The central characters within John 9 involve Jesus Christ, the man born blind and the Pharisees or the Jewish Religious Leaders. The story began with Jesus and His disciples leaving the Temple area (8:59). He then passed by the man born blind (9:1). The disciples, seeing the blind man, then asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, the man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
From the flow of events, this question appeared to have been prompted by a common cultural belief connecting inborn disability with sin. As Albert Barnes notes in his commentary on John 9:2, “It was a universal opinion among the Jews that calamities of all kinds were the effects of sin.” This perspective is later confirmed in the narrative when the Pharisees express this exact idea to the man born blind, saying, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” (John 9:34).
Here is a clear example of a Jewish tradition that may not necessarily be supported by Scripture. Or, if the Bible does contain quotes that seem to express such an idea, they may have been misunderstood (examples include Psalm 51:5; Job 15:14–16; Job 25:4). Verses of Scripture must be considered within their context and narrative flow to rightly interpret their meaning.
To understand the origin of these traditions, it is helpful to look at the historical context. At the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (145 B.C.), the Seleucid king of the Third Gentile kingdom of the Book of Daniel, three Jewish religious sects came to exist— the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Only the first two were clearly mentioned in the Bible. It was suggested that the Essenes, a secluded Jewish sect, might be regarded as the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Sadducees, another Jewish sect known for their denial of the doctrine of resurrection, perhaps only on face value, claimed belief only in the Torah, the First Five Books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy). Sadducees mostly came from the prominent Jewish families— the priests, merchants, and aristocrats. The high priests and the most powerful members of the priesthood were mainly Sadducees (Acts 5:17).
Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection. They also embraced all the books of the Old Testament Scripture. Yet, they held creeds or traditions that were not founded in the Scripture. See Matthew 15:1-3: the Bible states,
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the traditions of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” [The Pharisees were referring to ceremonial washing of hands.] He [Jesus] answered them, ‘And why do you break the commandments of God for the sake of your traditions?
Adam Clarke, in his commentary on John 9:2 said, “The doctrine of the transmigration of souls appears to have been an article in the creed of the Pharisees.” This clearly was not taught in the Bible. The influence of the Pharisees on the masses cannot be denied. It was not surprising then that even the disciples of Jesus, Jew as they are, also had a notion that inborn physical defects are a consequence of sin.
Returning to verse 3 of John 9, Jesus challenged the common Jewish idea that sin linked directly to inborn disability, stating: “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
Christ likely did not propose that disability reflects divine design. Instead, he indicated the man’s blindness was not caused by anyone’s sin; even so, God intended to reveal His works through him. To demonstrate this, in verse 6, Jesus spat on the ground and formed mud with saliva, then applied it—or anointed it, as the NASB states—to the blind man’s eyes.
We should not treat this as a formula or recipe for miraculous healing, because Jesus restored sight to many others without repeating the same ritual. In Matthew 9:27–29, He merely touched two blind men’s eyes and said, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.” In Mark 8:22–25, he used both methods—spitting on the eyes of two blind men rather than on the ground to form mud—and later touched them. Instead, the purpose of shaping mud and placing it on the eyes of the man born blind was to set up a moment for Jesus to instruct him: “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,” which means Sent. (John 9:7)
Again, Albert Barnes offered two explanations: first, the directive seemed comparable to 2 Kings 5:10, where Elisha told Naaman the Syrian, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.”
The narrative in 2 Kings later shows that the recovery was arranged so the Syrian might recognize and trust the LORD God of Israel, whom Elisha served.
Second, some proposed that “Siloam” shares a root with Shiloh in Genesis 49:10 (“The scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh—that is, the Sent of God: the Messiah—come.”).
The second idea might stir interest in the link between “Shiloh” and “Siloam,” though I lack proof for it. Strong’s Definition lists “Shiloh” under Strong # H7886, whereas “Siloam” appears to derive from the same Hebrew term in Isaiah 8:6—“Shiloah,” marked Strong # H7975. John rendered that word in his gospel as “Sent.”
It is worth observing that the Gospel of John repeatedly uses the Greek term “Sent” for Jesus Christ—the One Sent by God the Father. If “Siloam or Shiloah” is understood as Jesus Christ, Sent by the Father, then Isaiah 8:6 may be rendered as “Because this people has refused the waters of ‘Sent’”—meaning Jesus Christ. He had now appeared in Israel and asked the blind man, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam or Sent,” which is again Jesus Christ, the Messiah, thereby announcing the Messiah’s arrival as foretold in Genesis 49:10.
“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come. And the obedience of the peoples to Him” (Genesis 49:10 MKJV).
In Isaiah 7–8, as the combined forces of northern Israel and Syria threatened Judah or Jerusalem, the LORD God urged King Ahaz to rely on Him. Offering assurance of divine care, the LORD God gave a sign: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).” This Old Testament promise found fulfillment in the announcement of Jesus Christ’s birth; see Matthew 1:23–25. By contrast, Isaiah 8:6 was spoken against Judah because King Ahaz sought alliance and protection from Assyria rather than trusting the LORD’s rescue.
Thus, we must recognize that verse 7 stands as a key moment in John 9. Linking it to Jesus Christ’s opening question—posed to introduce Himself before the man born blind whom He had healed—He asked: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” It is evident that Jesus intended the blind man in John 9 to encounter God’s works. As Jesus had explained to His disciples in John 9:3, “That the works of God might be displayed in him.”
But what is the “work of God”? Was it about the miraculous healing of the blind man? That question was answered by Christ in John 6:29. The Bible said: “This is the work of God, that you may believe in Him [Jesus] whom He [God the Father] has Sent [Christ].”
The man who was born blind did not only experience restoration from physical blindness, but more importantly, spiritual blindness.
Peter, in the words of Acts 3:6, declared, “I possess neither silver nor gold, but in the name of Jesus Christ, I offer you what I have.” Share this article freely, for you freely receive. Take note, underlines and highlights are clickable links for definitions or Bible references. Stay updated by heading to our about page and subscribe directly to receive notifications in your inbox. Blessings!
Leave a Reply