John 9:13 - Meaning and Application

One would expect that such a miracle would have settled Christ’s reputation, silenced opposition, and put his enemies to shame. Instead, it had the opposite effect. Rather than receiving him as a prophet, they treated him like a criminal.

Here is the report they gave to the Pharisees about the matter: they brought the man who had once been blind to the Pharisees (John 9:13). They brought him before the great Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, which was made up mostly of Pharisees. The Pharisees in that council were especially active in opposing Christ.

Some think those who brought the man came with a good purpose. They meant to show the Pharisees that Jesus, whom they were persecuting, was truly a great man and gave clear proof of a divine mission. Whatever has persuaded us of the truth and worth of religion, and has removed our prejudice against it, we should be ready to share with others when we can.

But it seems more likely that they brought him with a bad purpose, hoping to stir the Pharisees up even more against Christ. Yet that was hardly needed, because the Pharisees were already bitter enough on their own. They brought him with the same kind of warning found in John 11:47, 48, “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him.” Rulers with a persecuting spirit will never lack bad helpers around them, people who stir the fire and make things worse.

The charge they pretended to bring was this, and this was the excuse they used. What is good is often attacked by being made to look evil. Here the supposed crime was that Jesus made clay and opened the man’s eyes on the Sabbath day (John 9:14). Breaking the Sabbath is certainly sinful and gives a very bad character. But the Jewish traditions had turned many things into Sabbath violations that were far from breaking God’s law.

This issue came up many times between Christ and the Jews, and that was for the good of the church in every age. But someone may ask, why would Christ not only work miracles on the Sabbath, but do them in a way he knew would offend the Jews? When he healed the man who could not walk, why tell him to carry his bed? Why not heal this blind man without making clay?

There are several answers. First, Christ would not seem to submit to the false authority of the scribes and Pharisees. Their rule was unlawful, their demands were arbitrary, and their zeal for ceremonies had swallowed up the weightier matters of religion. So Christ would not yield to them, not even for a moment. He was under God’s law, but not under their man-made rules.

Second, he did this to explain the fourth commandment, the command to keep the Sabbath, and to defend it from their wrong ideas. In doing so, he taught us that a weekly Sabbath is meant to remain in the church, one day in seven. If that command were soon to be set aside, there would be no need to explain it so carefully. He also taught that we are not to keep it in the same ceremonial way the Jews did. Works of necessity and mercy are allowed, and Sabbath rest is kept not as an end in itself, but to serve Sabbath work.

Third, Christ chose to work his cures on the Sabbath to honor and set apart that day. He also showed that spiritual healing should happen especially on the Christian Sabbath. How many blind eyes have been opened by the gospel, that blessed eye salve, on the Lord’s Day! How many helpless souls have been healed on that day!

The Pharisees then examined the matter (John 9:15). So much anger, bias, and bad temper, and so little reason, appear here that the whole exchange becomes a series of hostile questions. You would think that when such a man was brought before them, they would have been so taken up with the miracle and with the poor man’s joy that they could not have been rude to him. But their hatred of Christ had taken away their humanity, and even their sense of religion.

They questioned him first about the cure itself. They doubted whether he had truly been born blind, and they asked for proof of something even the accusers had already admitted (John 9:18). They did not believe it, meaning they refused to believe it. People who want to argue against clear truth can always find a way if they are set on it, and those who choose lies will never lack a handle to hold on to. This was not careful testing, but stubborn unbelief.

Still, they took a useful step in checking the matter by calling the man’s parents. They hoped to disprove the miracle. The parents were poor and afraid, and if they had said they were not sure this was their son, or that he had only had a slight weakness in his sight, or if they had twisted the facts out of fear of the court, the Pharisees might have won. They could then have robbed Christ of the honor of this miracle, which would have weakened the trust in the rest.

But God ruled over their plan and turned it into stronger proof of the miracle. In the end, they had to be either convinced or left shamed.

In this part of the questioning, we see first the questions they asked them (John 9:19). They asked in a harsh and threatening way, “Is this your son? Dare you say so under oath? Do you say he was born blind? Are you sure? Or was he only pretending so he could beg? Then how does he now see? That is impossible, so you had better change your story.” Those who cannot bear the light of truth do all they can to hide it and stop it from being found.

So the people in charge of evidence, or better, the people who mishandled it, led the witnesses away from the truth and taught them how to hide or change what they knew. In doing so, they added guilt to guilt, like Jeroboam, who sinned and led Israel into sin.

Second, we see the parents’ answer. They clearly testified to what they could safely say, safely because they spoke from their own knowledge, and safely because they would not bring legal trouble on themselves (John 9:20). “We know this is our son,” they said, because they knew him well and had daily contact with him. “And we know he was born blind.” They had every reason to know that, because it had caused them many painful thoughts and many anxious, hard hours over him.

How often they had looked at him with sorrow, grieving over their child’s blindness more than over all the burdens of their poverty. They may even have wished he had never been born, rather than live such an unhappy life. Those who feel ashamed of their children, or any relatives, because of bodily weakness should hear this rebuke from these parents, who openly said, “This is our son,” even though he was born blind and lived by begging.

Second, they carefully avoid giving any details about how he was healed. Part of the reason was that they had not seen it happen themselves, so they could say nothing from direct knowledge. Another reason was that they could see it was a dangerous subject and did not want to be drawn into it. So, after admitting that he was their son and that he had been born blind, they said no more.

Notice how cautiously they spoke (John 9:21): “How he now sees, we do not know, and who opened his eyes we do not know.” That is only what they had heard from others. They could give no account of how it happened or by whose hand it was done. This shows how worldly wisdom teaches people to carefully shape their words when the matter is sensitive. Christ was being accused as a Sabbath-breaker and a fraud. These parents were not eyewitnesses of the healing, but they were fully convinced it had happened, and gratitude should have moved them to testify for the Lord Jesus, who had shown their son such kindness. Yet they lacked courage to do it.

They may have thought it was enough not to speak against him. But when a person is on trial, if he is not clearly on Christ’s side, he is rightly taken as against him (Luke 11:23; Mark 8:38). To keep from being pressed further, they sent the court back to their son: “He is old enough, ask him. He will speak for himself.” This shows that while children are still young and unable to speak for themselves, parents should speak for them, pray to God for them, and present them to the church in baptism. But when children are grown, it is right to ask whether they will stand by what their parents did for them, and let them speak for themselves.

This man, though born blind, seems to have had a sharp mind, sharper than many others. That helped him answer for himself better than his parents could have done. In this way, God often makes up in the mind what is lacking in the body (1 Corinthians 12:23-24). His parents passed the matter off to him mainly to save themselves trouble, and in doing so they left him to face the danger alone. But since they had such a share in his mercy, they had good reason to join him in the risk, for the honor of Jesus, who had done so much for them.

See next why they were so careful (John 9:22, John 9:23). They were afraid of the Jews. They did not hold back because they wanted to honor their son by making him defend himself, or because they wanted the matter handled by the best witness. They held back because they wanted to shift trouble away from themselves, as most people do, no matter who has to carry it instead. My friend may be close, my child may be close, and perhaps my religion may be close, but I am closest to myself. Christianity teaches a different lesson (1 Corinthians 10:24; Esther 8:6).

Here is, first, the new law the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, had made. They had agreed that if anyone in their authority admitted that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, he would be put out of the synagogue. Notice the crime they meant to punish and prevent. It was confessing Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, shown by any open act. They themselves expected a Messiah, but they could not bear the thought that this Jesus was he. They would not even fairly consider the question for two reasons.

First, his teaching was against their traditions. The spiritual worship he taught overturned their empty forms. Nothing more strongly opposed their narrow spirit than the wide charity he commanded. His lessons of humility, repentance, self-denial, and self-discipline were new to them and sounded harsh and strange.

Second, his promises and outward life were against their hopes. They expected a Messiah in outward splendor, one who would free the nation from Rome and lift up the Sanhedrin. They wanted its members to become princes and nobles. But they heard of a Messiah who came in lowliness, whose first appearing and main home were in Galilee, a province they despised. He never courted them or sought their favor. His followers were not soldiers, lawyers, or men of rank, but plain fishermen. He offered no salvation except from sin, no comfort for Israel except what is spiritual and from God. At the same time, he told his followers to expect the cross and to count on persecution. All this offended the ideas they had built up and taught the people. It also threatened their power and disappointed their hopes, so they would never accept it or even hear it patiently. Right or wrong, it had to be crushed.

Second, here is the punishment they planned for this offense. If anyone owned himself as a disciple of Jesus, he would be treated as one who had turned from the Jewish faith and rebelled against its rule. He would be put out of the synagogue, cut off from the honor and privileges of their church, and expelled from the community of Israel. This was not just a church penalty that a man could ignore if he did not respect their authority. It was, in effect, like outlawry. It shut a man out of ordinary life and took away his civil standing and property rights.

So, first, Christ’s holy religion has been opposed from the beginning by laws made against its followers, as if people would otherwise naturally embrace it. Such unnatural force has often been used to push them back. Second, when church power has fallen into bad hands, its weapons have often been turned against the church itself. Religious penalties have been used to serve selfish public interests. It is nothing new to see those cast out of the synagogue who were really its greatest honor and blessing, while those who cast them out say, “Let the Lord be glorified” (Isaiah 66:5).

About this decree it is said, first, that the Jews had agreed on it, or plotted it together. Their counsel and agreement were a full conspiracy against the honor of the Redeemer, against the Lord and his Anointed. Second, they had already agreed on it.

Though he had been among them only a few months in public life, they were already jealous of him. One might think they would need more time, but they quickly saw his growing influence and agreed to do all they could to stop it. He had just escaped from the temple, and when they found they could not seize him, they took this new course: they would make it dangerous for anyone to admit that they belonged to him. The enemies of the church are often united and quick to act, but the one who sits in heaven laughs at them and holds them in derision, and so may we.

This law affected the blind man’s parents as well. They refused to say anything about Christ and passed the matter on to their son, because they feared the Jews. Christ had risked the anger of the leaders to do their son good, but they would not risk that anger to honor him. The fear of man brings a snare (Pro 29:25), and it often leads people to deny Christ, his truth, and his ways, even against their own conscience. So the parents had cleared themselves and were no longer needed. Now the examination moves on to the man himself.

The Pharisees had already been unsure whether he had truly been born blind, and the parents’ testimony settled that question. So they turned to the manner of the cure and began to question and criticize it (Joh 9:15, Joh 9:16). They asked the same question his neighbors had asked: how he had received his sight. They did not ask because they wanted the truth for its own sake, but because they hoped to find something against Christ. If the man gave a full account, they could accuse Christ of breaking the sabbath. If he gave a different answer, they could use that as a reason to doubt the whole story.

The man gave the same answer in substance as before: “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and now I see.” He does not mention how the clay was made, because he had not seen that part himself. That detail was not necessary, and it would have given the Pharisees more reason to attack Christ, so he leaves it out. Earlier he had said, “I washed, and received sight,” but now he says, “I see,” to show that this was no brief impression or excited guess. It was a complete and lasting cure.

The remarks they made about the miracle were very different, and the court was divided over it (Joh 9:16). Some took the chance to condemn Christ: “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the sabbath day.” The principle behind this claim is true enough. Those who are truly from God will keep God’s commands, and that includes honoring the sabbath. People who belong to God keep fellowship with him, delight to hear from him and speak to him, and so they will value the sabbath, which is set apart for meeting with heaven. The sabbath is called a sign because honoring it shows a sanctified, that is, holy, heart, while profaning it shows a profane heart.

But their application of that principle to Jesus was unfair. He did keep the sabbath in a godly way and never truly broke it. He did not follow the traditions of the elders or the Pharisees’ extra rules, but he did keep God’s command, and so he was surely from God. His miracles also proved that he was Lord of the sabbath. Much unjust and unkind judging comes from making religion stricter than God has made it, and from adding our own ideas to God’s commands, as the Jews did here with sabbath keeping. We may choose to avoid certain things on the sabbath because they distract us, and that may be wise, but we must not force the same strictness on everyone else. What we use as a rule for ourselves should not automatically become a rule for judging others.

Others defended him and asked a very fair question: “How can a sinner do such miracles?” Even in this ungodly council, there were some who could think freely and speak for Christ, even among his enemies. The fact was clear: this was a real miracle, and the more it was examined, the clearer it became. It also called to mind Christ’s earlier works and led them to speak highly of such great signs. The conclusion was natural: things like these could not be done by a man who was a sinner, meaning by a mere man acting on his own power, or by a deceiver and impostor. Such a person might show false signs and lying wonders, but not the true miracles Christ performed. How could a man give such divine proof if he had not received a divine commission?

So there was division among them, a schism. They disagreed sharply, and the meeting broke apart over it. In this way God often defeats the plans of his enemies by dividing them. The witness they were forced to hear against their malice, and the obstacles they kept meeting, sometimes make their attacks on the church fail and always make them without excuse.

After questioning the cure, we should also notice their inquiry about the one who did it. They asked the man, “What do you say about him, since he opened your eyes? What do you think of the one who did this?” (Joh 9:17). If he had spoken lightly of Christ, trying to please them now that he was in their hands, as his parents had done, they would have been pleased. If he had said, “I do not know what to make of him, he may be a magician or some showman,” they would have triumphed. Nothing strengthens Christ’s enemies so much as when people who seemed to be his friends speak poorly of him.

But if he spoke well of Christ, they would prosecute him under their new law, which spared no one, not even the man who had been healed. They would make an example of him and try to frighten others from coming to Christ for healing. Those cures came freely from Christ, but the leaders would make people pay dearly for them.

Or perhaps Christ’s friends wanted to hear this man’s own view of his healer. Since he seemed sensible, they may have wanted to know what he thought of Jesus. Those whose eyes Christ has opened know best what to say about him, and they have every reason to speak well of him in every situation.

What do we think of Christ? The poor man gives a short, plain, direct answer: “He is a prophet.” That is, he is one whom God has sent and inspired to preach, work miracles, and bring a divine message to the world. There had been no prophets among the Jews for 300 years, but they should not have assumed there would never be more, since they knew the one who would “seal up vision and prophecy” was still to come (Dan. 9:24).

It seems this man did not yet think of Christ as the Messiah, the great promised prophet, but as one of the other prophets. The woman from Samaria came to the same conclusion before she thought Jesus might be the Messiah (John 4:19). So this blind man judged Christ well according to the light he had, even if he did not yet judge him fully. He was faithful with what he had already learned, and God revealed even more to him.

This poor blind beggar had a clearer understanding of the things belonging to God’s kingdom than the teachers in Israel, who claimed authority to judge prophets. Their reply to his testimony was this: “Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner” (John 9:24). They had already tried and failed to deny the miracle itself. Since they could not deny that a remarkable work had been done, they turned to mockery. They tried to weaken the man’s good opinion of Jesus and persuade him that Christ was a bad man.

These words can be understood in two ways. First, they may sound like advice: do not give the credit for your cure to a sinful man, but give all the praise to God, who alone deserves it. In this way, they used a concern for God’s honor to steal honor from Christ. People do the same today when they refuse to worship Christ as God, claiming to defend the truth that there is only one God. Yet God has clearly said that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. When we confess that Christ is Lord, we give glory to God the Father. When God uses sinful people as tools of good for us, we must give God the credit, because every creature is only what he makes it to be. Even so, we should still be thankful to the people God uses.

Second, these words may be understood as an oath or command. Some take them that way. “We know, even if you do not, that this man is a sinner, a great deceiver who cheats the people. We are sure of it, so give God praise by admitting the fraud we are certain is here. In God’s name, man, tell the truth.” In this way, God’s name has been abused in papal inquisitions, when by forced oaths people were made to accuse themselves, or to accuse others, whether they knew anything or not.

Notice how badly they speak of the Lord Jesus: “We know that this man is a sinner.” They are speaking of the Son of God as though he were a man of sin. Here we can see, first, their pride and arrogance. They did not want anyone to think they needed information when they asked the man what he thought of Jesus. They acted as if they already knew for certain that Jesus was a sinner, and no one could prove otherwise. Jesus had challenged them face to face to show any sin in him (John 8:46), and they had nothing to answer. Yet now, when he is not present, they speak of him as a criminal already proved guilty.

Second, we can see the injury they did to the Lord Jesus. When he became man, he took on the form not only of a servant, but of a sinner (Rom. 8:3). He was treated as if he were a sinner like the rest of mankind. More than that, he was made out to be a sinner of the worst kind, worse than all others. Yet, being made sin for us, he despised even this shame.

A debate then arose between the Pharisees and this poor man about Christ. They said, “He is a sinner.” He replied, “He is a prophet.” This gives encouragement to all who care about Christ’s cause. It shows that it will never fail for lack of witnesses, even when a poor blind beggar is raised up from the roadside to witness for Christ before his boldest enemies. It also encourages those called to testify for Christ, because we see how wisely and courageously this man defended himself, just as Jesus promised: it would be given to them in that same hour what they should say.

Though he had never seen Jesus with his eyes, he had felt his grace. In this exchange between the Pharisees and this poor man, we can notice three things. First, he holds firmly to the clear fact that they are trying to unsettle. What is uncertain should be settled by what is plain. So he stands by what he knows for sure (John 9:25). “Whether he is a sinner or not, I do not know. I will not argue that now, and I do not need to, because the matter is clear. Even if I stayed silent, the facts would speak for themselves. But this one thing I know, and I know it more surely than you know what you are so confident about: I was blind, and now I see.”

In this, he quietly rebukes their bold claim about Jesus’ bad character. “You say you know he is a sinner. I, who know him as well as you do, cannot give him that kind of character.” He also firmly rests on his own experience of the power and goodness of the holy Jesus, and he will not let go of it. No one can argue a person out of what he has truly experienced. Here is a real witness to Christ’s power and grace, even though he never saw Jesus.

Christ’s mercies are most valued by those who have felt their need most deeply, those who were blind and now see. And the strongest, most lasting love for Christ comes from real experience of him (John 1:1; Acts 4:20). The poor man does not give a detailed explanation of how the healing worked, or try to describe it in learned terms. He says it briefly and plainly: “I was blind, and now I see.”

So, in the work of grace in the soul, we may not be able to tell when or how the change happened, or by what means and steps it came. Yet we can still take comfort in it if we can say by grace, “I was blind, and now I see” and, “I once lived a worldly, fleshly life, but now it is different” (Ephesians 5:8).

They then tried to weaken and silence the evidence by asking the same questions again and again (John 9:26): “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” They did this, first, because they had nothing better to say and would rather speak foolishly than admit silence. Many people who love argument and want the last word fill speech with empty repetition just to avoid being shut down. Second, they hoped that if the man repeated his story, they might catch him in a mistake or get him to waver.

The man answers them more boldly now, and they answer him more sharply than before (John 9:27-29). He rebukes them for their stubborn unbelief and their fixed prejudice against plain evidence. He would not keep repeating the story to please them, but said, “I have already told you, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” Some think he spoke seriously, as if hoping they might be convinced. But it is more likely that he spoke with irony, since he knew they hated the very thought of following Christ.

Those who shut their eyes against the light, as these Pharisees did, bring shame on themselves. They make themselves contemptible, because they deny the conclusion when they have no answer to the facts. They also lose the benefit of further teaching, because those who refuse to listen once should not expect to be told forever (Jeremiah 51:9; Matthew 10:14). In this way, they treat God’s grace as if it were useless. The man’s words also carry this meaning: if you will not accept Christ, why keep asking except to accuse him and persecute him and his followers?

For this, they insult him and mock him (John 9:28). When they could not stand against the wisdom and spirit in his words, they fell into anger, name-calling, and rude speech. Christ’s faithful witnesses should expect this kind of treatment from those who oppose his truth and cause. They should be ready for all kinds of evil to be spoken against them (Matthew 5:11). Unreasonable people often make up for a lack of truth and reason by using insults.

First, they mocked the man for being devoted to Christ. They said, “You are his disciple,” as if that were shameful. In effect, they were saying, “We think it beneath us to be his disciples, so we leave that honor to you and people like you.” In this way, they tried to make Christ’s religion look disgraceful and low. They even cursed him in their words. The old Latin translation says they cursed him, and their curse was this: “May you be his disciple.” Augustine says that such a “curse” should be wished on us and on our children. If we measure honor and shame by the loud opinions of a blind world, we will end up calling shame our glory and glory our shame.

They had no good reason to call this man Christ’s disciple. He had not seen Jesus before, nor heard him preach. He had only spoken well of the kindness Christ had shown him, and even that they could not bear. Second, they boasted that Moses was their master.