Sermon Tone Analysis

Notes for the message:

Time: Between Feast of Booths (Tabernacles), in Sept./Oct ., and the Feast of Dedication, in Nov./Dec.

Location: Jerusalem, outside the Temple.

1.

The fifth sign: Healing the blind man, 8:1-7.

[verse 1] — lit., from the hour of his birth; he doesn’t know what it means to see.

[verse 2] — the disciples ask a theological question; seeing this blind man, they ask, “What is the connection between sin and physical deformity?”

Rabbinic texts such as Shabbat 55a infer such a connection: Sin is the cause, the blindness is the result.

[verse 3] Jesus places the deformity emphatically in the hands of God.

This does not remove the man or his parents from the guilt or consequences of sin.

Without denying that the man or his parents had a sinful connection to this blindness, Jesus emphasizes the man’s blindness was in God’s control.

“the works of God” cf.

6:28-29 = belief in Jesus.

[verse 4] — the pronouncement statement by Jesus has a sense of urgency.

It is not yet the hour for rest {“night”), it is still “day,” and we must work the works of Him who sent Jesus, i.e. continue the work of Christ.

[verse 5] — the agent of the work is Jesus; the predicament of the anonymous blind man rests comfortably in the hands of Jesus.

[verse 6] — Emphasis is on the actions of Jesus.

It is best to understand what He does as symbolic, communicating through recognizable actions, not superstition or symbolic of religious authority.

the clay applied - the structure of the Greek text suggests this moment be seen as one between Creator and His “creation.”

[verse 7] — Pool of Siloam: at this time, probably within the walls of Jerusalem, it was surrounded by four porches.

It was often used during the Jewish festivals.

The man obeyed, and was healed; the fifth sign.

2. Gathering of the facts, 8:8-23.

[verses 8-9] — These people are confused regarding the identity of the one who was blind but now can see.

Verse 9 comment by others emphasizes that something else is entirely different!

The man repeatedly affirms that he was the formerly blind man.

[verse 10] — This is the first time the neighbors and others who had seen him as a beggar directly address the man.

The emphasis of their question: “By whom did this happen to you?”

[verse 11] — the man responded to this informal interrogation by sharing that which he know, matching almost perfectly what is in verse 6.

When he names Jesus, this suggests that he knows little about Him other than His name; however it is clear that Jesus is the source of the miracle; he is the recipient.

[verse 12] — He doesn’t know where Jesus is at this time; the man is the primary witness to the events.

So on to the formal interrogation by religious leaders.

[verse 13] — (cf.

John 8:3) “brought” is describing the treatment of a prisoner.

Why did they bring him to the Pharisees?

Possibly to protect themselves (see 9:22).

The Pharisees are representative of the Jewish authorities.

They are the ones who are the most conservative, the most legalistic...

[verse 14] — This is another Sabbath controversy (cf.

John 5:1-18).

They may have brought this to the Pharisees because Jesus making clay was a violation of the Talmud’s Sabbath law.; possibly the reason why the people took the man to the authorities.

For the Pharisees, Jesus’ interactions with the blind man was a sacrilege, and the formerly blind man will become guilty by association with Jesus.

All he knew was the name and what was done for him.

Who is on trial?

Two men: the anonymous man who was healed, and the healer, Jesus.

[verse 15] — The Pharisees ask a question to determine if what was done was done legally.

The man gave the same facts with the result that he has experienced.

[verse 16] reveals a mixture of conclusions from accusations to credulity:

“He is not from God; he is simply a man!”

“How can a ‘sinful man’ perform the miraculous”?

The division that existed among them occured among the crowd earlier in John 7:43.

[verse 17] — Perplexed, they turn back to question the primary witness.

They may have expected an answer that matched that of the majority of the Pharisees, but what they received from him was not what they expected.

The primary witness, as recorded in the Greek text, makes a statement of fact, not an opinion.

[verse 18] — The formal interrogation becomes more aggressive and personal as it now involves his parents.

The “calling” of the parents is a term reflecting a subpoena-like summoning to the judicial hearing.

This demonstrates the social power wielded by these authorities who are in control of the investigation.

[verse 19] — there are two questions the Jews ask his parents:

The first question is to confirm their relationship with the primary witness and that he was truly born blind.

The second question is an authoritative and threatening challenge to the parents with the intent to embarrass and to display their testimony as unreliable and deceptive (today, we would call this “badgering the witness)>

[verse 20] — Their first answer uses the Greek word oida; with certainty they know this is their son who was born blind, confirming that, indeed, a miracle has taken place.

[verse 21] — with their second answer, the parents state twice they have no access to the information the Jews requested (“we do not know”).

Then they make an imperative of request as from an inferior to a superior to ask their son, who “is of age,” and therefore a reliable witness, who “will speak for himself” as also a competent witness, thereby separating themselves from whatever might befall the son; there would be no guilt by association.

John explains the source of the parents’ fear:

[verse 22-23] they were afraid of the Jews.

This is a window for us to see the basic, common use of power by the Jewish authorities to combat what they believed to be theological and political threats to the institution of Judaism.

The hostility of the Jews is becoming more and more evident to the general public.

3. The inquisition, 8:24-34.

[Verse 24] — This second time that the Jews called the primary witness was more like a formal subpoena.

Here is a command for truthfulness.

The Jews have already made up their mind about Jesus; now they want the witness to confirm their own decision re Jesus.

They make a formal declaration regarding Jesus; a judgment which emphasizes the official stated position concerning Jesus.

They avoid the use of Jesus’ name, which is symptomatic of their unbelief.

They seek to force an agreement with their position upon the witness.

[verse 25] The witness’ response both defers to the Jews as the authorities about the law, yet he also states that he knows with certainty one thing; he was once blind, but now he can see.

This is a direct counter and therefore a challenge to the judgment made by the Jews.

He refused to submit to their demands.

[verse 26] — The two questions that the Jews now asked is exposing their surprise at the witness’ confident confession.

[verse 27] — He responds with two questions, the first of which accuses them of not paying attention when he explained the “what” and the “how” of the events surrounding his healing — “why” do they continue to press him?

The second question expects a negative response in suggesting a potential solution.

[verses 28-29] — the leaders respond, speaking abusively to the man; summarizing a number of statements made against Jesus.

“disciples” — in the emphatic position, the make a hard, fast distinction between them and Jesus to refute His authority

“spoken” — Exodus 33:11

compare John 1:18

They dismiss Jesus’ origin.

John has made us aware that Jesus is from above, John 3:3, 5, 31

in the beginning with God, John 1:2

and, therefore from God.

Being dismissive in attitude toward Jesus is, in truth, being dismissive of God.

[Verses 30-33] — “well” would be better translated as “why,” pointing out the healed man’s astonishment at the Jews’ conclusion in light of the physical evidence.

To resist such evidence is a miracle in itself.

“God does not hear sinners” — starting from a commonly held point of theology which is in one sense appropriate (OT = Isa 1:15; Ps. 66:16-20, 109:7; Proverbs 15:29

“if anyone is God-fearing … “ the one who has a proper response to God, best expressed by Micah 6:8

is heard.

God is not limited by the inadequacies of humanity — He certainly can and has heard the cry of the sinner; the gospel is rooted in this fact

“Since the beginning of time...” — this miracle is unique!

Rhetorically, God is with Jesus.

Here the man summarizes the cosmic significant mission of the Son from the Father.

[verse 34] The leaders reject the man’s response, and reject him.

in essence, they declare, “you were born blind, blindness is the result of sin; therefore, you are a sinner by definition.”

Then they put him out of the synagogue, declaring him to be a social-religious outcast, a divisive heretic, and heaping upon him shame and exclusion.