EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]
St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]
Jesus and the Man Born Blind
John 9:1-41
Readers can best understand this episode as a sequence of seven scenes:
(1) Scene I:
9:1-7: The focus of this scene is the healing of the blind man. It begins with a question, posed by the disciples, who assume that blindness is punishment for sin, either the sin of the man’s parents or the sin of the man himself. Jesus dismisses the premise of the question and substitutes his own premise: The blindness is due neither to the man’s sin nor to the sin of his parents but “that the works of God might be displayed in him” (9:3). The reader should understand the man as providing Jesus with the opportunity to perform another life-giving work. Not only does Jesus “re-frame” the disciples’ question, he also indicates a sense of urgency in that he “must work the works of him who sent me while it is day” (9:4). None of Jesus’ deeds are merely random but are part of his larger “work,” which he will finish, finally, on the Cross (19:30). The proper context of the healing of the blind man is this: It confirms what Jesus said, in 8:12, at the Feast of Tabernacles and repeats the emphasis of 1:4, 5, 9: “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (9:5). The Gospel writer quickly describes the actual healing, which involves the use of spittle and mud. In the ancient world, spittle was thought to have healing properties and healers often made use of it. Jesus then sends the man to the Pool of Siloam (which played a role in the Feast of Tabernacles) and whose meaning is translated here as “Sent.” This underlines what Jesus has just said: he is doing the works of him who sent him. The man returns from the pool, with his sight fully restored, but Jesus is no longer present.
(2) Scene II:
9:8-12: This scene focuses on establishing the fact that the man who now sees is the man whom the villagers knew to be a blind beggar. The man, who was formerly blind, bears witness to his identity by saying, “I am the man” (9:9). Then, a villager asks the man how he received back his sight. The man provides a brief account of what Scene I tells us. The thing to notice is that the man is largely in a state of ignorance about Jesus. When asked where Jesus is, he simply replies, “I do not know” (9:12).
(3) Scene III:
9:13-17: This scene is, in fact, a mini-trial. The man is brought to the Pharisees, not merely to satisfy their curiosity, but because the Pharisees assume that the actions of Jesus have breached the Sabbath [9.14]. Strictly speaking, Jesus is guilty of a double violation of the Sabbath, in that he has both engaged in healing and has made clay. There is immediately a division of opinion about Jesus, with some concluding that “this man is not from God” and others concluding that a sinner could not do such signs (9:16). The man, compelled to voice some opinion about Jesus, says that he is a “prophet” (9:17), meaning that he is “of God,” that God has authorized his mission. This is the first step in this man’s spiritual awakening.
(4) Scene IV:
9:18-23: In this scene, the sympathetic Pharisees disappear and “the Jews” replace them (9:18). Two new witnesses appear: the man’s parents, whom “the Jews” question. The parents will only go so far as to say that this is, in fact, their son and that he was born blind. They refuse to speculate on how he received his sight or who restored it. The narrator supplies the reason for this refusal in 9:22: the parents that Jesus is a controversial figure and that those who “confess” him will be “put out” of the synagogue. It is quite likely that John wrote this Gospel, during a time when officials made a distinction between Christian and Jew, with Christians being excommunicated from the synagogue. Notice that the parents, who are certainly Jews themselves, are said to act as they do because “they feared the Jews” (9:22).
(5) Scene V:
9:24-34: This is the final trial scene and the officials recall and question the previously blind man. It is now clear that they have reached a verdict: “We know that this man is a sinner” (9:24). The admonition, “Give glory to God” (9:24) makes it clear that the witness is under solemn oath. Ironically, we already know that the way to give glory to God is to believe in the one whom he has sent (6:29). The officials question the man, yet again, about the manner of his healing. The man now appears to be much more confident -– he is no longer an ignorant man, standing in fear before his betters. This confidence shows up in his counter question: “Do you also want to become his disciples?” (9:27). Does this also indicate that the man is now a disciple? It seems highly probable and most likely accounts for the man’s newfound confidence. This leads the interrogators to give their estimation of the situation: “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses” (9:28). This goes back to the contrast between Moses and Jesus in the prologue (1:17) and to the repeated assertion that God speaks through Jesus (3:34; 7:16; 12:49-50). In this context, being a disciple of Moses and being a disciple of Jesus are only incompatible if one understands the former state to be a denial of the latter state. The statement that they do not know from where Jesus comes is ironic; it is meant to be part of the reason for dismissing his claims but appears, in the light of what we have seen thus far, to be a statement of fundamental ignorance -– they do not know that Jesus has come “from the Father” (8:42). The man formerly blind offers an argument that they cannot refute: “This man opened my eyes.” We know that God does not listen to sinners (meaning that he does not grant them what they want). The healing of a person born blind is unheard of. How then could this man possibly be a sinner? “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (9:33). The authorities can only respond to this argument by dismissing the man as a sinner (“You were born in utter sin”) and scoffing at him (“ . . . and would you teach us?”).
(6) Scene VI:
9:35-38: Two important things happen in this scene. First, Jesus finds the man, after the authorities have driven him. Second, Jesus draws out his incipient faith. He does this by asking a question: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (9:35). In John, as 5:27 illustrates, “Son of Man” and “Son of God” are synonymous terms. The man is open to such belief and only wants Jesus to point out the object. Jesus makes it clear that the object of belief is himself: “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you” (9:37). This statement produces full belief and the proper response: worship (9:38). The man’s restored sight now mirrors his spiritual sight.
(7) Scene VII:
9:39-40: This episode ends with Jesus making a solemn pronouncement: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind” (9:39). This is an echo of 3:19-21 and reminds us of the theme of 8:14-18. The judgment Jesus exercises has both positive and negative consequences -– the nature of the consequences depends on the response to his person. Jesus has come to restore sight to the blind (as an anticipation of the resurrection of the body) and to bring judgment upon those who have the illusion of sight. The episode ends with Jesus applying the same judgment to the Pharisees that they applied to the man: They are in sin.
Questions for Reflection
(1) The focus of this episode is the man’s coming to faith in Jesus by gradual steps. What are the things that have to happen to him, to bring him to the point of worshiping Jesus? What does this tell us about the way in which God works in us?
(2) One of the main themes of this story is that of blindness, particularly spiritual blindness. Does this episode give us any ways to deal with our own blindness?
Margot’s Corner 
Exploring the Gospel of John: 10
EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]
St. Peter’s Anglican Church [2006]
Jesus: The Good Shepherd
John 10:1-42
10:1-21
(1) This section clearly follows the episode of the man born blind, in John 9. The audience is the same (9:18, 10:19), there is once again a division of opinion (9:16, 10:19), and there is a clear reference back to the healing of the blind man (10:21). “The Jews” are leaders of Israel, who drive the man born blind out of the synagogue. This action allows Jesus to introduce the traditional imagery of Israel’s leaders (kings, priests, prophets), which is the imagery of the “shepherd.” Jesus sets up a contrast between false leadership and himself.
(2) While the shepherd was a prominent symbol of leadership, beginning with Joshua (Numbers 12:27-33), it comes to full stature in David, the shepherd who became king (2 Samuel 5:2; 7:7-8). After David, the shepherd becomes the ideal of the messianic king (Micah 5:2-4). Ezekiel 34 draws a stark contrast drawn between Israel’s shepherds — who have not been feeding the sheep but have been feeding themselves – on the sheep (34:2-3). God will replace such shepherds by the ultimate shepherd — who is God himself: “I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land . . . I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God” (34:14, 15).
(3) 10:1-6 is a mini-parable, which establishes two things:
(4) 10:7-10 expands upon 10:1-2. Instead of emphasizing that Jesus is the shepherd who comes through the gate, this section emphasizes that Jesus is the gate. He embodies access to the sheepfold: “I am the door of the sheep” (10:7). In this way, Jesus fulfills the role of God, which Ezekiel 34:10 depicts, where God himself rescues his sheep from the devouring “shepherds.” Just as in Ezekiel 34, this passage in John sets up a sharp contrast between the “shepherds” who “kill and destroy” (10:10) and the “real Shepherd,” who comes “that they may have life and have it abundantly” (10:10).
(5) 10:11-18 focuses on the identification that the reader has been anticipating: that of Jesus’ identification with the shepherd (with Ezekiel 34 as the backdrop). Jesus is the “good shepherd” (10:11) and here, the Greek word “kalos” (translated as “good”) really means “ideal” or “true.” Jesus is the true shepherd of Israel because “he lays down his life for the sheep” (10:11). Being a shepherd brought exposure to danger but, here, the dedication of the shepherd to the sheep is amazing and beyond expectation. The emphasis falls on two important things: that the shepherd’s death is voluntary (not merely inflicted or accidental) and that the shepherd’s death is on behalf of the sheep: This is a radical contrast with the shepherds who feed on the sheep. The solemn pronouncement “I am the good [true] shepherd” is spoken twice (10:11, 14) and, in each case, the warrant for this saying is the shepherd’s willingness to die for the sheep (10:11, 15). Jesus’ death proceeds from two things, each of which is equally important: his knowledge of the Father (10:15) and his intimate relationship with the sheep (10:14).
The pretend “shepherds” possess neither of these things. 10:16 “I have other sheep that are not of this fold” probably refers to Gentile believers. The background for this is still Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:24, where God gathers a scattered Israel into one “pasture,” with its ultimate shepherd. 10:16 makes the point that the scattered Israel includes Gentiles, as well. The result of Jesus’ work will fulfill Ezekiel 34. “So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (10:16). 10:17-18 focus on Jesus’ death and resurrection as acts of sovereign freedom and forecloses any notion that Jesus is a victim. Jesus’ death is a gift of himself (he is not simply killed) and his resurrection is accomplished by virtue of who he is (John 1:1), not given to him as a “reward” for having done well. The accusation that Jesus is possessed (in 10:20) takes us back to 8:48, 52, while the argument that a demon possessed man could not restore sight takes us back to 9:31-33.
10:22-42
(1) This section is another interrogation scene, in which Jesus is in conflict with “the Jews” (10:24). The themes of 10:1-21 continue but some time has passed because we are told that, instead of being in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2), Jesus is in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Dedication (10:22).
(2) 10:22-30 is the first part of this section. “The Jews” now want an explicit “yes” or “no” from Jesus, about whether he is the Messiah. Jesus has not claimed to be the Messiah, in the presence of religious authorities although, from 1:41 onwards, the issue of “messiah-ship” has come up (note also 4:25-26). Jesus’ response to the questioning is twofold:
(3) In 10:31-39, the point of contention between Jesus and “the Jews” is sharply made clear. In 10:33, Jesus is accused of blasphemy, in the sense that he has made himself equal to God or has identified God with himself. This was the implicit issue in 8:58-59. The Christian confession that Father and Son have equal status was one of the main points of contention between the Church and the synagogue. Jesus offers a counter-argument, which draws upon Psalm 82:6, in which God addresses a gathering, by telling them: “You are gods.” The identity of the group addressed need not detain us here, since the simple point is that, if this group can be so addressed, how can there possibly be any objection to Jesus, “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” (10:36)? The word “consecrated,” of course, picks up on the Feast of Dedication (which marked the re-consecration of the Temple) and identifies Jesus as its fulfillment. Jesus’ works make it clear that his claim is not blasphemy because his claim is true; his works make it clear that “the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (10:38).
Leave a comment
Filed under The Gospel of John, theology and doxology
Tagged as exploring the gospel of john, jesus the good shepherd, The Gospel of John, The Gospel of John commentary, theology, traditional imagery