PALM BEACH ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY

The Vantage Point of Blindness & Disciple Par Excellence

An Exegesis and Character Analysis of John 9

Submitted to Dr. Justin Hardin

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the completion of

BIB 5912 01
The Gospel of John

by

Christopher Lee Lopez

February 16, 2015

Lopez !2
John 9 has captured the attention of New Testament scholars for centuries, and they praise its
exquisite dramatic composition.1 Schnackenburg calls this chapter a masterpiece of narrative
which combines theological and historical strands with dramatic skill.2 Interestingly, most scholars have
seen the blind man as a supporting character who has commendable characteristics, but whose character is
not as significant as Jesus or the Pharisees. Along that note, little attention has been given to the character
of the blind man and how he relates to what a disciple of Jesus looks in the Johannine.3 Is the blind man
simply a supporting character in another story about Jesus miraculous power and his conflict with the
Pharisees? This essay will argue that John 9 portrays the blind man as the paradigmatic example of a disciple of Jesus, who loyally testifies about Jesus and also does the work of Jesus himself. To reach this
conclusion, we will consider two passages of the text that serve as key interpretive pillars to understanding the literary purpose of the blind man.
The First Interpretive Pillar: 9.3-4

Ones understanding of the blind mans4 role in the narrative is significantly influenced by his
or her interpretation of 9.3-4, for they signal to the reader how the healing of the blind man is to
be understood.5 The wording of vv. 1-2 has an anticipatory effect on the reader, strongly hinting
that a miracle story is about to commence.6 suggests that the first scene takes place

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: I-XII, 2nd ed., The Anchor Bible (Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966),
2

Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. Two (New York, New York: Crossroad,
1987), 239.
3

B.V. Muderhwa, The Blind Man of John 9 as a Paradigmatic Figure of the Disciple in the Fourth
Gospel, HTS Theological Studies 68, no. 1 (2012), 1.
4 Throughout the essay the name of this character will vary depending on what part of the story is being
considered. When referring to him outside of the text, he will be called the blind man.
5

D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), 363.
6

Jeffery L. Staley, Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 & 9,
Semeia 53 (1991), 65.

Lopez !3
as Jesus is coming down from the Temple.7 His disciples, who have not been in the picture since
7.3, force themselves on to the scene and inquire the sinful cause of this mans from-birth
illness.8 Jesus does not grace their request by answering the question about the cause of the
mans blindness; instead, he answers that the blind mans predicament will serve a revelatory
purpose.9
Jesus makes it clear to his disciples that it is not the cause of the blindness he is concerned
with, as much as the opportunity it provides. What is that opportunity exactly? At first glance, it
would seem that this is another opportunity for Jesus to perform a miracle, but this interpretation,
held by most commentators,10 misses the striking parallel 9.3b has with John 3.21b.11 In the latter, when the truth-doer comes to the light, it will be revealed that his works, prior to coming to
the light, are works worked by God, i.e., it will be revealed that God was at work in his life prior
to coming into the light. Hence, it is arguable that we as Johns readers should read Gods work

7 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. I (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
2003), 776.
8

For reasons why the Disciples would have been inclined to search for a correlation between and the mans
birth defect, see Carson, 362, and Keener, 777-779 for an in-depth historical analysis of those reasons.
9

For ethical and theological reasons, the function of the should be addressed briefly. Does Jesus answer to his disciples imply that this mans condition was caused/allowed by God? Carson, 362, that the clause
could be taken as a result clause (with the result) or a purpose clause (in order that); either way, John certainly does
not think that the occurrence of blindness from birth was outside of Gods control. Burge, 272-273, offers a helpful
reinterpretation of the clause that alters the syntax of vv. 3-4. He argues that the may begin the main sentence rather than follow it [he cites 1.31, 13.18. 14.31, 15.25 as other Johannine examples]. If 9.2-4 follows this pattern, we may translate it as follows: neither this man sin nor his parents sinned, said Jesus, but so that the work of
God might be displayed in his life, we must do the works of him who sent me while it is still day. It is up for the
reader to discern which interpretation makes best sense of the text. Regardless of how you interpret Jesus response,
it will not help or hinder our focus here.
10 J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010), 481.
11

3.21b: . 9.3b:

Lopez !4
in him as referring to the working of God in the man before he met Jesus.12 As in 3.21, it is
the light (9.5), that makes this activity of God known. From this point on, it will become increasingly clear that God has been at work in this mans life. This reading of v. 3 anticipates that the
blind man is going to play a significant role in the narrative, for it looks forward to the unveiling
of what God has been doing in the mans life.13 With that said, however, v. 4 seems to suggest the
opposite.
While the words of v. 3 anticipate the blind mans significant role in the story, the
wording of v. 4 brings the readers attention back to Jesus who highlights the urgency that he and
another party must do the works of Him who sent him. Scholarship has interpreted this verse in
light of the traditional reading of v. 3 which highlights the role Jesus will play in the narrative.
Therefore, scholars for the past four centuries have attempted to bring out the assumed, exclusivistic connotation of . For example, Bultmann rejects the text of 9.4 and opts for the textual variant which has an as opposed to .14 Bultmann argues that a scribal alteration was
made because the scribe wanted to make Jesus statement a universal principle, for it seemed odd
and offensive that Jesus as light of the world would be put out by death, night.15 Carson be-

12

Michaels,542.

13

The concept of revelation is a significant theme in the Gospel.

14

See Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murrary (Philidelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1971), 332.
15 While

this argument is attractive, there are two questions that Bultmanns proposal leaves unanswered:
First, if the copyist changed the pronoun to make a universal principle out of Jesus statement, why would he not
also alter Jesus statement about light and dark? The metaphoric meaning of light and dark take on different meanings post resurrection. Second, Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second.
(New York, New York: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft United Bible Societies, 1994), 194, points out that the texts that
read has to an extent superior external support, and because it is slightly more probable that copyists would
have altered to than vice-versa.

Lopez !5
lieves that the is intended to include the disciples in Jesus miraculous work, but also emphasizes the exclusiveness of Jesus as the sent one.16 Keener suggests that Jesus might be referring to his Father, but eventually agrees with Carson.17 Some scholars do not even address the
issue.18
The cannot refer to the disciples because the disciples have no role in the healing of the
blind man and disappear from the narrative as quickly as they came in.19 The refers to Jesus
and the blind man, which would make sense of the interpretation of v. 3 above the blind man
has a significant role to fulfill. Jesus does the works of Him who sent him by revealing the Father
through miraculous signs. Is it possible for people to do the works of God in Johns Gospel? It
would not be the first time people other than Jesus are associated with doing the works of God.
In the context of John 6.28-29, the work(s) of God which people can do is believe in him [Jesus] who He[God] sent.20 The blind man does the works of Him who sent Jesus by, progressively, believing in the Son of Man. Literarily, John 9 portrays how believing in Jesus in John 6
is a work. Belief in Jesus is much more than mental ascent, for it requires the loyal and obedient
characteristics the blind man will display. Also, John 9 is aware of the definitive role divine sovereignty plays in John 6.36-37, for it is not until Jesus finds the blind man and reveals himself to

16

Carson, 362. For more on how the we refers to both Jesus and his disciples, see Raymond E. Brown,

17

Keener, 779.

372.

18 Burge, 282. See also Andreas J. Kstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary On the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004).
19

Michaels, 543. For this particular interpretation of , I am indebted to Michaels. While there are hints
of this reading in the thoughts of other commentators, he has been the only one to formerly make an argument for it.
20

There are more linguistic parallels between 6.28-29 and 9.3 when one considers the Greek of the former.

Lopez !6
the blind man that the blind man can believe in him.21 While there is more to say on why one
should interpret v. 4 as argued, it is necessary we move on to the next interpretive pillar to defend
this essays thesis.22
The Second Interpretive Pillar: 9.28-29
From the argument above, we have established why and how the blind man is to play a significant role in John 9. This is not necessarily an original argument per se, for there are scholarsalthough they do not arrive at this conclusion through the approach we have takenwho
have claimed that the blind man is a significant character.23 There are several scholars who also
make claims similar to the thesis of this essay, namely, the blind man serves as a commendable
example of what a disciple of Christ looks like. Howard avers, the blind man stands as a model
of what it means to believe in Jesus and to grow in spiritual insight . . . in contrast to the lame
man the blind man serves as a model of what it means to grow in genuine faith.24 Schnackenburg praises the blind man as the one who proved to be one of the best models of integrity in the
Gospel . . . he was a pre-resurrection example of the believers who were to come.25

21

See John 9.35-38.

22

See Michaels, 544 on why this reading on v. 4 comports with Jesus metaphorical use of day and night.
In short, he points out that one must decide if this use of day and night refers to the episode of Jesus passion, then it
cannot refer to his disciples hour of the night is Jesus to bear. If one wishes to give it a post-resurrection meaning, then she or he is left with the burden of proof for explaining how that relates to Jesus and how it coincides with
the more dominant metaphorical use of day and night in the early church.
23 Virtually every source considered for this essay affirms the superior role the blind man has when compared to other characters in John, both the named and nameless.
24

James M. Howard, The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John, Bibliotheca Sarca 163
(2006), 73-74.
25

Rudolf Schnackenburg, 239. Cf. John 20.29.

Lopez !7
As true as these readings of the character of the blind man may be, they do not answer the
question why; what is there in the story that would permit any reader to elevate the character of
the blind man as a paradigmatic figure26 above the other commendable characters such as the
Nathaniel, the Samaritan woman, or the Royal Official? It is tempting to consider that the blind
man does not respond negatively to Jesus, but there are other characters who also have only adequate responses to Jesus.27 Vincent Murderhwa makes the argument that the key to seeing the
blind man as the paradigmatic figure lies not in the blind mans characteristics alone, but in 9.2729, particularly in v.28.
In v.27 we find the now healed man sitting through his second round of interrogation from
the Pharisees. Their blindness is difficult to not see; at this point of the story, it becomes clear to
the reader that the Pharisees aim is not to indict Jesus for being a sabbath-breaker as much as it
is convincing the healed man that Jesus should be condemned as a sinner and rejected (9.24).28
The healed man responds to their harsh, accusatory remark by pointing out that he does not have
the theological insight to intuit the spiritual identity of Jesus and claims one thing I do know:
while being blind, now I see (9.25).29 When pressed by the Pharisees to explain how Jesus
opened the healed mans eyes, again, the healed man facetiously asks do you yourselves also

26 Whether

or not he coined this phrase, I am using the term from Murderhwa.

27 For a helpful overview of how characters are displayed based on their response to Jesus through their
actions and words see Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John, Second.
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2014), 253-255.
28

Keener, 786.

29

I am trying to capture the terseness of the original Greek: .

Lopez !8
wish to become his disciples?30 The Pharisees immediately and viciously reply, you yourself
are that guys [Jesus] disciple, but we ourselves are disciples of Moses.31
This phrase, disciples of Moses only occurs once in the New Testament.32 The formulation
of the phrase was unique to the Pharisaic scribes, and was used as the self-designation of the
Pharisees to distinguish Pharisaic from Sadducean, which is to say that the Pharisees were
probably not using it to distinguish themselves from followers of Christ in the early first
century.33 In the late first century, however, when tensions between Christians and Pharisees
were very high, this phrase might have been used by Pharisaic Jews to distinguish themselves
from the Christian Jews. Throughout the Gospel of John there is a polemic between a Pharisaic
understanding of how Moses relates to Jesus and a Christian understanding of it.34 For the Pharisees, Moses was the one whom God spoke to, making him the mediator between God and Israel; [he was] the only one to mediate Gods affairs since the saving knowledge of God was attained, and life might be found, through him.35 John and his community, however, saw themselves as disciples of someone who not only spoke to God, but who embodied Gods word as

30

It is arguable that John wants us to read the healed mans words as a sarcastic remark, because of the
particle which implies a negative or an uncertain answer. If John wanted to imply that the blind man was speaking from navet, then he would have put . There is also ironic emphasis on the you in the Greek.
31

In the Greek, you can see that the Pharisees are throwing his emphatic you back at him and using an emphatic we to distinguish themselves from the blind man.
32

Murderhwa, 4.

33

Ibid. 5.

34 See John 1.17, 45; 3.14; John 5.46-47; 6.32;7.19,22-23; 8.5; 9.28-29. What is interesting is that Moses is
not mentioned by name again from this point on in the Gospel.
35

figure.

Murderhwa, 6. See this page also for a historical analysis on how Moses became such an emblematic

Lopez !9
the and speaks Gods words.36 This is not to say that the Johaninne community rejected
Moses, but rather they find their final revelation of God and his words in Jesus, not Moses.
Through this dictum used by the Pharisees against the healed man, John implies that either one
is a loyal disciple of Moses, remaining true to the ancient Jewish community, or one has become
a disciple of Jesus, thereby ceasing to be a disciple of Moses.37 Obedience to God apart from Jesus, his complete revelation, is inconceivable for John.
In light of this reading of John 9.27-29, it is clear that the healed man should serve as the
paradigmatic figure of how a disciple looks by contrasting him against the inverse of a disciple
of Jesus, a disciple of Moses. The latter is a person who believes sufficient revelation of God
comes through the Law as given by Moses and who holds Jesus and his followers suspect. Having unpacked why we should say that the blind man is presented as the disciple of Jesus par excellence, let us briefly consider what it is that the disciple of Jesus should do as creatively portrayed through the character of the blind man.
Testimony & Loyalty
Through the blind man, we see that a disciple of Jesus is one who testifies about and remains
loyal to him, even when social and religious ostracization is an imminent threat.38 These testimony and interrogation scenes evoke the story of the invalid whose testimony about Jesus came

36

Ibid.

37

Ibid, 9.

38

Originally I had four aspects of a disciples conduct: Cooperative, testifies about Jesus, Obedient, and
Believes. These come from Bennemas character analysis, 253-255. Along this I would add that a disciple of Jesus is
one who does what Jesus does, which is portrayed in fascinating and creative ways. Alas, there was not enough
space for all of these, so I chose two aspects: testifying about Jesus, which implies loyalty, and doing the works of
Jesus. The former is consistent with one of the overarching themes of the Gospel, and the latter bolsters the argument made about v. 4 above.

Lopez !10
from a desire to preserve himself and add fuel to the Pharisees already burning anger towards
Jesus.39 Initially the blind mans testifying to Jesus may resemble that of the invalids testifying,
for it seems that the blind man thoughtlessly identifies his healer in v.11, sells Jesus out to the
Pharisees in v.15, and attempts to escape condemnation himself by playing dumb and stating the
obvious in v.25. To acquit the blind man, most commentators argue that the blind mans testimonies have nothing to do with defending Jesus or self-preservation, but should be read as sincere recounts of the miracle story. That each testimony becomes shorter is Johns own way of
abbreviating what the blind man said in v.11.40 This reading of the blind mans testimonies empties the creativity of Johns literary artistry and the powerful portrayal of the blind mans loyalty
to Jesus.
As opposed to seeing the blind man as a nave individual thoughtlessly answering peoples
questions, he is depicted as a clever, thoughtful, and loyal disciple who exalts and defends Jesus
with each testimony. In. v.11, we are given no immediate reason to suspect that the neigbors
mean Jesus any harm; they are simply concerned with how the beggar born blind can now see.
Therefore, the healed man provides them with a word for word account of Jesus work.41 From
retrospect, John may be revealing the disciples loyalty to Jesus already, for he is the only character to call Jesus by his name.42 Unsure of how to deal with the healed mans testimony, they

39
40
41

See John 5.11-13,15.

Staley, 67.
Ibid.

42 The

only calls Jesus (v.12). Some Pharisees wonder if Jesus could be

(v.16), but they all agree in the end that he is a (v.25) and refer to him as (v.28).

Lopez !11
bring43 him to the Pharisees; the severity of the situation is heightened when the reader learns
that it is Sabbath.44
When the healed man is interrogated by the Pharisees, the healed man makes subtlety profound changes to his report that demonstrate his desire to be intentionally loyal to Jesus.45 To begin with, the healed man makes no mention of Jesus name perhaps with the intention to keep
Jesus out of trouble.46 This possible intention of his becomes more clear as his report continues.
Keener notes that the procedure of the healing, more than the act itself, would have violated Jesus contemporaries views.47 Hence, the healed man does not say that Jesus made mud,
; instead he claims that Jesus put mud, , on his eyes. Thus, Jesus is not
guilty of breaking rule 2 of Kstenbergers list (see note above). The healed man also protects
43 At

this point, the reader because justified in his or her suspicion of the intentions of the neigbor s. Carson, 366, argues that does not carry any negative connotations here. Michaels 556, argues that the fact they are
bringing him to the Pharisees does tighten the tension of the situation. The neigbor s also asked where is that one?
this may have negative overtones since Jesus is a wanted man (John 7.1). Keener, 783, argues Because the man was
healed near the temple and the Pool of Siloam, the neigbor s (9.8) must be Jerusalemites, hence (in the broader context of the Gospel) they may be presumed more hostile than favourable toward Jesus if they know who he is. See
also Keener,782, for a summary on how is used in John. He notes that this word carries a negative connotation
when the one being brought is brought to the religious elite.
44 Andreas J. Kstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary On the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 286, provides with a list of all the laws Jesus would been breaking in this particular healing of the blind man. 1. Since he was not dealing with a life-or-death situation, Jesus should have waited
until the next day to heal the man. 2. Jesus had kneaded the clay with his saliva to make mud, and kneading (dough,
and by analogy, clay) was included among the thirty-nine classes of work forbidden on the Sabbath. 3. Later Jewish
tradition stipulated that it as not permitted to anoint eyes on the Sabbath, although opinion seems to have been divided. For an in-depth discussion on the reason why John has Jesus use mud and the symbolic meaning behind it,
see Frayer-Griggs, Spittle, Clay, and Creation in John 9.6 and Some Dead Sea Scrolls, JBL 132, no. 3 (2013):
659670.
45 Although

he does say anything that would explain how Jesus did not break the rule 1. from our list
above, does not imply a failure on his part to make sure all his bases were covered, if you will, in trying to defend
Jesus. The man seems to know that the Law of the Sabbath has been broken . . . but as his next words wshow, he is
wondering if Jesus is not beyond the Law since he obviously did good restoring sight. Gerald L. Borchert, John: 111, The New American Commentary (United States: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 315.
46 Compare the blind mans report in 9.15 to that of the invalids report in 5.15. The latters report betrays
the invalids desire to remain in good standing with the religious elite and also preserve himself.

47

Keener, 786.

Lopez !12
Jesus in his statement by withholding the fact that Jesus anointed, , him.48 Thus, Jesus
is also innocent of breaking rule 3. As if that were not enough,to insure that there will not be the
slightest possibility that one could accuse his benefactor of Sabbath violation, he leaves out Jesus command Go and wash (9.7,11), and simply says, I washed and I see.49
In vv. 30-34, the healed mans testimony goes on the offensive, and he teaches his interrogators (9.34).50 The healed mans tenacity contrasts with the timidity of both his parents and even
of Nicodemus.51 The healed mans irrefutable logic forces the Pharisees to resort to personal
attack and expulsion from their presence, which is the realization of what the healed mans parents feared would happen to them.52 In light of 9.23, it seems that the Jewish authorities have
interpreted the former blind mans speech as a confession that Jesus is indeed the Christ, or
Messiah, and are acting accordingly even though the blind man has yet to come to that decision
himself.53 The discussion above on the significance of the phrase disciple of Moses may also
help us see that confession of Jesus as the Christ is the background of this scene. The healed man
has proven to be a loyal testifier. John 9 creatively portrays through the paradigmatic figure of
the blind man that a disciple proper testifies and remains loyal to Jesus no matter what the con-

48

Compare 9.6 to 9.15.

49

Staley, 67.

50

For a brief exposition on profundity and astounding scriptural soundness of the healed mans argument
see Kstenberger, 293. The theology of the healed mans monologue also agrees with rabbinic literature, see
Schnackenburg, 252.
51

Kstenberger, 289-290.

52

Michaels, 252-253. For helpful discussion of the topic of the historicity of this concept and whether or
not this actually happened to the healed man, see Carson, 369-372.
53

Michaels, 564.

Lopez !13
sequences are. John has also shown that such a disciple should prove himself or herself to be an
able defender of Jesus to the religious leaders.54 Let us now consider how a paradigmatic example of the blind man demonstrates that a disciple is one who does the works of Jesus.
Working in Jesus Stead
As mentioned above, Jesus words before performing the miracle do not only anticipate the
significant role the blind man will play in the narrative, but they also suggest that the blind man
will be doing works with Jesus. Interestingly, however, Jesus is absent for most of the story. This
could be a simple fact about the story, but, as with most scenes in this story, John has a deeper
meaning to Jesus absence. Based on our reading of 9.3-4, 27-29, it is possible that John intends
to creatively convey through the character of the blind man that a disciple proper is one who
does the works of Jesus.55
It is in the healed mans monologue that we find the strongest evidence for the argument
above and discover what doing the works of Jesus entails. The style and rhetoric of the interrogations also resemble Jesus own debates with the Pharisees throughout the Gospel. Jesus testing
words can be seen in 9.30 when the healed man practically taunts [the Pharisees] as specialists
in the knowledge of God: (you yourselves do not know . . . yet he opened my eyes).56 Like Jesus, the healed man virtually instructed them with his theology of God (God listens to the one

54

Howard, 73.

55 Again,

I recognizethat I am not saying anything original of course a disciple should the works of his
teacher. Through this section wish point out the creative way John portrays that reality in ch. 9. Michaels and Grant
R. Shafer, The Divinisation of the Blind Man: in John 9.9, Proceedings (2005): 157167, have been the
only two scholars to extensively argue that John using this character to foreshadow the kind of works the disciples
would be doing post-resurrection. Some scholars only give the idea lip service or comment on it in passing, see
Schnackenburg, 247.
56

Borchert, 322. Cf. John 3.10: you yourself are the teacher of Israel and you do not know these things.

Lopez !14
who fears him . . . who does his will).57 When arguing why Jesus should not be seen as a sinner, the blind man appeals to the fact that God listens to those who fear him and do his will, implying that Jesus would have not been able to do what he did if he were a sinner. This appeal is very similar to an appeal Jesus makes in 7.17 where Jesus explains how to know if one is
from God.58 Part of the blind mans appeal to the Pharisees in 9.31 is attempting to do the same.
Essentially, the healed man is inviting the Pharisees to begin to learn how to see Jesus as one
from God, which we know leads to belief. Finally, in v. 34, after the healed man presents his
case, the Pharisees curtly retort that he was born in sin and is foolish for assuming that he could
teach them. The only other person who has contentious debates with the Pharisees is Jesus.59
John readers would not have missed these explicit literary connections between the healed man
and Jesus. From vv. 30-34, and the others mentioned above, we can argue that the common
theme is the truth about Jesus and the challenge of how people should respond to that truth.
Throughout the Gospel, one will see Jesus proclaiming the truth about himself and challenging
people to respond. If the blind man should be seen as one who works in Jesus stead, doing the
works of Him who sent him, and if the blind man models the paradigmatic example of a disciple,
then the works that a disciple should do in Jesus stead is testifying to the truth about Jesus and
challenging people to make a response to the truth.

57

Ibid. Cf. John 8.48-56.

58

Ibid, 563.

59

Cf. John 8.41 where an implicit slight against Jesus birth origin. Cf. also John7.20; 8.48, 52; 10.20,

Lopez !15
Conclusion
It has been argued that the blind man of John 9 is not just a supporting character in another
miracle starring Jesus and the Pharisees. From the beginning of the story Johns readers are made
aware that the blind man will play a significant role next to Jesus. As the story unfolds, Johns
readers discover that this protagonist serves as the paradigmatic disciple, the Johannine witness
par excellence who is contrasted against his inverse, the disciples of Moses. Through the blind
man, Johns readers will also discover that a faithful witness of Jesus is also one who does the
work of Jesus challenging others to respond appropriately the light of the world.

Lopez !16
Bibliography
Bennema, Cornelis. Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Second. Min
neapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2014.
Borchert, Gerald L. John: 1-11. The New American Commentary. United States: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1996.
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John: I-XII. 2nd ed. The Anchor Bible. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G.
R. Beasley-Murrary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971.
Burge, Gary M. John. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
2000.
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. The Pillar New Testament
Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.
Frayer-Griggs. Spittle, Clay, and Creation in John 9.6 and Some Dead
Sea Scrolls. JBL 132, no. 3 (2013): 659670.
Howard, James M. The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John. Bibliotheca
Sarca 163 (2006): 6378.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol. I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Academic, 2003.
Kstenberger, Andreas J. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary On the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second. New York,
New York: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft United Bible Societies, 1994.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. The New International Commentary on the New Tes
tament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010.
Muderhwa, B.V. The Blind Man of John 9 as a Paradigmatic Figure of the Disciple in the
Fourth Gospel. HTS Theological Studies 68, no. 1 (2012): 110.

Lopez !17
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. Vol. Two. New York, New York:
Crossroad, 1987.
Shafer, Grant R. The Divination of the Blind Man: in John 9.9. Proceedings (2005):
157167.
Staley, Jeffery L. Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 &
9. Semeia 53 (1991): 5580.