King James Version
John 9
41 verses with commentary
Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
View commentary
The man's congenital blindness—'blind from his birth'—establishes that his condition was incurable by natural means, making the miracle's authenticity undeniable. His blindness also serves Jesus' teaching purpose: just as this man was born physically blind, all humanity is born spiritually blind. John's Gospel emphasizes sight/blindness as metaphors for spiritual perception, and this miracle becomes the longest sign narrative in John, emphasizing its importance.
And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
View commentary
'And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?' The disciples assume suffering results from specific sin—either the man's (possibly prenatal sin) or his parents'. This reflects common but faulty theology. While sin brought suffering into the world, individual suffering doesn't always trace to individual sin. Job's friends made this error; Jesus corrects it here.
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
View commentary
'Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.' Jesus denies the sin-suffering causation the disciples assumed. This man's blindness wasn't punishment but opportunity—for God's works to be displayed. Suffering can have purpose beyond punishment. God uses difficulties for His glory. This reframes suffering from divine punishment to divine platform.
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
View commentary
'I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.' Jesus expresses urgency. His 'day' of earthly ministry is limited; 'night' (death, arrest, end of public ministry) approaches. While opportunity exists, He must work. This models faithful stewardship of time. 'The works of him that sent me' emphasizes mission consciousness. Jesus worked with deadline awareness.
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
View commentary
'As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.' This repeats the claim from 8:12. Jesus' physical presence on earth is a period of illumination. His departure wouldn't end the light (believers become light—Matthew 5:14) but changes its expression. While He's bodily present, He is the Light directly. The healing of a blind man demonstrates this—the Light brings sight to those in darkness.
When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, anointed: or, spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man
View commentary
The spittle and clay mixture recalls Genesis 2:7 where God formed man from dust, suggesting Christ as Creator now re-creating. Unlike other healings, Jesus uses this method deliberately—the clay itself had no power, but obedience to Christ's word brings healing. Some scholars note clay on Sabbath was considered 'kneading' (forbidden work), making this act a deliberate challenge to pharisaical legalism that valued rules over people.
And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
View commentary
The command to wash in Siloam (Hebrew 'Shiloach', meaning 'sent') creates a theological parallel: the blind man is sent to Siloam, as the Son is sent from the Father. Obedience brings sight—the man had no guarantee of healing, yet he obeyed. This illustrates Naaman's healing (2 Kings 5), where washing in Jordan brought cleansing. John emphasizes 'he went...and came seeing', showing complete obedience produces complete healing.
The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
View commentary
'The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?' The healing creates identity confusion. Those who knew him can't quite believe the transformation. 'Is not this he' expresses uncertainty—he looks the same but is radically different. Transformation through encountering Christ produces similar reactions—people recognize continuity but wonder at change.
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
View commentary
'Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.' Opinions divide—some recognize him, some think he merely looks similar. The man himself ends the debate: 'I am he.' Personal testimony resolves external confusion. He knows his own identity and experience. No one can deny what he knows—he was blind, now he sees. Self-witness is most powerful.
Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
View commentary
The people ask the healed man how his eyes were opened - seeking natural explanation for supernatural healing. His response is simple and factual: Jesus made clay, anointed my eyes, I washed and received sight. This straightforward testimony to Christ's work demonstrates effective witness - simply telling what Jesus did without embellishment or theological complexity. Reformed evangelism values such direct testimony.
He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
View commentary
'He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.' The man recounts the facts: Jesus made clay, applied it, commanded washing, the man obeyed, and received sight. His testimony is simple, factual, and powerful. He doesn't explain the mechanism or defend the theology—he reports what happened.
Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
View commentary
When asked where Jesus is, the man doesn't know. This reveals that receiving sight from Jesus doesn't immediately produce complete knowledge about Him. Spiritual understanding grows over time. The man's later development - from calling Jesus 'a man' (v. 11) to 'a prophet' (v. 17) to 'Lord' (v. 38) - illustrates progressive illumination that accompanies regeneration.
The Pharisees Investigate the Healing
They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
View commentary
'They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.' The neighbors take the matter to religious authorities. Perhaps they sought explanation or validation. Perhaps they sensed the Sabbath implications (verse 14). Whatever the motive, the formerly blind man now faces inquisition. His healing becomes a theological controversy rather than a celebration.
And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
View commentary
'And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.' John notes the Sabbath timing. Jesus deliberately performed a healing that violated Pharisaic Sabbath rules. Making clay was considered 'kneading' (forbidden work). This wasn't ignorance but intentional confrontation of man-made traditions that obscured God's mercy.
Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
View commentary
The Pharisees ask again how he received sight, revealing their skepticism despite clear testimony. The man patiently repeats his testimony - a model for persistent witness in the face of skepticism. His consistency ('He put clay... I washed and do see') demonstrates the certainty that comes from personal experience of Christ's power.
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
View commentary
'Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.' Opinion divides among the Pharisees themselves. Some see Sabbath violation as proof of sin; others see the miracle as proof of divine power. The division shows that evidence doesn't automatically produce agreement. Presuppositions determine conclusions.
They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
View commentary
'They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.' The Pharisees turn to the man for his assessment. His answer—'He is a prophet'—represents growing understanding. He began knowing Jesus as 'a man' (verse 11); now he recognizes prophetic authority. By chapter's end, he will worship Jesus as Lord (verse 38). Faith grows through experience and reflection.
But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
View commentary
The Jews' refusal to believe the miracle demonstrates willful unbelief. They call the man's parents to testify, seeking loopholes to deny the obvious. This illustrates that unbelief is ultimately moral, not intellectual - no amount of evidence convinces those determined not to believe. Jesus' earlier words prove true: some see and become blind (v. 39).
And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
View commentary
The parents are asked three questions: Is this your son? Was he born blind? How does he now see? The interrogators hope to catch contradiction or find alternative explanation for the miracle. Truth-seekers investigate to discover; unbelievers investigate to deny. Their questioning reveals their hardened hearts.
His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
View commentary
The parents carefully confirm what they know personally: this is their son, born blind. Their caution reflects fear of excommunication (v. 22). They give minimal testimony, refusing to explain the healing. Fear of man proves a snare (Prov 29:25), preventing full witness. Yet even their limited testimony confirms the miracle's reality.
But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
View commentary
The parents deflect questions about the healing itself, directing inquirers to their son. 'He is of age' means he can testify for himself. Their fear limits their witness, but at least they don't deny the miracle. This contrasts with their son's growing boldness - as the chapter progresses, he becomes more forthright while they remain fearful.
These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
View commentary
'These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.' The parents' evasion stems from fear. Excommunication from the synagogue meant social, economic, and religious exclusion. The cost of confessing Christ was tangible and severe. Fear of man produces compromise; the parents defer to their son to avoid risk.
Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
View commentary
John explains the parents' fear: Jews had agreed to excommunicate anyone confessing Jesus as Messiah. This reveals the cost of discipleship - social, religious, and economic exclusion. Synagogue excommunication meant being cut off from Jewish community, affecting business, social standing, and family relationships. Yet the man will choose Christ over security.
Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
View commentary
'Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.' The phrase 'Give God the praise' demands truthful testimony while simultaneously telling him what conclusion to reach. They 'know' Jesus is a sinner—predetermined conclusion seeking confirmation. Religious authority attempts to override personal experience with institutional verdict.
He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
View commentary
'He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.' This is one of the Bible's great testimonies. The man refuses to debate theology he doesn't understand but maintains what he knows from experience. 'One thing I know'—his certainty is experiential, not theoretical. They cannot argue him out of what he has experienced.
Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
View commentary
The frustrated Pharisees ask again what Jesus did and how He opened the blind man's eyes. Their repeated questioning reveals desperation to discredit the miracle. The man's response (v. 27) will show growing impatience with bad-faith inquiry. Honest investigation seeks truth; dishonest investigation seeks ammunition.
He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
View commentary
The man's bold response shows his growing confidence and perception of their hardened hearts. His question 'will ye also be his disciples?' is probably sarcastic - he knows they won't believe regardless of evidence. His courage demonstrates how experiencing Christ's power emboldens witness, even at risk of persecution.
Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
View commentary
Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. The Pharisees' response to the healed blind man's testimony escalates to personal attack. They reviled him (ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτὸν/eloidorēsan auton)—the verb λοιδορέω (loidoreō) means to abuse verbally, insult, or speak contemptuously. Unable to refute his logic, they resort to verbal assault, a pattern Jesus warned disciples to expect (Matthew 5:11).
The accusation Thou art his disciple (σὺ μαθητὴς εἶ ἐκείνου/sy mathētēs ei ekeinou) was meant as insult, yet ironically it was truth. The healed man had become a follower of Jesus through his encounter with divine power and growing revelation. The pronoun his (ἐκείνου/ekeinou) is somewhat contemptuous—'that fellow,' refusing even to name Jesus.
The contrast but we are Moses' disciples (ἡμεῖς δὲ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ἐσμὲν μαθηταί/hēmeis de tou Mōuseōs esmen mathētai) reveals false dichotomy. They position loyalty to Moses against following Jesus, as if the two were incompatible. Yet true discipleship to Moses would lead to Christ—Jesus Himself said, 'Moses wrote of me' (John 5:46). Their claim exposed their failure: genuine students of Moses would recognize the One Moses prophesied (Deuteronomy 18:15-18).
The emphatic pronoun we (ἡμεῖς/hēmeis) drips with pride—'we,' the educated, religious elite, versus 'you,' the ignorant beggar. They claimed Moses as their teacher but rejected the One greater than Moses who had just given sight to the blind, a messianic sign Isaiah predicted (Isaiah 35:5).
The accusation Thou art his disciple (σὺ μαθητὴς εἶ ἐκείνου/sy mathētēs ei ekeinou) was meant as insult, yet ironically it was truth. The healed man had become a follower of Jesus through his encounter with divine power and growing revelation. The pronoun his (ἐκείνου/ekeinou) is somewhat contemptuous—'that fellow,' refusing even to name Jesus.
The contrast but we are Moses' disciples (ἡμεῖς δὲ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ἐσμὲν μαθηταί/hēmeis de tou Mōuseōs esmen mathētai) reveals false dichotomy. They position loyalty to Moses against following Jesus, as if the two were incompatible. Yet true discipleship to Moses would lead to Christ—Jesus Himself said, 'Moses wrote of me' (John 5:46). Their claim exposed their failure: genuine students of Moses would recognize the One Moses prophesied (Deuteronomy 18:15-18).
The emphatic pronoun we (ἡμεῖς/hēmeis) drips with pride—'we,' the educated, religious elite, versus 'you,' the ignorant beggar. They claimed Moses as their teacher but rejected the One greater than Moses who had just given sight to the blind, a messianic sign Isaiah predicted (Isaiah 35:5).
We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
View commentary
We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The Pharisees' statement reveals profound irony—they claim certainty about Moses but ignorance about Jesus, yet their very certainty betrays ignorance while the blind beggar, in confessed limitation, grasps truth.
We know that God spake unto Moses (ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι Μωϋσεῖ λελάληκεν ὁ θεός/hēmeis oidamen hoti Mōusei lelalēken ho theos)—the emphatic pronoun and perfect tense verb know (οἴδαμεν/oidamen) express absolute confidence. God's speaking to Moses was foundational to Jewish faith, recorded in Scripture, undeniable. The perfect tense spake (λελάληκεν/lelalēken) emphasizes completed action with ongoing results—God spoke to Moses and that revelation abides.
But the dismissive as for this fellow (τοῦτον δὲ/touton de)—literally 'but this one'—shows contempt. They refuse Jesus's name, reducing Him to 'this fellow.' The claim we know not from whence he is (οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν/ouk oidamen pothen estin) is staggering in its willful blindness. They knew Jesus's hometown (Nazareth), His parents (Mary and Joseph), His occupation (carpenter's son)—yet claimed ignorance.
Deeper irony: from whence he is (πόθεν ἐστίν/pothen estin) asks about origin, source, authority. They claimed not to know, yet the evidence surrounded them—Scripture testimony, prophetic fulfillment, miraculous signs. Their 'not knowing' was willful refusal. Jesus earlier declared His origin: from the Father, from heaven (John 6:38, 8:23). They rejected this, preferring ignorance to submission.
The blind beggar will devastate this claim in verse 30: 'Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.' How can they not know the origin of One who performs messianic miracles?
We know that God spake unto Moses (ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι Μωϋσεῖ λελάληκεν ὁ θεός/hēmeis oidamen hoti Mōusei lelalēken ho theos)—the emphatic pronoun and perfect tense verb know (οἴδαμεν/oidamen) express absolute confidence. God's speaking to Moses was foundational to Jewish faith, recorded in Scripture, undeniable. The perfect tense spake (λελάληκεν/lelalēken) emphasizes completed action with ongoing results—God spoke to Moses and that revelation abides.
But the dismissive as for this fellow (τοῦτον δὲ/touton de)—literally 'but this one'—shows contempt. They refuse Jesus's name, reducing Him to 'this fellow.' The claim we know not from whence he is (οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν/ouk oidamen pothen estin) is staggering in its willful blindness. They knew Jesus's hometown (Nazareth), His parents (Mary and Joseph), His occupation (carpenter's son)—yet claimed ignorance.
Deeper irony: from whence he is (πόθεν ἐστίν/pothen estin) asks about origin, source, authority. They claimed not to know, yet the evidence surrounded them—Scripture testimony, prophetic fulfillment, miraculous signs. Their 'not knowing' was willful refusal. Jesus earlier declared His origin: from the Father, from heaven (John 6:38, 8:23). They rejected this, preferring ignorance to submission.
The blind beggar will devastate this claim in verse 30: 'Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.' How can they not know the origin of One who performs messianic miracles?
The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
View commentary
'The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.' The man turns the tables—the marvelous thing isn't the healing but their blindness. They claim religious expertise yet can't identify the source of miraculous power. His irony exposes their absurdity. Common sense sees what religious sophistication misses.
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
View commentary
'Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.' The man uses their own theology against them. They taught that God doesn't answer sinners' prayers. Therefore, if Jesus performed this miracle, He must be righteous. The man's logic is devastating: either reject your theology or accept Jesus' righteousness. They choose neither.
Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
View commentary
'Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.' The man escalates his argument. This isn't just any miracle—it's unprecedented. No prophet, no rabbi, no one in history had healed congenital blindness. The uniqueness of the miracle demands unique explanation. Ordinary categories don't fit; only divine power suffices.
If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
View commentary
'If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.' The man's logic reaches its climax. The miracle proves divine authorization. Someone who performs unprecedented healing must be 'of God.' The man's conclusion is simple, logical, and inescapable—unless one refuses to accept the evidence.
They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. cast: or, excommunicated him
View commentary
'They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.' Unable to answer his logic, they attack his person. 'Born in sins' returns to the sin-causing-blindness theology Jesus rejected (verse 3). Their argument: you were born sinful, we're educated teachers, don't lecture us. Then they excommunicate him—the penalty the parents feared.
Jesus Reveals Himself to the Man
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
View commentary
'Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?' Jesus seeks the excommunicated man. Those cast out by religious authorities are found by Christ. Jesus' question moves from miraculous healing to personal faith. The man experienced Jesus' power; now he's invited to trust Jesus' person. Healing was the beginning; faith is the goal.
He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
View commentary
'He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?' The man's response shows willing but uninformed faith. He wants to believe but needs to know who the Son of God is. His question combines humility (I don't know), willingness (that I might believe), and respect (Lord). This is the posture of genuine seeking.
And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
View commentary
'And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.' Jesus reveals Himself as the Son of God. The man has 'seen' Him—with the eyes Jesus opened. The conversation they're having is with the very Son of God. Jesus' self-identification moves the man from general belief in the Son of God to specific faith in Jesus as that person.
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
View commentary
'And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.' The man's response is faith and worship. 'Lord, I believe' is confession; worship is appropriate response to revealed deity. This is the chapter's climax—the blind man now sees physically and spiritually. His progression is complete: from 'a man called Jesus' to 'prophet' to 'Lord' worthy of worship.
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
View commentary
'And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.' Jesus explains the deeper meaning. His coming produces a great reversal: the humble blind receive sight; the proud 'seeing' become blind. Judgment isn't separate from ministry—it occurs through response to Jesus. Those who acknowledge blindness receive sight; those claiming sight remain in darkness.
And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
View commentary
'And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?' The Pharisees sense Jesus speaking about them. Their question expects denial—surely He doesn't mean they're blind? Their confidence in their own spiritual perception prevents them from receiving Jesus' light. The question reveals defensive pride rather than genuine inquiry.
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
View commentary
'Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.' Jesus' answer is devastating. Genuine blindness (acknowledged inability) would be curable—the blind man's was. But claimed sight (spiritual pride) leaves sin unaddressed. Their claim 'We see' prevents the healing they need. Self-perceived sufficiency blocks divine remedy.