In this sign, dears, we see most clearly the Johannine use of darkness and light as a metaphor for spiritual life and death. It is preceded by the ‘I Am the Light of the World’ discourse, which centres around Jesus’ role of manifesting the reality of the God of Israel to the waiting world. And the reaction this astounding claim elicits from the Jewish audience

As the themes of the discourse are pretty important for an understanding of the significance of the sign, I propose to spend a bit of time outlining its main themes, and the reactions to them.

First, we are once again in Jerusalem, focussing our attention on the reaction of ‘His own people’, as the prologue calls the Jews, to their God made Flesh. And we all know what the prologue says about their reaction, don’t we dears. Yes we do! (By the way, have you noticed how angry with the Jews the Fourth Evangelist is in this gospel? He’s quite as cross with the Jews as Matthew is, and it’s for this reason that many scholars think that a key factor of the Sitz in Kirche of this gospel is one of dispute with the local synagogue about Jesus. And that’s why one of the stated aims of the Gospel is that you should believe that the Messiah is Jesus.)

We are in Jerusalem during Sukkot (Tabernacles or Booths), when the Jews build lean-to houses and live in them to remind themselves what it was like to be wandering in the desert for 40 years. It is one of the 3 Pilgrim Festivals, when Jews had a duty to go to Jerusalem if they could, and offer sacrifices. At this time of year, (and indeed now), there was a great light burning in the Temple Area, to symbolise the time when they experienced physical presence of God guiding them in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night while they were wandering around in the desert. (You can read it all in Exodus, dears.)

So the first part of the discourse, (8:12-20) consists of Jesus identifying Himself as the Light of the World, who can lead those who will follow as witnesses He calls the Father, who sent Him.

Then comes the second part of the discourse in which He states that His authority to speak in God’s Name will be fully vindicated when he is ‘lifted up’ by the Jews. Clearly this speaks of his crucifixion, but it also gives a clue as to the ‘angle’ John will take on the crucifixion, that is, the cross is the exaltation of Jesus. . He sets this in the context of His mission from God. He has come from God and will return to God, accomplishing all the Father has set Him to do on the way.

Next, the theme of Truth and Freedom is explored, with one of the most telling phrases in the Gospel, ‘You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ Only recognising the identity of the One and Only Begotten can free humans from the ‘slavery’ of sin.

Fourth, comes the vexed question of descent. The Jews claim that they are ‘children of Abraham’ and that God is their Father. Jesus claims that they are ‘children of the devil’! Jesus claims God as His Father. They Jews say that He is the product of fornication! Each accuses the other, as Marsh says, of illegitimacy (P365). Not a pleasant dispute.

Then, is Jesus demon-possessed or is he divine? Is he mad? Usually, we would be inclined to say that anyone who made claims to have predated Abraham is indeed mad. Note that this accusation of being demon possessed closely mirrors situations in the Synoptics where people, including Jesus own family, thought that he was mad. And he was certainly accused of using demonic power – to cast out demons!

So we come to the sign itself.

Clearly, it is a Messianic Sign (See Isaiah 35), and although this particular incident has no direct parallel with Synoptic incidents, nevertheless The Synoptics record several incidents of blind people being made whole, and Jesus Himself identifies such healings with His role as Messiah in his response to the disciples of John the Baptist. Identification of Jesus as the Messiah is one of the stated functions of Signs (Jn 20:30-31).

The man is BORN blind. R H Lightfoot (St John’s Gospel – A Commentary) suggests that ‘the evangelist probably wishes to emphasize … that the record in this chapter of the blind man’s experience, … represents the transition of man, perhaps we should say of fallen man, out of darkness into full enlightenment.’ Perhaps this is why Jesus insists that the man is not blind either because of his own sin, or that of his parents. The Fourth Evangelist wants broaden the scope of reference of the miracle, to include all humanity, born in darkness and in need of light.

Paradoxically, while the man is becoming steadily more enlightened, beginning with physical enlightenment, and ending with the spiritual enlightenment of hearing about, meeting, acknowledging and finally worshipping Jesus, the Pharisees are becoming ever more spiritually darkened. They refuse to consider the Messianic nature of the Sign, attempt to intimidate and silence the man’s parents, and then the man himself. Finally, they ‘expel him from the Synagogue’. It’s unclear what this means, but it may well be a sort of ‘excommunication’. It’s a feature which scholars often use to consider the historical context of the sign. But more of that later, dears.

Jesus uses physical elements as part of this particular miracle – spit and earth – to make a sort of ointment. It’s unusual for Him to use anything but a word of command. However, in Mark 7 and 8, it’s reported that Jesus used spit as a medium for healing, so perhaps John included this detail simply as part of an ancient tradition. Bultmann suggests that "the detailed description of Jesus’ preparation for the healing are (sic) very likely intended to show clearly that his action constituted a breach of the Shabbat laws .." Marsh, on the other hand suggests that this detail "… reminds the alert reader of the fact that in Genesis God had first made Adam out of the dust of the ground, when it had been softened by rain and mist." This, he suggests, shows that "much more is involved in healing one infirmity than the restoration of one function to a person; rather does Jesus’ healing constitute the re-creation of the whole person." You will need to decide which way you wish to take this, dears.

John also kindly informs us that Jesus instructed the man to go to the Pool of Siloam, and translates the Aramaic work for his readers, demonstrating that some of them, at least, did not understand Aramaic, and were therefore either Gentiles or Greek-speaking Jews. For Bultmann, "The interpretation of the name, …. Raises the symbolism of the narrative to the level of allegory. … as the blind man receives the light of day through the water of Siloam, so faith receives the light of the revelation from Jesus, the "emissary".’ Marsh, likewise sees the translation of the Aramaic word ‘sent’ as significant, referring to Jesus’ own mission. I feel that it could also refer to Jesus’ authoritative command, which gives life to the man’s eyes as he obeys the command and is sent to the Pool of Siloam. Marsh makes a further reference to the sacrament – this time that of baptism – in water, which Jesus says in Ch 3 is necessary for entry into the kingdom of God (along with baptism in the Spirit).

I like Marsh’s suggestion that in the attempts by the authorities to establish that the healed man is in fact the man born blind, we can observe Johannine irony (P 380). The man is in some sense a ‘new creation’ a different person after his encounter with Jesus. He is able to challenge the arguments of the synagogue officials as to why Jesus cannot be ‘a sinner’. However, it is not until the man encounters and recognises Jesus as worthy of worship that his true transformation takes place, and physical light is supplemented with spiritual light. And it has been at a high cost – that of expulsion from the synagogue – the real cost of discipleship.

The Parents of the Man

1. From this exchange we observe several things. Here we see the ‘war’ between light and darkness, good and evil, life and death. The reaction of the authorities is indicative of their rejection of the light of God.
2. We see the way in which darkened minds refuse, according to John, to ‘see’ the way in which the Torah is pointing – towards Jesus, preferring instead to retain laws and regulations which have been superseded, in this case, laws about Shabbat.
3. Here we see ‘The World’ in full battle array, refusing to accept or acknowledge its Maker, the very principle of opposition to God at work.

Thus, as Bultmann suggests, ‘everyone´must must face the question to which of the two groups he wants to belong. At the end of the sign, Jesus draws the terrifying conclusion that those who knowingly reject His claims to be the Messiah of God stand outside the mercy of God and will be judged for their wilful sin.

Back to the Prologue

Pretty clear, I think. This Sign is all about the Light shining in the darkness and the darkness not understanding or overcoming it. The light is the life of men. Without it, all people remain in the darkness of sin, and under the judgement of God. Sight and blindness are the metaphor for light/darkness, life/death.

Likewise, the comparison between the Law of Moses and the Grace and Truth of Jesus Christ is spelt out in this sign which becomes an acted parable as well as a miracle.

On to the Passion/Resurrection

We see the opposition to Jesus building up to the point where he is arrested, tried and executed. The combat between light and darkness may only be in its early skirmish phase, but we can see where it is going.

The world will be judged by the enthroned King (the crucified Jesus), making his Passion part of the ultimate sign or fulfilment of signs. Sin and righteousness, light and darkness, are more and more starkly contrasted, as unbelief in the guise of religious zeal begins to connive at the murder of the one it hates. However, for the believer, who is prepared to pay the price, there is life eternal, beginning here and now, and the promise of a life transcending death, which we see in the next sign, and most clearly in Jesus’ own resurrection.

Is this sign historical?

We’ve already seen that Bultmann believes that certain details of this acount indicate that the essence of the story is allegory, to show that Jesus is indeed the Light of the World.

The other aspect that engages scholars is this business of ‘putting people out of the synagogue’ For many scholars, including Bultmann and Marsh, this aspect of the story reflects the Sitz im Kirche of John’s own community rather than a Sitz in Jesus. This is an argument from omission – there seems to be no evidence that people were excommunicated from the Jewish community for recognising Jesus as Messiah. Whereas we know that this DID happen to people who confessed Jesus as Christ in the later decades of the 1^st Century. I wonder. Clearly there were some people who were not welcome in individual synagogues at the time of Jesus, although all could go to the temple. I don’t see why the leadership of some synagogues in Jerusalem, where it is clear that there was considerable opposition to Jesus building up should not have made such a regulation for its own members.

You must decide.

Return to Sign Base Page