracle in and of itself will directly commend that reality to the man.

The only issue for the man is to identify Jesus as the Christ and in doing so, the man, because of the nature of the miracle and his objective reasoning, will conclude that He is God.

Obviously, only Jesus who knew all men could present Himself in this way and know that the man would put this all together.

We as believers don’t know the minds of men and therefore must usually be more direct in our gospel presentations.

Furthermore, the man is proof positive that there were Jews in Israel at the time that could come to the correct conclusion regarding Christ, even without direct and explicit verbal claims on His part regarding His hypostatic nature.

It is a validation that Jesus’ works were a sufficient witness for one to ascertain that He was the Promised One. Joh.5:36

He is in stark contrast to the Jews who were –V and rejected His direct claims of Deity. Joh.8:58-59

It points to the necessity for those at the 1^st advent to identify the historical Person of Jesus as the Messiah, and realize that as Messiah, He is God and believe.

That the man is thoroughly convinced that Jesus is a representative of God has been recorded and it is obvious that he places complete trust into whatever Jesus now says.

He understands by Jesus’ question that faith is an issue before God and that that faith must be placed into the appropriate Person.

That he fully understands the intent of the question and fully relies on Jesus giving him an honest answer is reflected in his polite and respectful response as he answered and said, "And who is He, Lord/Sir, that I may believe in Him?"

The aorist subjunctive of "may believe" indicates the man’s desire to express his volition in this regard.

He exudes a complete willingness to obedience in following Jesus’ directive.

With the man’s +V completely primed, Jesus identifies Himself as the very object of faith as He said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you."

The evidence Jesus presents is two fold as denoted by the conjunction "and".

The perfect tense of "have seen" emphasizes the experiential results of the miracle having continuous impact as evidence in the man’s perception of being able to specifically identifying whom the Son of Man is.

In other words, it is a statement to reinforce the logic of reasoning in the man (his perception) that the evidence of the miracle itself is validation to the truth of what Jesus is now claiming.

The fact that the man can now physically see Jesus in front of him (after being blind his whole life), is all the evidence this man needs to believe and perceive the evidence of the truth in the final clause, "and He is the one who is talking with you".

The real force of this clause can only be gleaned from the Greek.

The pronoun of choice by Jesus in directly pointing to Himself is the remote demonstrative pronoun "evkei/noj/that One/He".

Obviously, Jesus physically standing near the man in conversation is referring, though very subtly to the less astute, to His Person as Deity.

The fact the He refers to His Person as being distant in nature while yet physically standing in close proximity most definitely points to His hypostatic union.

In essence, His final clause states that it is his Person as "God" who is talking with you.

Therefore, taking Jesus complete identifying of Himself in vs.37 as a whole, makes the statement that it is the evidence of the miracle that provides the evidence that God is the One presently speaking with him.

And therefore, it was the work of God that displayed in this man the necessary evidence for him to spiritually perceive that God exists in the very Person that he now is seeing. (The very force of the verb "have seen/o`ra,w/to perceive accompanied with an experiential participation.)

And that this very principle of perception is not missed by the man is made clear in vs.38, "And he said, ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshiped Him".

The present tense of the verb "I believe" openly declares that at the very present moment that the man spiritually saw God in the Person of Christ he was now physically standing in front of, salvation Ph₁ resulted.

And there can be no question that based on his physical experience of "seeing" Jesus, he spiritually saw Him as God, since he worshiped Him.

The verb worship means literally to acknowledge with humility or revere one considered worthy of highest praise or deserving of utmost adoration.

Its function is often accompanied by showing overt obeisance such as bowing, kneeling, falling prostrate on the ground and/or to offer some sort of kiss to the hand or garment of the one who is the object of worship.

However, overt genuflecting is not a necessary requirement for one to engage in worship.

In fact, Jesus proclaimed that true worshipers of the Church Age dispensation would be those who worship in Spirit and truth. Joh.4:23-true worship is a spiritual reality

While genuflecting may occur, it is a separate function from the true force of worshiping, which is to acknowledge the truth. 1Cor.14:24-25

One may engage in an overt worship that is pseudo-worship because they fail to align their thinking in total obedience to the object of worship. Cp. Luk.4:7-8 where in Satan’s demand that Jesus worship him, Jesus’ response is worship is reserved only for God and that serving Him accompanies the worship.

Our verse is the only time in John where someone is said to worship Jesus, although worship is ascribed to Him from the time of His birth. Mat.2:11

Jesus’ disciples worshiped Him on at least one recorded occasion. Mat.14:33

In none of the instances these people offered worship to Him did Jesus chide or rebuke them but merely passively accepted their obeisance.

It is common knowledge that those who were to be worshiped in all realms of religions belonged to the realm of the supernatural and thus were gods.

For Jewish theology to include heretical Judaism, it can be readily demonstrated that all worship was to be reserved for Deity. Exo.3:12; 4:31; 12:31; 34:14; et al.

That the Son of God is to be likewise revered is explicitly taught in Heb.1:6.

However this man overtly may have display his worship of Jesus, the real force contextually denotes that it was his act of faith in believing Jesus as the God-man that was the basis of his worship.

EXEGESIS VERSE 39:

GNT John 9:39 kai. ei=pen o` VIhsou/j( Eivj kri,ma evgw. eivj to.n ko,smon tou/ton h=lqon( i[na oi` mh. ble,pontej ble,pwsin kai. oi` ble,pontej tufloi. ge,nwntaiÅ

NAS John 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, kai, (ch) o` VIhsou/j( (d.a. + n-nm-s) ei=pen le,gw (viaa--3s) Eivj (pa; "For/into") kri,ma (n-an-s; "judgment/act of judging/to sentence/to pass a verdict"; used 27x) evgw, (npn-1s) h=lqon( e;rcomai (viaa--1s) eivj (pa) tou/ton ou-toj (near dem. pro./am-s) to.n o` ko,smon ko,smoj (d.a. + n-am-s) that those who do not see may see; i[na (ch; purpose) oi` o` (d.a./nmp +) mh, (neg. +) ble,pontej ble,pw (subs. ptc./p/a/nm-p; "those not seeing/those who do not see") ble,pwsin ble,pw (vspa--3p; "may[ see") and that those who see may become blind." kai, (cc) "that" supplied to indicate the continued purpose oi` o` ble,pontej ble,pw (subs. ptc./p/a/nm-p; "those who see") ge,nwntaiÅ gi,nomai (vsad--3p; "may become") tufloi. tuflo,j (adj--nm-p; "blind")

ANALYSIS VERSE 39:

Based on the man’s newly found spiritual insight, Jesus now follows up with teaching concerning this very principle.

That Pharisees were present during His teaching at this point (cp. vs.40), would indicate that some time lapse has occurred since the man’s original inquisition and the religious leaders are again dogging Jesus’ tracks, if nothing else out of curiosity.

That both sympathizers and antagonizers of the Pharisaic circles regarding Jesus are at hand is made clear, as 10:19-21 denotes another division arose among them surrounding this miracle.

Though John does not record the "why" and "wherefore" of the Pharisees once again being present, it is safe to conclude they saw no act of the man worshiping Him, or else all hell would have broke loose among them.

This would reinforce the premise that the man’s worship of Jesus in vs.38 was simply an acknowledgment of His Person as God-man.

Furthermore it points to the premise that John is not seeking to emphasize any chronology in this section, rather he is seeking to maintain a contextual flow of doctrinal principles and ideology.

That the miracle of the blind man being made able to see is so fresh in everyone’s minds is a perfect time for Jesus to once again analogize the physical to teach the spiritual. Joh.3:12

The miracle itself as a sign deals with the spiritual realities of light and darkness and sight and blindness.

It is the backdrop of physical sight and the light that is necessary to have such sight that is the basis for the concept of spiritual sight and the illumination necessary to have such sight.

He begins by first stating that their is a primary purpose for His Person being in existence and said, "For judgment I came into this world".

The act of judgment denotes a separation or differentiating between the world of light in which He lived in the pre-incarnate state and the world of darkness into which He entered.

He Himself is the light. Joh.1:5,9; 8:12

His coming refers to the period of the incarnation when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Joh.1:14

His act of judging is not in contradiction to His previous statement about not coming into the world to judge the world in Joh.3:17.

In Joh.3:17, it is clear that the judging in view He is not engaged in at the 1^st advent is the actual judicial judging of men sentencing them to eternal condemnation.

His judging in our verse is in line with the effect of the reality of His existence effectuating a division among men volitionally, as He described in Joh.3:19-21.

In other words, the very coming of Christ divides men into two camps, +V or –V.

Contextually the volition in view is interpreted to be +V and –V as seen in believers versus unbelievers. Cp. vss.40-41

While Joh.3:19-21 placed emphasis on the works that differentiate –V from +V, in vs.39 the emphasis is on their spiritual vision or perception.

This is brought out by the two remaining purpose clauses, "that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind".

The verb "to see/ble,pw" can be used either for physical sight or spiritual/mental sight/perception, but is never used to represent both at the same time.

Jesus uses its divisive nuances to teach the difference between sight physically and spiritually with a play on words elsewhere in the gospels. Mat.13:13-14; Mar.4:12; Luk.8:10

That two distinct camps are indeed in view is seen in that there are those who were blind but may see and that there are those who profess they see but are proved to be blind in reality.

The term see in the first group denotes strictly a spiritual perception while the term for the second group strictly denotes only a physical perception.

Those who do not see refer to those who are +V and come to the God-man for sight, i.e., salvation.

The fact that they may see refers to the necessity of volition in terms of the salvation adjustment.

Those of the second group who see refers to those who profess to have salvation and a proper relationship with God, like the Pharisees.

However, their sight is based only on what they physically conclude based on the afferent impulses of the flesh and not a spiritual reality.

That they may become blind denotes that volitionally they choose to reject the fact of Jesus’ appearance, Person and message, ultimately proving that such do not have a relationship with God.

Those who claim to have spiritual sight apart from the light of the world are ultimately shown to be the blind men spiritually that they are.

They represent all –V in the world that seek and claim salvation for themselves apart from accepting the light of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is teaching the principle that all men are born in this world in spiritual darkness and only those who come to an understanding of this reality and choose to accept the free gift of light will acquire spiritual sight.

In other words, men that realize their need for salvation and deliverance from the condemnation of sin and see the light of Christ as God sent to provide that salvation, go from spiritual blindness to having spiritual sight.

On the other side of the coin, all men who think they can acquire salvation by any other means are deluded and volitionally are blind to the reality of salvation.

This is because they have their eyes only on the physical in life, not the spiritual.

And as long as they maintain a status quo of –V, the potential outcome will ultimately produce a state of permanent spiritual blindness.

What they have concluded to be light is what the cosmos and STA has to offer, which in reality is darkness (Joh.3:19; 12:46; Eph.6:12) that perpetuated ultimately renders them intolerable/unreceptive to the light of truth effectuating their blindness.

This principle harks back to the very procedure of –V at God consciousness that "sees" the light of reality and yet exchanges it for foolish and speculative darkness. Rom.1:20-32

And all this occurs simply due to the presence of the light, Jesus Christ, which exposes the "real you/souls" of men for what they are.

Since it is His very Person that salvation hinges on, He most certainly functions as judgment upon all volition of men.

It is the attitude of men towards Christ and all that He is that makes true His teaching that He did not come into this world to grant peace, but division. Luk.12:51 cp. Mat.10:34

EXEGESIS VERSES 40 – 41:

GNT John 9:40 :Hkousan evk tw/n Farisai,wn tau/ta oi` metV auvtou/ o;ntej kai. ei=pon auvtw/|( Mh. kai. h`mei/j tufloi, evsmenÈ

NAS John 9:40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, evk (pAbl; "From") tw/n o` (d.a. Ablmp; translated "Those") Farisai,wn Farisai/oj (n-Ablm-p) oi` o` o;ntej eivmi, (subs. ptc./p/a/nm-p; "who were/the ones being") metV meta, (pg) auvtou/ auvto,j (npgm3s) :Hkousan avkou,w (viaa--3p) tau/ta ou-toj (near dem. pro./an-p) and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?" kai, (ch) ei=pon le,gw (viaa--3p) auvtw/|( auvto,j (npdm3s) h`mei/j evgw, (npn-1p; "We ourselves") Mh. mh, (neg. +) evsmenÈ eivmi, (vipa--1p; "are not") tufloi, tuflo,j (adj--nm-p; "blind") kai, (adjunctive; "too/also") "are we?" supplied

GNT John 9:41 ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Eiv tufloi. h=te( ouvk a'n ei;cete a`marti,an\ nu/n de. le,gete o[ti Ble,pomen( h` a`marti,a u`mw/n me,neiÅ

NAS John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; o` VIhsou/j( (d.a. + n-nm-s) ei=pen le,gw (viaa--3s) auvtoi/j auvto,j (npdm3p) Eiv (part. intro. 2nd class cond.; "If - and you're not") h=te( eivmi, (viIPFa--2p) tufloi. tuflo,j (adj--nm-p) a;n (part.; "then/otherwise") ouvk ouv (neg. +) ei;cete e;cw (viIPFa--2p; "you would have no") a`marti,an\ a`marti,a (n-af-s) but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains. de, (ch) nu/n (adv. "now/since") le,gete le,gw (vipa--2p) o[ti (cc; into. content of their statement") Ble,pomen( ble,pw (vipa--1p) u`mw/n su, (npg-2p) h` a`marti,a (n-nf-s) me,neiÅ me,nw (vipa--3s; "remains/abides")

ANALYSIS VERSES 40 – 41:

As noted in the analysis of vs.39, the author now records that there are Pharisees present during Jesus’ discussion with the man and His present teaching.

That they heard the entire discourse of vss.35-39 is seen in the plural of hearing "these things".

It was the combination of hearing the gospel presentation to the man and the subsequent teaching regarding spiritual sight vs. blindness that they have been made privy too.

Some have interpreted these particular Pharisees as being some that have attached themselves to Jesus and are disciples of sorts.

However, there is no corroborating evidence elsewhere in the gospels to substantiate a public attachment in this vein.

Jesus’ response to their question in these verses tells us that these Pharisees are unbelievers.

Though speculative, I would submit that possibly at least some of these Pharisees were those who were sympathizers with the man during the tribunal and have subsequently relocated the man in sign of silent support.

This does not mean that they are believers or that they will continue to accept the truth that is being presented and become believers.

And it can’t be denied that some of these present will again manifest hostility towards Jesus’ teaching, but does provide an answer as to those Jews, at least in part, who retain a supporting position as sympathizers in 10:20-21.

Otherwise, the Pharisees in view are just the normal "tag alongs" that are constantly in view in the gospels.

In either case or not the case, those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things.

That they have understood that Jesus was teaching of spiritual matters regarding sight and blindness is obvious and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"

They understand that implication exists that they are the antecedents of what He is talking about in vs.39c, "and that those who see may become blind", and react with denial.

Their question is phrased in such a way as to anticipate a negative answer.

Their question has a sense of knowing what they "think" He is implying, but cannot be readily acceptable by them as intentional, considering they are the religious leaders of Israel.

Through Jesus’ gospel presentation to the man and His teaching, He has made it clear that He is the pivot on which human destiny turns, and that people cannot see apart from Him.

And He has made it clear that salvation and spiritual insight is dependent upon an exercise of faith in His Person.

It is this foundation of truth that Jesus draws on in His response as He said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains".

His answer is paradoxical/seemingly contradictory in nature.

The phrase, "If you were blind" is a 2^nd class condition that is assumed as contrary to fact.

In other words, there is a sense that they are not blind, yet they need to be blind.

Therefore, blindness in this context deals with the fact that they possessed a certain amount of spiritual information.

And that information is contained in the very Scriptures that they boast in understanding as the religious gurus of Judaism.

They were privy to all the light necessary to see "these things" regarding Jesus and thus are without excuse in not identifying Him as Messiah and the God-man.

In that sense, they were not blind, however, because they are intentionally rejecting the light that they have been given, they willfully make themselves blind.

Because they approach the Scriptures in such a legalist, arrogant and humanistic way, they see no reason for a Messiah to be God and execute salvation on their behalf.

The force of the apodosis, "otherwise you would have no sin deals with the fact of the guilt and culpability they incur in their rejection of Messiah.

Their "sin" contextually relates to the underwriter of all sin, pride/arrogance.

The fact that they approach God and His plan on their own terms is a product of the arrogance in them that causes them to conclude that they are all right before God.

This is the force of the final clause, "but since you say, ‘We see’, your sin remains".

However, the reality is that under –V in their STA approach to the Scriptures, they are blind to the necessity of exercising true humility before God, but in contrast they say they can see the truth otherwise.

Therefore, since they say they see otherwise, their arrogance/pride remains.

Not until they turn a "blind eye" to their "cosmic" approach to the truth and accept the need for God to give them sight through His works (salvation by grace), not theirs, will they spiritually see the need for a Messiah to provide salvation for them.

Not until they exercise true humility and intellectual honesty towards the truth inherent in +V, such as the blind man has manifested (vss.35-38), will they ever reverse their process of thinking regarding salvation and exercise faith in Christ.

And only then will their arrogance be removed from its status of primary residency within them effectuating the removal of sin accounted against them in unbelief.

It points to the fact that arrogance and intellectual dishonesty are "twins" that –V and the STA breed.

These men are likened to blind men who could be healed, but because they are willfully rejecting the need for healing they remain culpable for their own state of being.

The principle is clear; the light is present, sight is available and it is the willful rejection of that fact that is criminal. Joh.1:9-11

Even though they possessed the oracles of God and claim to have insight and understanding into the POG, they in reality reject the light that was sent to them and remain guilty before God.

And again, it can’t be dismissed that these men are those responsible for communicating and interpreting the Scriptures to Israel.

It points to the reality that there are those who claim "religious" authority to provide an accurate representation of God’s plan to others, that in reality are spiritually blind.

And that the scenario of the blind man being separated from the authority of the Pharisees and placed into the hands of One who will communicate the truth, points to another reality regarding religious authorities.

And that is that men are not obligated to render themselves under religious authority that does not commend itself to the truth in its representation of God’s plan.

As Jesus will now teach in Chapter 10, there is a due process of evaluating all men who claim authority as spiritual leaders and communicators of BD.