33  Jesus Opens Blind Eyes  (John 9:1–12)

As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing. Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” Others were saying, “This is he,” still others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the one.” So they were saying to him, “How then were your eyes opened?” He answered, “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.” They said to him, “Where is He?” He said, “I do not know.” (9:1–12)

Sickness is a universal effect of the fall, as a result of which sin, death, and decay exist in this imperfect world. It afflicts all human beings, periodically reminding each of them that they “are but dust” (Ps. 103:14), and that one day “to dust [they] shall return” (Gen. 3:19). No matter how careful or health conscious people try to be, sickness is ultimately inevitable.

Throughout history massive outbreaks of disease have destroyed the lives of millions. In the fourteenth century, the infamous Black Death (bubonic plague) killed an estimated one-third to one-half of Europe’s population. In the nineteenth century, twice as many Civil War soldiers died of disease as were killed in combat. And in the twentieth century, the influenza epidemic of 1918–19 claimed 30 to 50 million lives—dwarfing the number of those who died in the First World War. Even today, with many diseases no longer a threat, the AIDS virus continues to kill thousands, as do injuries, cancer, and heart problems. Those who dedicate their lives to researching and treating diseases are held in the highest regard among their peers. And rightly so, since they provide society’s frontline defense against ubiquitous physical illness.

Despite all of the sophisticated technologies that they utilize, modern medical professionals are limited in the amount of healing they can ultimately offer. The scientific advances of recent times are certainly impressive, but they can only do so much in delaying death. God, on the other hand, is not at all limited in His ability to heal. As with all of life, He is perfectly sovereign over illness and health (cf. Deut. 32:39). He has the power to do “whatever He pleases” (Ps. 115:3) and, at certain historical times, He has chosen to heal in supernatural ways.

Though rare and confined to limited times, examples of God’s miraculous healing are recorded in the Old Testament. God healed Naa-man of leprosy (2 Kings 5:1–14), Hezekiah of a terminal illness (2 Kings 20:1–11), the Israelites of poisonous snake bites (Num. 21:6–9), Sarah, Leah, and Rachel of infertility (Gen. 21:1–2; 29:31; 30:22), and Job of a debilitating infirmity (Job 42:10). In addition, three dead individuals were restored to life: the widow’s son at Zarephath (1 Kings 17:17–24), the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18–37), and a man whose body was thrown into Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:21).

In the New Testament, the book of Acts also records examples of divine healings. Through the apostles, and to authenticate them as messengers of the truth of God (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12), God healed lame men both in Jerusalem (Acts 3:6) and at Lystra (14:8–10), the sick on whom Peter’s shadow fell (5:15–16), many paralyzed individuals at Samaria (8:7), those who touched Paul’s handkerchiefs or aprons (19:11–12), and the father of Publius on the island of Malta (28:8–9). In addition, Dorcas (9:36–43) and Eutychus (20:9–12) were restored to life. Beyond the apostolic ministry in the record of Acts, miracles are absent from Scripture until the events of the Lord’s return prophesied in Revelation.

By far the greatest manifestation of miraculous healing in history occurred during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing even remotely close to the miraculous display through Him has ever occurred, and rightly so. It has been said that He virtually banished disease from Palestine during that time in an explosion of miraculous healings (cf. Matt. 4:23–25; 8:16; 9:35; 12:15; 14:35–36; 15:30; Luke 6:17–19; 7:21; 9:11; John 21:25) for several vital reasons and purposes: they fulfilled messianic prophecy (Matt. 8:17), authenticated His messianic ministry (11:2–5; cf. John 20:30–31; Acts 2:22), glorified God (John 9:3; 11:4), and, most significantly, demonstrated His deity (Mark 2:7, 10).

There were at least six major characteristics of Jesus’ healing ministry. First, Jesus healed with only a word or touch (Matt. 8:5–13, 15; 9:6, 20–22; 14:35–36; 20:34; Mark 5:24–29; Luke 13:10–13; John 5:1–9).

Second, Jesus healed instantly (Matt. 8:3, 13, 15; 9:6–7, 28–30; 15:28, 30–31; 17:18; 20:34; Mark 3:1–5; 5:29; 7:33–35; Luke 13:10–13; 17:14; John 4:53; 5:9); unlike some of the alleged healings of modern faith healers, none of His healings were progressive or gradual. Thus, there was no question that they were genuine miracles, not natural recoveries over time.

Third, Jesus healed completely. For example, after He healed Peter’s mother-in-law “she immediately got up and waited on them” (Luke 4:39). When Jesus healed a certain paralytic, the man also “got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone” (Mark 2:12; cf. John 5:9). As an immediate result of Jesus’ healings the blind saw, the lame walked, the lepers were cleansed, and the deaf heard—all having been completely restored to physical wholeness (3:2; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; Acts 2:22).

Fourth, Jesus healed everyone who came to Him. Unlike contemporary false faith healers, He did not leave disappointed, unhealed people in His wake. Luke 4:40 records that “while the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them” (cf. 9:11).

Fifth, Jesus healed organic, physical diseases and infirmities—not invisible ailments such as lower back pain, heart palpitations, and headaches. He restored and replaced crippled legs (Matt. 11:5), withered hands (12:10–13), bent spines (Luke 13:10–13), blind eyes (Matt. 9:28–30), and deaf ears (Mark 7:32–37). No infirmity was beyond His power, so that He healed “every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people” (Matt. 4:23).

Finally, unlike modern fakes, Jesus raised dead people (Mark 5:22–24, 35–43; Luke 7:11–16; John 11:43–44; cf. Matt. 11:5).

Jesus’ healing of the blind man in this passage cannot be explained by anything other than His miraculous, divine power. (Since during His incarnation Jesus voluntarily gave up the independent exercise of His divine attributes, the Bible says that His power was granted Him by the authority of the Father [Matt. 12:28; Luke 5:17; 11:20; John 5:19; Acts 2:22; 10:38], and delivered to Him by the Holy Spirit [Luke 4:14; Matt. 12:22–32].) It could not have been a natural recovery of sight, since the man was blind from birth (9:1) and saw immediately (v. 7). Nor could it have been a result of medical treatment, since the cure for blindness was far beyond the limited medical knowledge of the time.

The flow of the account falls into four elements: the problem, the purpose, the power, and the perplexity.

THE PROBLEM

As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. (9:1)

Some connect the phrase as He passed by with the previous narrative, and place this healing immediately after Jesus left the temple (8:59). The wording, however, is general enough that the precise time and location of the healing cannot be determined. Since Jesus sent the blind man to wash at the pool of Siloam (v. 7), the incident must have taken place in Jerusalem. The temple was a prime location for beggars (cf. Matt. 21:14; Acts 3:1–10), since people coming there to worship would be more likely to give them alms. The temple was also a place where large crowds gathered. Possibly, then, the Lord encountered this man near the temple grounds.

Blindness was an all too common occurrence in the ancient world (cf. Lev. 19:14; 21:18; Deut. 27:18; 28:29; 2 Sam. 5:6, 8; Job 29:15); and the uncared-for blind were reduced to begging (cf. Mark 10:46). As Isaiah 42:7 predicted that the Messiah would do, Jesus gave sight to the blind on several occasions (Matt. 9:27–28; 11:5; 12:22; 15:30–31; 20:30–34; 21:14; Mark 8:22–25; Luke 4:18).

The text does not say how the disciples knew that this man had been blind from birth (v. 2). Presumably he was a familiar enough figure that his background was common knowledge. Or the blind man himself may have told them. In either case, this is the only recorded instance in the gospels of Jesus healing someone who is said to have had a congenital condition.

THE PURPOSE

And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” (9:2–5)

The blind man’s condition created a theological dilemma in the minds of the disciples. The question they posed, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” assumed the popular Jewish doctrine that anyone’s physical suffering is the direct result of personal sin. Therefore they saw only two possible explanations for his condition: either the sins of this man or those of his parents had caused his blindness.

But the man, having been born blind, could not have been responsible for his condition unless he had somehow sinned before he was born. Perhaps the disciples considered that a possibility, since the view that children could sin while still in the womb was widespread in contemporary Judaism. In addition, some Hellenistic Jews, influenced by Greek philosophy, argued for the soul’s preexistence. Therefore, they believed people could be punished in this life for sins they committed in a previous existence. (The Bible, of course, rejects such views.) On the other hand, if the man’s parents were responsible, it hardly seems fair that their child should be punished for their sin.

The disciples’ reasoning, although not completely illogical, was based on a false premise. Certainly, it is true that suffering in general is ultimately a result of sin in general. And it is also true that a specific illness can sometimes be the direct consequence of a specific sin. Miriam, for example, was stricken with leprosy for rebelling against Moses’ authority (Num. 12:10). Jesus had earlier warned the man He healed at the pool of Bethesda, “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you” (John 5:14). The apostle Paul likewise told the Corinthians, who were partaking of the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner, “Many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep” (1 Cor. 11:30).

Tragically, there are also times when children are forced to suffer the natural consequences of their parents’ sinful choices. For example, the eyes of babies born to women who have gonorrhea can become infected when they pass through the birth canal. If the babies’ eyes are not treated medically after birth, blindness can result. A baby’s health can also be negatively affected by the mothers’ smoking, excessive drinking, or substance abuse during pregnancy.

The disciples may also have been thinking of certain Old Testament passages in which God seems to promise punishment on children for the sins of their parents. In Exodus 20:5 God said to Israel, “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.” Exodus 34:7 repeats the warning that God “will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (cf. Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9).

Such passages, however, must be understood in a national or societal sense. The point is that the corrupting effect of a wicked generation seeps into subsequent generations. This is axiomatic, an obvious reality. The idea that a child will be punished for the sins of his own parents is a concept foreign to Scripture. Deuteronomy 24:16 commands, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (cf. 2 Chron. 25:4). Through Jeremiah God declared, “In those days they will not say again, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jer. 31:29–30). Ezekiel 18:20 adds, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

Subsequent generations (“to the third and fourth” [Ex. 34:7]) of children, however, have suffered the consequences of a previous generation’s disobedience. The Hebrew children of the Exodus, for example, suffered through forty years of wilderness wandering because of the sins of their parents’ generation. Centuries later, when the northern and southern kingdoms were carried off into captivity, generations of children suffered for the sins of their elders.

Jesus’ reply, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him,” exposed the error in the disciples’ thinking. There is not always a direct link between suffering and personal sin. When Job’s would-be counselors rested their case for his suffering on this wrong assumption, they caused him needless misery (cf. Job 13:1–13; 16:1–4) and ultimately received a rebuke from God (42:7). On another occasion, Jesus taught that neither those Galileans whom Pilate slaughtered in the temple nor those killed when the tower in Siloam fell on them (Luke 13:1–5) suffered those deadly effects because they were particularly vile sinners—as His audience had smugly assumed. Instead, the Lord used those two incidents to warn His hearers that all sinners, including them, face death, and when it comes would perish unless they repented and trusted in Him.

The truth was that like Job (Job 1, 2), the blind man was afflicted so that the works of God might be displayed in him. But as F. F. Bruce notes,

God sovereignly chose to use this man’s affliction for His own glory.

Having addressed their misunderstanding and introduced the matter of doing God’s work, Jesus affirmed it as the priority, saying to the disciples, “We must work the works of Him who sent Me.” Their focus was backward, on analyzing how the blind man came to be in his condition; the Lord’s concern was forward, on putting God’s power on display for the man’s benefit. As noted in the discussion of 4:4 in chapter 11 of this volume, John frequently used the verb dei (must) to describe Jesus’ active fulfillment of the mission given Him by the Father (cf. 3:14; 10:16; 12:34; 20:9). Here the plural pronoun we includes the disciples, who also were empowered to do the works of the Father who sent Jesus.

The phrase as long as it is day conveys a sense of urgency (cf. 7:33; 11:9–10; 12:35; 13:33). It refers to the brief time (only a few months remained until the crucifixion) that Jesus would still be physically present with the disciples. After that, He said, “Night is coming when no one can work”—a reference to His being taken away from the disciples in death. They would then be overtaken by the darkness (cf. 12:35) and unable to work (cf. 20:19; Matt. 26:56) until the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost once again empowered them to minister.

But while Jesus was still in the world, He was the Light of the world. The Lord, of course, did not cease to be the Light of the world after His death, since He carried on His ministry through the disciples (Matt. 28:18–20). Yet that Light shone most clearly and brightly during His earthly ministry. What Jesus told the disciples applies to all believers. They are to serve God with a sense of urgency, “making the most of [their] time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16; cf. Col. 4:5). The noble Puritan pastor Richard Baxter captured that sense of urgency when he wrote, “I preached as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men” (cited in I. D. E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977], 223).

THE POWER

When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing. (9:6–7)

The One who is the spiritual Light of the World would also provide physical light for this man who had lived his entire life in darkness. The healing is thus a living parable, illustrating Jesus’ ministry as the Light shining in a spiritually darkened world (cf. 1:5).

Having finished His dialogue with the disciples, the Lord spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to the blind man’s eyes, and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” Jesus had earlier used His saliva in the healing of a deaf and mute man (Mark 7:33) and a blind man (8:23), but only here did He make clay of the spittle. Why He did so is not stated. Some of the early church fathers interpreted Jesus’ actions in light of Genesis 2:7. In that case, making the clay would symbolize the Lord’s creating a new, functioning pair of eyes to replace those which had never seen. But as Leon Morris notes, “Jesus performed His miracles with a sovereign hand and He cannot be limited by rules of procedure. He cured how He willed” (The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 480).

The pool of Siloam, which has recently been rediscovered (for a report on this find, see “The Pool of Siloam Revealed,” www.bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloam.htm), was located near the southeast corner of the city wall. Water flowed to it from the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron valley. Fearing a siege by the Assyrians (2 Chron. 32:4), Hezekiah had constructed a tunnel from the Gihon spring to the pool of Siloam (2 Kings 20:20) to ensure a continual supply of water. It was from the pool of Siloam that the high priest drew water during the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. the discussion of 7:37 in chapter 26 of this volume).

John’s parenthetical note calls attention to the significance of the name Siloam, which transliterates a Hebrew word that means Sent. The name probably originated because of the water sent into the pool (via Hezekiah’s tunnel) from the Gihon spring. But, as its use in the Feast of Tabernacles suggests, the name also symbolized the blessings God sent to Israel. Here it symbolizes God’s ultimate blessing to the nation: Jesus the Messiah, the One sent from God (5:24, 30, 36–37; 6:38–39, 44, 57; 7:16, 28–29, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 11:42; 12:44–45, 49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21; Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 4:18; 9:48; 10:16). Sadly, just as their ancestors “rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah [Siloam]” (Isa. 8:6), so also did the people reject Jesus, the true Siloam, the One sent by God to save lost sinners (Luke 19:10).

As Jesus instructed, the blind man obediently went away and washed in the pool, and came back seeing. His response to the Lord’s command symbolizes the obedience that marks genuine saving faith (Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; Heb. 5:9)—which he would shortly manifest (see the discussion of vv. 35–38 in chapter 35 of this volume).

THE PERPLEXITY

Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” Others were saying, “This is he,” still others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the one.” So they were saying to him, “How then were your eyes opened?” He answered, “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.” They said to him, “Where is He?” He said, “I do not know.” (9:8–12)

The healing of the blind man understandably caused a sensation among his neighbors and all who had previously known him as a beggar. The transformation was so shocking that some were saying in confusion, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” Others confidently asserted, “This is he,” but still others, unable to believe that a miracle had taken place (cf. v. 32), were saying, “No, but he is like him.” They found it easier to believe in a case of mistaken identity than in a miraculous healing. The Pharisees would later repeat their speculation that this was not the same man (v. 18). The discussion was cut short by the formerly blind man himself, who emphatically asserted,“I am the one.”

At least some were convinced that this was indeed the man who had been blind, and they were saying to him, “How then were your eyes opened?” In response, with no attempt to explain how, he succinctly summarized what had happened: “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.” Wanting to meet the One who performed such an incredible miracle, the crowd said to him, “Where is He?” But the man did not know where Jesus was and, having never seen Him, could not have identified Him in any case. The Lord had disappeared from the narrative after verse 7, leaving only the formerly blind man on center stage. Not until verse 35 does Jesus reappear.

This account of Jesus’ healing of a blind man beautifully illustrates the salvation process. Blinded by sin (12:40; 2 Cor. 4:4), lost sinners have no capacity to recognize the Savior or find Him on their own (Rom. 3:11; 8:7). The blind man would not have been healed had Jesus not sought him and revealed Himself to him. So it is in salvation; if God did not reach out to spiritually blind sinners, no one would be saved (Rom. 5:6; cf. John 6:44, 65). And just as the blind man was healed only when he obeyed Jesus’ command and washed in the pool of Siloam, so also are sinners saved only when they humbly and obediently embrace the truth of the gospel (Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; Heb. 5:9; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17).