The Sunday gospel lectionary reading for Lent 4 in Year A is John 9.1–41. It is the third of four stories of Jesus’ encounters with individuals in the Fourth Gospel, as a series exploring discipleship and taking a break from Matthew, to which we return on Palm Sunday.
James and Ian explores the issues in the text, its context, shape, and style, and how we might preach on it.
Thanks for subscribing!
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
5 thoughts on “Jesus heals the man born blind in John 9 video discussion”
Jane 13 March
Do you see a possible allusion to Baptism in this passage?
In which part of the story? The washing in the pool?
Regarding the duration (and hence meaning) of the night, an answer based on the text (night is a time when no one can work) surely cannot include the period until the Great Day yet to come. John 14:12 (and our theology generally) tells us that Jesus works in and through his disciples, still. The reference must be to the darkness between his arrest and resurrection.
‘He spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva.’ This simply must have significance, and guys, it’s your job to tell us what it is! Another way of putting the question would be, why does the man have to go to the pool and wash in order to be healed, since Jesus could have healed him on the spot?
James’s testimony of his changed appearance on receiving Jesus – profound, and true to observation; there often is a change in physiognomy (over time usually).
The man is cast out because he stands by his story and answers his interrogators back. Although he was allegedly ‘born in utter sin’ (whether his own, which is impossible, or his parents’), the synagogue had hitherto accepted him. So apparently he is cast out by other ‘Jews’ than the ones who ran the synagogue, since the latter would have known who he was and who his parents were.
“… which gives an edge also to our testimony”. Yes, good point, and does it not need developing? Unless countered, one conclusion would be, “Better not to testify, then.”
I may add a little more in response to the written version.
There is so much comedy in this story! Vs 12 in particular makes me laugh.
“Where is this man?”
The formerly blind guy simply replies, “I don’t know”.
I can see him rolling his newly opened eyeballs, thinking, “How would I know what he looks like? I was blind, you numbskulls! Next thing, you’ll be asking me to pick him out in an identity parade!”
Hi David! Yes—there is! It is a masterpiece…