John 9:13–34:
The Healed Man Before the Pharisees

The Correct Interpretation of John 9:13–34

After the neighbors hear the testimony of the man who had been blind (John 9:8–12), they bring him to the Pharisees. A decisive detail now emerges: Jesus had made the mud and opened his eyes on a Sabbath. From that point on, the healing leads to an increasingly intense investigation. While some Pharisees wonder how a sinful man could perform such a sign, others conclude that Jesus cannot be from God. Meanwhile, the man who received his sight will express with increasing clarity what he understands about the One who healed him.

(vv. 13–15)
«13 They bring the man who was formerly blind to the Pharisees. 14 (Now it was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.) 15 So once again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. So he said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”»

The man is brought before the Pharisees, and John then explains a detail that will become central to the controversy: Jesus had made the mud and opened his eyes on a Sabbath.

As happened earlier with the healing at Bethesda (John 5:9–18), a work of Jesus performed on the Sabbath once again provokes a dispute about His relationship to that day.

The Pharisees ask how he received his sight, and the man answers without embellishing the account:

“He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”

The healing itself is not in question for him. He had been blind and now he can see; what will begin to be disputed is what this work reveals about Jesus.

(vv. 16–17)
«16 Then some of the Pharisees said, “This man cannot be from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath,” Others were saying, “How can a sinful man do such signs?” And there was a division among them. 17 So they address the blind man again, “What do you say about him, in that he opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”»

The Pharisees do not reach a common conclusion.

Some begin with their interpretation of the Sabbath and conclude:

“This man cannot be from God.”

Others, however, see a problem with that conclusion:

“How can a sinful man do such signs?”

The sign itself divides them. Their accusation against Jesus and the reality of what He has done do not fit easily together.

So they ask the man himself:

“What do you say about him?”

His answer shows progress from John 9:11. There he had spoken of “A man called Jesus”; now he answers:

“He is a prophet.”

He still has not come to understand fully who Jesus is, but he now recognizes that the work performed points to someone sent by God.

(vv. 18–23)
«18 However the Jews did not believe concerning him that he was blind and received sight until they summoned the parents of the one who had received sight. 19 And they asked them saying: “Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” 20 So his parents answered them and said: “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21 but by what means he now sees we don’t know, or who opened his eyes we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself.” 22 His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, because the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ he would be barred from the synagogue. 23 That is why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”»

Here “the Jews” refers in context to the authorities involved in the investigation, not to the Jewish people in general.

Since they still do not accept that the man truly had been born blind and now could see, they summon his parents and ask them three questions: whether he really is their son, whether he was born blind, and how he can now see.

The parents confirm the first two facts without hesitation: “this is our son” and “he was born blind.”

In this way, their testimony removes any doubt about the man’s identity and his condition from birth.

However, when they are asked how he received his sight and who opened his eyes, they avoid answering:

“He is of age. Ask him.”

John directly explains the reason: they were afraid, because it had already been agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be Christ would be barred from the synagogue.

Therefore, there is no need to speculate about their motives. The text itself shows the contrast: they confirm the facts they know, but avoid taking a position about Jesus because they fear the consequences.

(vv. 24–25)
«24 So they summoned the man who had been blind a second time and said to him: “Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.” 25 So he answered and said: “That He is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know, that having been blind I now see!”»

The authorities summon the man again, but now their position concerning Jesus becomes clear:

“We know that this man is a sinner.”

The expression “Give glory to God” does not simply mean that they are asking him to worship God. It is a solemn formula by which they pressure him to tell the truth and accept the conclusion they consider correct. A similar precedent appears in Joshua 7:19.

In other words, they want to separate the work that was done from Jesus: give glory to God, but acknowledge that Jesus is a sinner.

The man still does not directly debate that claim. He answers from what he can affirm with absolute certainty:

“One thing I do know, that having been blind I now see!”

He is not saying that Jesus’ identity is irrelevant. He simply refuses to deny the obvious fact they are trying to fit into their prior conclusion.

(vv. 26–27)
«26 So they said to him again: “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered them: “I already told you and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?”»

They ask him again what he has already explained.

The man points directly to the problem:

“I already told you and you didn’t listen.”

The problem is not a lack of information. They have already received his testimony, yet they continue questioning him.

He then responds with a provocative question:

“You don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?”

The word “too” is striking because it places the man himself among those who might be regarded as Jesus’ disciples, even though his understanding is still developing.

His response also shows that he is no longer merely the object of the investigation. He now begins confronting those who question him with the implications of what they have seen and heard.

(vv. 28–29)
«28 They reviled him and said: “You are that fellow’s disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples. 29 We know that God spoke to Moses; but this fellow—we don’t know where he’s from.”»

The man’s question provokes a hostile reaction.

They revile him and draw a contrast:

“You are that fellow’s disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples.”

They claim to know that God spoke to Moses, while declaring concerning Jesus: “this fellow—we don’t know where he’s from.”

Here we see a profound contradiction with what the Gospel has been showing. They appeal to a true revelation given by God through Moses, yet use that certainty to reject the One whose works are right before them.

Furthermore, the question of where Jesus is from has already been important in John (John 7:27–29; John 8:14). They admit that they do not know where He is from precisely while Jesus has been affirming that He comes from the Father.

(vv. 30–33)
«30 The man answered and said to them: “Why, this is remarkable—you don’t know where He is from; yet He opened my eyes! 31 Now we know that God doesn’t listen to sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, to him He listens. 32 Since time began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.”»

Here the man no longer limits himself to recounting what happened. He begins to argue from the sign.

His reasoning is simple: they claim not to know where Jesus is from, yet they cannot deny that He opened the eyes of someone who had been born blind.

He then says:

“God doesn’t listen to sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, to him He listens.”

We need to be careful here. These words are part of the man’s reasoning; they are not an independent doctrinal declaration by John that God never hears a sinful person under any circumstances.

His argument reflects a recognized biblical principle: God does not approve or support the one who lives in rebellion against Him, while He listens favorably to those who seek Him and do His will (Psalms 66:18; Proverbs 15:29).

He then adds that since time began it had never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. To him, the magnitude of the work makes the claim that Jesus is merely a sinner alienated from God even more absurd.

So he concludes:

“If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.”

His understanding has advanced again. First he spoke of “A man called Jesus” (v.11), then he said “He is a prophet” (v.17), and now he affirms that Jesus is from God.

(v. 34)
«They answered and said to him, “You were totally begotten in sins, and you are teaching us?” And they expelled him.»

The authorities do not answer the man’s reasoning. Instead, they attack him on the basis of his condition from birth:

“You were totally begotten in sins.”

The accusation is especially significant after the disciples’ question at the beginning of the chapter about whether his blindness had been caused by sin (John 9:2–3). Jesus had rejected that explanation; now these authorities return precisely to interpreting his birth and blindness as evidence of a sinful condition that, in their view, disqualifies him from teaching them.

Finally, they expel him.

The verb indicates that they cast him out. Since John has already explained the danger of being barred from the synagogue (v.22), there may be a connection with that measure, but verse 34 by itself does not require us to state with absolute certainty every detail of a formal excommunication procedure.

The decisive narrative contrast is this: the man who received his sight presents an argument based on Jesus’ work, while those questioning him end by rejecting him and casting him out.

Implications

• A sign can be investigated and still interpreted through previously established conclusions: some Pharisees conclude that Jesus cannot be from God because He acted on the Sabbath, while others recognize that the sign creates a problem for that conclusion.
• The evidence for the healing is progressively confirmed: the man testifies, and his own parents confirm that he was born blind.
• Fear can limit a person’s willingness to speak openly about Jesus: the parents avoid taking a position about who opened their son’s eyes because they fear being barred from the synagogue.
• The man’s understanding of Jesus progresses: he moves from calling Him “a man” to recognizing Him as a prophet and finally affirming that He is from God.
• Jesus’ work confronts the conclusions of His opponents: they must explain how someone they call a sinner could open the eyes of a man born blind.
• Rejection can eventually replace argument with an attack on the person: when the man confronts them, they end by attacking him and casting him out.

Applications

• Do not force the evidence to protect a conclusion you have already assumed: examine honestly what is before you.
• Do not let fear of the consequences determine what you are willing to acknowledge about Jesus: the parents knew certain facts, but fear limited their response.
• Speak clearly about what you know: the man does not allow pressure to make him deny that he had been blind and now could see.
• Continue growing in your understanding of Jesus: the man does not understand everything immediately, but what happened progressively leads him to recognize more about Him.
• Do not discredit a person in order to avoid answering the argument: the authorities end by attacking the man when his reasoning confronts them.

Summary

In John 9:13–34, the man who had been born blind is brought before the Pharisees, and John reveals that Jesus had opened his eyes on a Sabbath. Some conclude that Jesus cannot be from God because He does not keep the Sabbath, while others wonder how a sinful man could perform such signs. The man declares that Jesus is a prophet, and his parents confirm that he truly was born blind, although they avoid speaking about Jesus because they fear being barred from the synagogue. During a second interrogation, the authorities insist that Jesus is a sinner, but the man stands firm in what he knows: “having been blind I now see!” He finally argues that such a work shows that Jesus is from God. Unable to accept his reasoning, they disqualify him because of the condition of his birth and cast him out. As the rejection of Jesus increases, the man’s understanding of Him continues to grow.

Prayer

Our Father, we thank You for the works You accomplished through Your Son and for the testimony they bear about who He is.

Give us humility to examine the truth without allowing our prior conclusions, our pride, or fear of other people to keep us from receiving it.

Help us speak honestly about what we know and continue growing in our understanding of Jesus Christ.

Keep us from rejecting the truth when it confronts our ideas, and give us hearts willing to recognize what Your works and Your word reveal about Your Son.

We ask this in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.