Exegetical Report / The Gospel of John, Chapters 9 & 10

by Chris A. Foreman on March 18, 2003

for GGBTS  S2324-01, The Gospel of John (Online), Dr. Jay Y. Noh, Spring 2003

 

Healing of the Man Born Blind (9:1-41) This story opens, develops and concludes in chapter 9 with little overlap into chapter 8 or 10.  This story is unusual because Jesus appears in the first 8 verses and the final 7 verses, but is absent entirely in the middle 26 verses.

 

I. Literary Analysis: The man who was once blind grows in his understanding about who Jesus is.  In his first encounter with Jesus, the blind man never sees the Lord’s face but only hears his instructions.  When first asked about his healer he calls Jesus “a man” (verse 11).  In verse 17 before the Pharisees, the man calls Jesus a “prophet”.  In verse 33, the man witnesses before the Jews that Jesus comes from God.  In verse 36, he sees Jesus with his own eyes and affirms him as “Lord”.  Finally he worships Jesus as messiah (son of man) in verse 38.  This is a remarkable journey of spiritual growth in 21 verses, similar in some ways to the Samaritan woman.

 

I think this chapter is constructed around one miracle, which then ripples into nine subsequent witnesses. There is first the unspoken witness (Verse 8),  then the neighborhood witness (Verse 11), then the adversarial witness (Verse 15), then the ascribing witness (Verse 17), then the secondary witness (Verse 20-21), then the irrefutable witness (Verse 25), then the convicting witness (Verse 27), then the teaching witness (Verse 30-33), finally the overheard witness (Verse  39).  In this chapter, the evangelist is again contrasting the virtue of an outcast “altogether born in sin” against the vice of proud Pharisees who claim to be “disciples of Moses”. 

 

II. Theological Presupposition: The disciples of Jesus as well as the Pharisees followed the traditional belief that suffering absolutely follows from sin.  M quotes Rabbi Ammi as saying “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity (p 425)”  This belief is evident throughout the OT, especially as Job debates his friends.  The puzzle for the disciples was not that suffering followed sin, but, since this man was born suffering, which person is responsible for this sin?  R notes that “Jesus does not reject the connection between sin and suffering but instead warns against a superficial application of it (p 333)”.

 

III.  Interpretation: In verse three, the English phrase “so that” is translated from ina in Greek.  A footnote in M (p 425) states this may be:

            1. Imperatival (but that)

            2. Result (so that)

3. Purpose (in order that)

I don’t think that the different spins put upon ina make much difference. In this single case we know the man’s blindness was ordained to be healed by Jesus.  That is scripture. I do not think that suffering serves a “role” in our lives.  Suffering is just a matter-of-fact part of our human condition.

IV. Interpretation:  There is a question about why Jesus did not heal the man instantly as he healed in other cases.  Why did Jesus use this weird round-about method?  R discusses some thinking in this regard on p 336-7.   He notes that saliva was thought in ancient times to have curative powers.  He also notes that by making mud with the saliva, Jesus was “kneading” and therefore more in breach of Sabbath laws.  God is sovereign and can heal as he pleases.  I do see two lessons in this healing.  First, I see that there is no magic formula involved in healing.  It is God’s power that heals.  If we reduce healing to a set method or formula, then we may think that we possess the power to heal.  This miraculous healing is also an example of partnership in healing.  Christ does his part, but we must obey and follow through for the completion of a miracle. 

 

V. Historical Background: Both R and M discuss this supposed anachronism in verses 22 and 35.  Some critics point out that official synagogue excommunication did not begin place until the Eighteen Benedictions of about 100 AD.  These critics say that the evangelist must be reading back into these events that occurred in about 30 AD.  I view this debate as similar to the debates about early persecutions against Christians.  There were scattered and periodic persecutions from the time of Nero, but “official persecution” did not occur until later.  There are three options to this anachronism question.

1.  This is indeed an anachronism and the Evangelist is guilty of reading back events.

2.  There were earlier written codes for the excommunication of the followers of Jesus.  We just do not have a record of these written policies.

3.  This threat of excommunication against his parents was not official policy at all.  It was just made up by the Jewish leaders.  They had the power even if they did not have the authority to excommunicate. I think that this last option is most likely.  These leaders sought to kill Jesus without authorization.  Surely, they could take it upon themselves to persecute his followers without authorization.

 

VI. Interpretation:  Is there a contradiction when Jesus says “I came not to judge the world but to save it (chapter 3)” and “for judgment I am come into the world (chapter 9)”?   R responds to this paradox this way: “For that reason Jesus can also say that judgment is not the purpose but the effect of his coming into the world (p 350).”  I think that I can accept this argument.  His purpose in coming was to draw all men to him.  The result was that some were drawn, but that others were not drawn.

 

VII. Reflection: The warning is this: spiritual blindness is a disease much more tragic than physical blindness.  Physical blindness will end at with physical death, while spiritual blindness will end in spiritual death.  It is a “mother of all ironies” that rounds out this ironic chapter.  During the course of the dialogues, the spiritually blinded Pharisees are badgering the spiritually sighted disciple wondering how he recovered from his physical blindness. They are too spiritually blind to accept the person behind the healing of the physically blind. 

 

VIII. Other Questions:  Is Jesus still in dialogue with the blinded Pharisees as we move into chapter 10 and the good shepherd?  I see no break in the continuity.  But then 10:19 talks of a division about the Jews.  How does chapter 9 relate to chapter 10?

Jesus the Good Shepherd (10:1-42) the Seventh Discourse

 

IX. OT Background:  Palestine has a long history of sheep and shepherds. Abel was a keeper of sheep. That’s one generation from the beginning! The relationship between a shepherd and his sheep shows up in Psalms and Isaiah.  Much of the imagery is of a gentle shepherd, but M points out that the ancients also viewed the shepherd as an autocrat (p 443).  Ezekiel 34 lambastes shepherds saying “Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves!”  Ezekiel prophesizes that a good shepherd for the flock will some day come to Israel.  Is this Jesus? As time passed, Christians raised the term “shepherd” to the lofty ecclesiastical position translated as “bishop”. 

 

X. Interpretation: There does seem to be some mixing of metaphors as Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd.  There are three possibilities.

1. Both R and M point out that the verses about Jesus being the door may not be original but a later Gnostic insertion.  To most this does not seem likely. 

2. The mixing of metaphors is original to the text, but was a common practice at that time.

3.  M points out that the good shepherd and the door to the sheep can be construed to be the same person (p 451). When the shepherd pens his sheep at night, he makes himself the door so sheep can’t get out and wolves can’t get in.

 

XI. Cultural/ Religious Background:  R points out that “the feast of the renewal of dedication of the temple, which lasted eight days, kept alive the memory of the restoration of the temple under Judas Maccabeus on Kislev 25, 165 BC after its desecration by the Syrians. (p 367)”  This feast was not a big as Passover or Tabernacles. It always occurred in winter.  Why do neither of the texts relate this holiday as Hanukkah?

 

XII. Interpretation:  Jesus is forcing the people to decide. They can ignore him no longer.  His miraculous signs attest to his power.  He must either be a messenger from God or a messenger from the devil.  He is purposely not permitting much middle ground. People are polarized.  In chapter 9, the neighbors are split about Jesus (9:9), then the Pharisees are divided (9:16).  In chapter 10, the Jews are divided (10:19), then they are divided again as they pick up stones.  The evangelist is guiding his audience to the passion. On palm Sunday his supporters are in the ascendancy.  On Good Friday, his hour has come. Don’t be surprised if in 2003 Jesus is still a polarizing personality. 

 

XIII. Theology: Verses 10:28-30 are often cited to support the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security also called “once saved always saved”.  This doctrine is the “P” of Calvin’s TULIP, “perseverance of the saints”.  In these verses Jesus states emphatically that (1) He is the one who gives eternal life (2) No one can remove a believer from his grasp (3) No one can pluck a believer from God’s hand and (4) Jesus is one with his father.  This doctrine finds support in Romans 8:31-39, Phil. 1:6, and 2 Tim. 1:12.  These verses are often countered with scripture that states faith can be shipwrecked (1Tim 1:19).  Believers can shrink back (Hebrews 10:38) and drift away (Hebrews 2:1). They can fall away (Luke 8:13) or be disqualified (1 Corinth 9:27).  In actual practice, I do not think there is much difference between the two views.  Let’s assume that some person who we view as a Christian and who self-identifies as a Christian later renounces his faith and lives a life of sin.  What can we say about this apostate?  An Arminian would say the person has fallen away.  A Calvinist would say that he was never saved in the first place. Is there really a difference?  I have assurance of salvation, yet I do believe that I can exercise my free will to turn my back on my salvation.  Is this “self-plucking”?

 

XIV. Theology: M says in reference to the Son and Father being one: “One is neuter, one thing and not one person. Identity is not asserted but essential unity is (p 465).”  These words of Jesus do not imply a metaphysical union with the Father, but they do imply more than a mere convergence of wills.  The Jewish leaders recognize this and therefore attempt to stone Jesus.

 

XV. Theology: In verse 34 Jesus quotes from Ps 82:6, reacting to a charge of blasphemy.  He is saying that He cannot be guilty of blasphemy for identifying himself with God, since sometimes judges of old were also called “gods”.  It does appear at first glance that Jesus is comparing apples and oranges.  After all, Jesus is claiming to be someone qualitatively more divine than an OT judge.  There are three possibilities.

            1. Jesus is guilty of sophistry.  His logic is purposely misleading.

2. Jesus is using an “a fortiori” argument, moving from the lesser to the greater. The language doesn’t fit this view.

3. Jesus in this case is comparing Himself to an OT judge.  This last one is most likely.  Without abandoning his claim to a unique relationship with his father, Jesus is saying that he is also in a long line of OT judges who represent the will of God to his people.

 

XVI: Theology: The realm of the spiritual reality is beyond our mental grasp.  Our human minds cannot wrap around the actual relationship between the 1st and 2nd persons of the trinity.  It is impossible. Therefore, Jesus must explain this relationship in vocabulary that humans can understand.  Of all the possible analogies “the Father to the Son” analogy is the closest approximation to the divine truth.  Jesus seems to be explaining and expounding upon the statement made of Him by the evangelist in the prologue. To paraphrase “I am the Word.  I am with God and I am God”.   His “with God” proclamations annoy the Jewish leaders.  These claims may be interpreted as his claim to be the Messiah.  His “am God” proclamations, even when obtuse, more than annoy Jewish leaders.  They outrage the leaders.  I think that even his disciples did not grasp the extent of his divine claim until after his resurrection.  Jesus is indeed fully God and fully human.  Paul spoke in bursts of poetry about this truth.  The details of this proposition took centuries to flesh out. They were at the center of Christological debate.  Earlier there was a question about the polarizing effect of Jesus.  Jesus asked Peter “who do you say that I am?”  Is Jesus “with God”?  Is Jesus very God?  As we humans struggle with our response, we continue to be polarized.

 

XVII. Theology: What is the “other sheep fold” that Jesus refers to in verse 16?  Is this a hint of Gentile believers?

Overall Reflection:  Healing of the Man Born Blind (9:1-41). The undeniable presence of Jesus in my life is my most powerful witness to an unbelieving world.

 

Jesus the Good Shepherd (10:1-42):  Jesus defines key relationships.  To us who believe, He is our shepherd.  Jesus=shepherd & believers=sheep.  To God (1st person of trinity) He is as a son.  Jesus=son & God=father.