Fourth
Sunday in Lent
John 9:1-41
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
4 Lent A: John 9:1-41 exegetical notes
INTRODUCTION
The outline suggested by Brown (_John_, Anchor Bible):
As a sign that he is the light, Jesus gives sight to a man born blind
(9:1-41)
A. Setting (9:1-5)
B. Miraculous healing (9:6-7) -- [quite a short section]
C. Interrogations of the blind man (9:3-34) -- [quite a long section]
1. Questioning by neighbors and acquaintances (9:8-12)
2. Preliminary interrogation by Pharisees (9:13-17)
3. Man's parents questioned by the Jews (9:18-23)
4. Second interrogation of the man by the Jews (9:24-34)
D. Jesus leads the blind man to that spiritual sight which is faith
(9:35-41)
Our text is "introduced" in 8:12: "Again Jesus spoke to them, saying,
'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in
darkness but will have the light of life.'" (Part of this is repeated
in 9:5.) Just as a miraculous feeding of thousands with bread and fish
illustrates that Jesus is the bread of life (6:1-14, 35-65); so now he
illustrates that he is the light of the world by giving sight to a man
in darkness.
The miracle itself is reported in only two verses. The majority of
this text centers on the interrogations.
As with most texts of John, there can be a literal level -- the
healing of a blind man; and a figurative level -- blindness = not
understanding or being open to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Certainly a figurative meaning is meant at the end of v. 39: "those
seeing might become blind." I'm not sure that I would care much for a
God who would literally cause sighted people to become blind. But
those who think they "know-it-all" are often not open to learn or
experience something new. (Note how often the Pharisees "know" what is
right vs. the "I don't know," from the blind man and others.)
HEALING THE BLIND
It has been suggested that the origins of denominations occurred when
the healed blind men met each other. At first they were all excited
about the miracle of sight that Jesus had given them, but as they
talked about how Jesus had healed them, they began to discover some
significant differences. For some, the healing came with simply a
touch from Jesus (Mt 9:29; 20:34). Another proudly boasted that he had
enough faith so that Jesus didn't have to touch him to perform the
miracle (Mk 10:52). Another meekly exclaimed that Jesus not only
touched him twice, but also "spit on his eyes" in order for him to see
clearly (Mk 8:23). The final one really felt embarrassed to admit that
even though a touch wasn't part of his healing, Jesus' "spit" wasn't
enough. Jesus had mixed his saliva with dirt and put the mud on his
eyes and then told him to go and wash in some pool of water (Jn
9:6-7). Since each one thought his healing was normal and better than
the others, they divided into spittites and non-spittites; muddites
and non-muddites; touchites and non-touchites. Denominationalism was
born.
If nothing else this little description illustrates the different
methods reported about the ways Jesus healed the blind. The healing in
John is unique with its use of mud or clay (_pelos_) made from spittle
and the command to wash in the pool of Siloam.
What is meant by these unique additions to this story?
HEALING WITH SPIT AND DIRT
The mixing of spit and dirt occurs only in this story. It probably was
deliberate to evoke the ire and blindness of the Pharisees. Kneading
was one of the 39 forbidden tasks on the sabbath [see O'Day, _John_,
NIB, p. 654]. In addition, since the man had been blind from birth,
what difference would one day make. Couldn't Jesus have postponed the
healing for a few hours? The fact that Jesus and performed such work
on the sabbath led the Pharisees to conclude that he could not have
come from God (v. 16) and that he was a sinner (v. 24) -- at least
according to their learned understanding of the Law. God certainly
wouldn't listen to such a sinful, law-breaking person, but others
argued that would a sinner be able to do such things (v. 16 -- note
that in Mt 24:24 & Mk 13:22 false christs and false prophets will
perform great signs). The formerly blind man simply counters these
arguments with his personal experience, "I don't know if he is a
sinner. One thing I know: though I was blind, now I see" (v. 25).
What do we do when theology conflicts with experience? The theology of
some may believe that God heals the faithful, but their experience may
not include divine healing -- even after a multitude of prayers. The
theology of others may believe that miraculous healings were things of
the past (if they ever really happened), but they may experience
unexplainable healings for themselves or for others. Perhaps less
dramatic, but more common are those Lutherans, baptized as infants,
who have a life-changing, "born-again" experience with God in their
lives, who discount the importance of their sacramental baptism.
People's experiences with the "charismatic movement" brought great
challenges to the theology of many mainline congregations. Many of our
Lutheran members don't feel the need for weekly communion -- they are
already filled with the Spirit, but my theology and that of many
others, says that they should want to receive God's grace in this
tangible way as often as possible. There needs to be the attempt to
explain experiences in good theological language -- and theological
language should reflect our experiences with almighty God.
However, regardless of what words we use, what most people respond to
is what affects their own lives. For the blind man, the one thing he
knew is that he could now see. For the hungry and thirsty, the one
thing they will know is if they receive food and drink. They won't
care who brings it or even what motivates their actions. We should
ask, "What will 'speak' loudest to the needy people in our community?"
If we were to ask: "What is the one thing you know about our
congregation?" what would our members say? What would non-members say?
The blind man sees, but it will take a little time and effort for him
to more fully understand and verbalize what God had done for him. I've
used similar statements in regards to infant baptism. God is doing
something for the child, but it will take time and effort and the work
of parents, sponsors, and the congregation for the child to understand
and verbalize what God has done in the sacrament.
WASHING IN THE POOL OF SILOAM
Since I'm on the topic of baptism, we'll explore some possible
connection with washing in the pool of Siloam and the sacrament. The
man has been blind since birth. We are sinners from birth. _epichrio_
("spread on" in vv. 6 & 11 -- its only NT uses) literally means "to
anoint" (_chrio_) + "on" (_epi_). (_chrio_ forms the basis for words
as "christ," "chrisms," "christening," -- it seems to refer to Jesus'
baptism in Ac 4:27 & 10:38; and possibly our baptisms in 2C 1:21
and
in 1J 2:20 & 27 where the noun _chrisma_ is used.)
The act of washing for healing is reminiscent of Naaman's healing in
2K 5:10-14. Elisha tells him to go and wash seven times in the Jordan.
The LXX uses _louo_ = "to wash" (often in terms of the entire body) in
vv. 10, 12, & 13, and _baptizo_ = "to dip, immerse, wash" in v. 14.
The word used in our text is _nipto_ = "to wash" (often in terms of a
part of the body, eyes in our text: vv. 7, 11, 11, and feet in John
13: 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14).
John tells us that "Siloam" means "Sent." (_apestalmenos_ = perf.
pass. part. = "the one having been sent"). The significance of this
name is two-fold. First of all, throughout this gospel Jesus is
referred to as the one whom God has sent (51 times). It is not the mud
and the spit or the water the cures the blind man. It is the "One who
has been sent" -- namely Jesus. Similarly, it is not water that makes
baptism important, but the fact that Jesus, himself, is present in,
with, and under the water. Secondly, as Jesus was sent as the Word to
reveal the Father, so the blind man will seek to reveal Jesus to the
Pharisees. Throughout John, a type of mediator is frequently needed
for others to come to Jesus: Andrew brings Peter, Philip brings
Nathanael, the blind man seeks to bring the Pharisees. Some are
successful, others are not.
SIN
Words for "sin" occur often in our text: _harmatano_ = "to sin" (9:2,
3; see also 5:14 & 8:11 for all occurrences in John); _harmatia_ =
"sin" (9:34, 41); _harmatolos_ = "sinner" (9:16, 24, 25, 31 -- all the
occurrences in John)
In a number of ways, Jesus challenges the common perception of sin.
First of all, he challenges the thinking that suffering was the direct
result of sin. (a) Based on Ex 20:5 // Dt 5:9 where God promises to
punish "children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth
generation" -- a birth defect must have been the result of parent's
(or grandparent's) sin. (b) Based on Ezekiel 18:20: "A child shall not
suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the
iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his
own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own" -- a birth
defect must have been the result of sins committed in the womb by the
child. These seem to have been the two views present in Jesus' day.
Jesus says that it is neither (v. 3; although 5:14 seems to suggest
that sin and suffering are connected). Neither can it be assumed that
because the Pharisees are healthy and don't need glasses, that they
are sinless.
Secondly, he challenges the thinking that sinfulness is directly
related to obeying the sabbath laws. Jesus does what is expressly
forbidden -- kneading; yet we know he is not a sinner. Neither can it
be assumed that because the Pharisees perfectly obey the sabbath laws
(as Paul did) that they are sinless.
Thirdly, he challenges the thinking that neither God nor the righteous
(Pharisees) should listen to sinners (v. 34). Certainly God listened
to the supposedly sinner Jesus and the Pharisees should have listened
to the formerly blind man. Neither can we assume that because the
Pharisees (or clergy!) appear to be righteous, that God listens to
them more than to sinners or that they speak for God any more than
sinners can speak for God.
Sin is not primarily the presence of illness in a person. Sin is not
primarily violations of the law. Sin is primarily resisting Jesus [see
O'Day, _John_, NIB, pp. 661, 664]. Like the Pharisees who think they
already know/see it all, they are not open to the revelations of God
in Jesus and from the formerly blind man. I had a professor suggest
that if we really want to see God at work, we needed to go out and
find the sinners. Might it also be true that if we want to hear God
speaking, we need to listen to the sinners?
Lutherans tend to be educated believers. Most of what we know is good.
We have learned many good things about God and Christ and the church.
The Pharisees also thought that their religious learning and actions
were the very best possible. "We've always kept the sabbath this way."
For them and for us, this good knowledge or good obedience can become
a new god. (We never make gods of things we think are bad.) Jesus
kneads mud and heals on the sabbath to expose and destroy such false
gods as trusting in our obedience of the sabbath laws. By his actions,
Jesus says, "I am ruining these laws. I am destroying the false
security you place in your obedience. I am replacing it with myself.
You can either trust your obedience or me; but not both." More
specifically in vv. 28-29 one has to choose between Moses or Jesus --
between trusting obedience to the law or Jesus' offer of divine grace.
Somewhere I read this quote: "Stop acting so good and start being a
Christian." Could that apply to the Pharisees in Jesus' day? Could it
apply to some people today?
I wrote a few weeks ago that in John, the calling of disciples was a
calling away from one belief to another belief. The first disciples
had to stop following John the Baptist to be able to follow Jesus.
That theme of giving up one belief in order to believe in something
better is also part of this text. I think that it is always a part of
our lives as we continually grow in the faith -- making the movement
from faith to faith; from old, inadequate beliefs to new beliefs based
on new insights given by God through his Word and experiences.
O'Day (_John_, NIB) writes: "Sight and blindness are not defined by
one's physical sight, but by one's openness to the revelation of God
in Jesus" [p. 661].
While I believe that, I have also lived among Mormons, for whom the
continuing revelation of God in Jesus is at the heart of their
beliefs. We need to be open to new revelations from God in Jesus, but
I believe that we are also bound by the truths already revealed in
scriptures and summarized in our creeds. It might be better stated
that we need to be open to new interpretations of scriptures that God
might give us. In our text there was the interpretation that kneading
on the sabbath was forbidden by God. Jesus "breaks" that law to reveal
something more important about doing the works of God.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TELLING OUR FAITH STORIES
By telling his story over and over again in this text, the blind man
doesn't seem to convert anyone -- in fact he seems to have made the
Pharisees somewhat angry; but he learns much about his faith through
his witness to the doubting questioners. When he first talks to the
Pharisees, he says that "a man named Jesus" healed him (v. 11). Later
he calls him "a prophet" (v. 17). Finally he realizes that Jesus
cannot be a sinner (v. 31) and that he has come from God (v. 33). A
theme throughout the Gospel is "where is Jesus from." The faithful
recognized that he has come from God. Then Jesus takes him another
step by helping him understand and confess that Jesus is the Son of
Man, whom he then worships (vv. 35-38).
Note also that the formerly blind man extends an invitation: "Do you
want to become his disciples?" (v. 27), which has a less than polite
response. For the sake of the future of the church, I think we are
going to have to learn how to extend the invitation to outsiders
asking them if they want become Jesus' disciples -- and be willing to
face the possible rejection that can come from that invitation.
Perhaps the most beneficial thing that happens when we share our faith
story is the growth that happens within us. That was true for me many
years ago when I had to write out my faith story while at the Lutheran
Bible Institute in Seattle. I don't know if sharing that story
"converted" anyone; but it caused a great deal of growth in me. At a
previous congregation, I had council members write out their faith
stories, which were shared with each other, and then, with permission,
published in our newsletter. At the beginning, they all thought that
it would be easy -- until they sat down to put their experiences with
God into words. Everyone said that it was harder and took longer than
they thought it would, but they were glad they did it. Probably the
real benefit of the "missions" that Mormon youth go on, or the
"door-knocking evangelism" of the Jehovah Witnesses is the growth of
understanding and commitment it causes in the witnesses -- regardless
of the effect it may have on any one else. I heard that one Mormon
bishop exclaimed that their missionaries don't convert that many
people, but very few of those who have been on a mission drop out of
the church. Maybe we don't demand enough from our members.
In a discussion on last week's text, I noticed that right after the
woman asks for the living water, Jesus tells her to go and invite and
bring someone to him. Could witnessing and inviting and bringing
people to Jesus be the way we receive living water? That idea is
support by the fact that water that is still, e.g., keeping it for
ourselves, is not living water. Living water has to be moving and
flowing, e.g., through us to other people.
Maybe we've taken the wrong approach to evangelism. We need to
evangelize, but not just for the sake of those others who need to hear
the Gospel, but in order that our own faith may grow and flourish. I
have found that this is especially true when I have had to deal with
doubting, questioning audiences -- usually the group where I least
want to share my thoughts and ideas and faith -- I discover that I am
the one who is probably most changed in the encounter. It forces me to
better understand what I believe and how I might more clearly
communicate it with others.
A couple other comments about the formerly blind man's witnessing. He
didn't have to initiate the conversations. There was such an obvious
transformation from the "old" to the "new," that others asked, "What
happened to you?" "How did it happen?" "Who did it?" The answers to
"what" and "how" didn't change much, but, as I indicated above, his
understanding of the "who" increased greatly and he repeated shared
his story.
MOTIVATION FOR THE MIRACLE
A final comment about the motivation of the miracle. Jesus says in vv.
3-4a [my translation]: "Neither this one sinned nor his parents but
that the *works* of God might be manifest in him. *We* must work the
*works* of the one who sent me...." [Note that the NRSV adds the
phrase: "he was born blind," and includes a footnote that the "we" is
"I" in some ancient manuscripts.] What motivated the miracle was not
the man's blindness, not his needs, not his prayers (he didn't even
ask for the healing,) but the need to make God's work manifest. God's
work may be manifested in divine healing; but it can also be
manifested in living faithfully without healings or with handicapping
conditions.
Different commentaries offer some suggestions about who the "we" are
in 4a -- perhaps the disciples or all Christians -- and we are to be
doing the works of God. However, could the "we" be the blind man and
Jesus? For the works of God to be manifest, they need a willing
receiver. The willing receiver also needs to recognize his/her
dependency on the one whom God has sent.
If a healing miracle happens, it is a divine work that comes from
Jesus and is received by faith. If a healing miracle doesn't happen,
the strength and courage to live with the chronic condition is a
divine work that comes from Jesus and is received by faith. When the
time comes for all of us to face death, we can do that with the peace
and confidence of the divine work of resurrection to eternal life
through Jesus, which is received by faith. In sickness and in health,
in living and in dying, we seek to make God's works manifest in our
lives.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com