Having said these things, Jesus spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva, anointed the man's eyes with the mud, and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing (a paraphrase of John 9:6–7).

There is much discussion online about why Jesus used saliva and dirt to heal the blind man, with many theories. I wonder whether the same people would propose theories about the miracles of Moses, Elijah, or Elisha, who also used varied and sometimes unusual methods.

Notably, Scripture gives no explanation for one method over another. In biblical history we learn that people tend to idolize the very things given to glorify God. I think of the bronze serpent, which God told Moses to set on a pole so that people could look at it and be healed from snakebite (Numbers 21:8–9). Centuries later, the Israelites were burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4). The same happened with Gideon's golden ephod (Judges 8:27). Someone has observed that Jesus rarely used the same method of healing twice. If so, perhaps it was to avoid this very danger of idolatry.

In my view, a version of this kind of idolatry appears today in some circles, where special words and special actions become the focus rather than the Word of God. When this happens, the method overshadows the message, and the emphasis on power sidelines the Person of Christ.

Jesus never emphasized His methods of healing, only faith in Him. So let us not stumble over the details of Jesus' methods except to marvel at His sovereignty over them. He does as He pleases with whatever He pleases. He is God.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comment's observation about the variety of Jesus' healing methods is well supported. He healed by a word (Matthew 8:13), by touch (Mark 1:41), at a distance (John 4:50), in stages (Mark 8:23–25), by being touched (Mark 5:27–29), and here with mud and a command to wash. The variety guards against any formula. Some interpreters note possible meanings in this particular method — the mud recalling God forming Adam from the ground (Genesis 2:7), fitting since the man was "blind from birth," and "Siloam" meaning "Sent," echoing John's constant description of Jesus as the one "sent" by the Father. But John does not explain it, and the comment is wise not to build doctrine on the method.

What John does emphasize is the man's journey to faith (see #1925) and the principle Jesus states at the outset: the man's blindness was "that the works of God might be displayed in him" (9:3). The comment's warning against idolizing methods applies across Christian traditions — whether the danger lies in particular words, rituals, programs, or techniques. The healing power always belongs to the Person, not the procedure.

Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” (John 9:41).

On another occasion Jesus spoke of those with eyes yet could not see (cf. Mark 4:12). In other words, they were blind to the understanding of the truth. They were blind to their true condition in sin. They were blind to their need of a Savior. They were blind to the sign of the Messiah.

Yet, if they would only acknowledge their blindness, confess their need, and receive Jesus, their sin would be removed. But because they persisted in holding on to their self-righteousness, their sin remained.

Friends, this account teaches me to always remain humble, confessing my sins and shortcomings and unreservedly declaring my hope of salvation and my ongoing need for deliverance in Christ. This confession extends beyond moral shortcomings to doctrinal ones. I pray that I am always open to correction. It is God's truth that sanctifies me (cf. John 17:17).

I pray that you also will have this same spirit, so that you will not be blinded by the arrogance and short-sightedness of position and reputation. Pastors, teachers and those in authority suffer the greatest risk here. If we do not see our own blindness, how can we help others? But if we acknowledge it, then we can point others to the very same Savior, who is able to give sight to both us and them.

AI-Expanded Reflection

John 9 traces two movements in opposite directions. The man born blind gains physical sight and increasingly recognizes who Jesus is, while some who claim religious insight become more resistant to the evidence before them. The healed man begins by speaking of the man called Jesus, later identifies him as a prophet, and finally responds in faith and worship (9:11, 17, 35–38). His understanding develops through questioning and conflict. The contrast is not between educated and uneducated people as such, but between openness to what God has done and a certainty determined to exclude it.

Jesus’ final words expose the danger in the claim to see. They do not mean that physical blindness is morally virtuous or that lack of information automatically removes all responsibility. The scene concerns a refusal to acknowledge the need revealed by Jesus’ presence. The leaders’ confidence becomes culpable because it protects their resistance. They interrogate the evidence while refusing the possibility that it could require correction of their judgment. Their asserted sight becomes a barrier to receiving sight.

This gives the original’s application to doctrinal humility real force. Knowledge can serve truth, but it can also become bound to position, reputation, and the fear of losing authority. A teacher may find it easier to expose an opponent’s mistake than to admit a small error in a familiar argument. Over time, the need to remain credible can become a reason to resist the very correction credibility requires. John’s narrative asks whether our confidence remains accountable to the Lord or has become a defense against him.

Humility, however, is not the abandonment of every conviction. The healed man becomes increasingly clear rather than increasingly vague. His willingness to testify to what happened stands against pressure to revise his account. Christian teachability combines that honesty with recognition of its limits: we can distinguish what we know, what we infer, and what we still need to understand. John 17:17 locates sanctification in the truth, so correction is not an enemy of holiness. It is often one of the means through which a claim to devotion becomes a more faithful life.

A practical response is to examine how we react when a familiar interpretation is challenged. Do we ask what the text says, or first ask who will be embarrassed? Can people under our authority raise a question without retaliation? Are we willing to correct a citation publicly after using it publicly? These small acts can reveal whether the desire for truth exceeds the desire to appear insightful. The passage’s hope is that Jesus seeks the man who has been cast out and makes himself known to him. Our security need not rest on maintaining the appearance that we have always seen clearly. It can rest on the Savior who gives sight and teaches us to walk in the light we receive.

A second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, "Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner" (a paraphrase of John 9:24).

Talk about leading the witness — you won't find more leading than what the Pharisees attempted with this man. They wanted him, just healed of a lifetime of blindness, to disavow what Jesus had done in an instant and agree with them that Jesus was a sinner. As if that were not enough, they all but told him that if he did not agree, he was not glorifying God.

Consider this. The Pharisees had the testimony of the blind man's neighbors, who had likely lived near him all their lives. They had the testimony of strangers who passed him every day as he begged. They had the testimony of his mother and father, who had no reason to support Jesus — they feared being put out of the synagogue — and who simply stated the facts about their son. And they had the testimony of the man himself, who repeatedly gave the same miraculous account and who was clearly transformed into a believer.

Their only hang-up? Jesus healed on the Sabbath — which was no violation of the Law of Moses, but was a violation of their practice and tradition. For this they ignored the overwhelming eyewitness testimony before them. They ignored the tremendous possibility that Jesus was the promised Messiah, who was prophesied to give sight to the blind. Since opinion among the religious leaders was divided (cf. John 9:16), not all of them ignored this possibility. But as the account unfolds, it is clear that the majority and the top leadership rejected it.

Friends, in view of the sheer volume of Jesus' miraculous signs, attested by many eyewitnesses, including the Pharisees themselves, they could not deny their validity; but they could deny their source. They attributed Jesus' miracles to the devil. This is what Jesus called the unforgivable sin (cf. Mark 3:28–30). They were rejecting the very signs given specifically to the Jews, in keeping with the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, so that they would believe. Jesus never faulted anyone for trying to verify His signs, but He declared, "you have seen me and yet do not believe" (John 6:36). Though He had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in Him (cf. John 12:37). If He had not done among them works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they had seen and hated both Him and His Father (cf. John 15:24).

They were guilty because they hated Him without cause (cf. John 15:25). They could not disprove His miracles, which authenticated who He was: the One sent by the Father to deliver them from their sins.

We know that they did not believe because they were not Jesus' sheep (cf. John 10:26). I believe the Father had not drawn them to Himself or given them faith to believe. Instead, the Father used their unbelief to bring about salvation through the cross (cf. Acts 2:22–23; 4:27–28).

Friends, it is the same today. People come to faith not because of what they see faith healers do, but because of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit through God's Word in their hearts, producing saving faith.

What is more, why are so many who claim healing ministries averse to having their claimed miracles examined? Jesus had no such objections, and everything He did was so well verified that even His enemies had nothing to say. I believe those who go around pretending to prophesy, heal, and perform counterfeit miracles will be judged by God for their arrogance, greed, and deception, and that those who invite such people into their churches share responsibility.

As Jesus taught, "wisdom is justified by her deeds" (Matthew 11:19).

Therefore, dear friends, test everything and hold fast to what is good (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21). We will not be excused because others led us this way or that. We will not be guiltless because some leaders took us the wrong way. We will be judged by our own choices and actions. So let us choose and act wisely.

AI-Expanded Reflection

John 9 is one of the most carefully crafted chapters in the Gospels, and its irony runs in both directions. The man born blind gradually comes to see: he calls Jesus "the man called Jesus" (9:11), then "a prophet" (9:17), then one who must be "from God" (9:33), and finally worships Him as the Son of Man (9:35–38). The Pharisees, meanwhile, grow more certain and more blind: "We know that this man is a sinner" (9:24). Jesus draws the conclusion Himself: He came into the world for judgment, "that those who do not see may see," and those who see may become blind (9:39).

The healed man's simple testimony is one of the most quoted lines in the Gospel: "One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see" (9:25). He could not answer the theological questions, but he would not deny what had happened to him — and he was put out of the synagogue for it (9:34), only to be found by Jesus immediately afterward (9:35). John's readers, many of whom had likely faced the same exclusion, would have taken comfort that Jesus seeks out those who are cast out for His sake.

On the comment's concern about unverified healing claims, many Christians across traditions share its call for honesty and verification (see #1717). Christians differ on whether gifts of healing continue today; those who believe they do generally welcome examination and agree that false claims dishonor Christ.

John 10 records some saying these are not the words of one oppressed by a demon, and asking whether a demon can open the eyes of the blind (verse 21); the charge of blasphemy, that being a man He made Himself God (verse 33); His appeal that even if they do not believe Him they should believe the works, so they may know the Father is in Him (verse 38); and the note that many came to Him saying John did no sign, but everything John said about this man was true, and many believed there (verses 41–42).

Signs are a way of distinguishing a message. The signs must be genuinely distinguishable, since a message can be given by anyone but a sign only by God.

The closest anyone came to matching God's signs were Pharaoh's magicians. Consider what they managed. Moses turned his staff into a snake; they did the same by their secret arts — an effect of the kind that can be produced by illusion. Moses turned water to blood; they did the same, though only Moses left no drinkable water anywhere. Moses summoned frogs; they did the same, but Moses was the one called on to remove them, and they made no claim to be able to. At the gnats they tried and failed, and admitted this was the finger of God. After that, at the flies, the livestock, and the boils, the magicians could not even stand before Moses.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The escalation the comment traces is in the text and is one of the ways Exodus makes its argument: the magicians replicate, then fail to replicate, then cannot remove what they replicated, then cannot appear in public at all. The narrative retires them systematically.

The detail about the frogs is the sharpest of them and worth stating plainly. The magicians could add frogs to Egypt; they could not remove a single one. Their ability extended to making the disaster worse and stopped there, which is a fair description of what the whole contest establishes.

On the broader point about signs authenticating a message: John's own framing is more layered. In this chapter Jesus appeals to the works as evidence for those who will not accept His words, which is a concession rather than the primary appeal — and the same Gospel reports people who saw the works and concluded He should be killed. Signs distinguish a message for those willing to follow where the distinction leads.

Jesus addresses the Pharisees as they question His authority and credibility. This passage is a bit difficult at first glance, but in the larger context of His teaching it appears to be a condemnation of their legalism and hypocrisy.

Anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber, He says. The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd. The gatekeeper opens for him, and the sheep listen to his voice; he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out, and when he has brought out all his own he goes ahead of them, and they follow because they know his voice. They will never follow a stranger — in fact they will run from him, because they do not recognize a stranger's voice (a paraphrase of John 10:1–5).

Jesus describes Himself as the shepherd who cares for His flock and knows them by name. He was telling the Pharisees that those who believe in Him will not follow a stranger's voice. Later He describes Himself as the gate as well, telling them that to reach the sheepfold they must enter through Him.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The shepherd image would not have registered as gentle to this audience. Ezekiel 34 is an extended indictment of Israel's leaders as shepherds who fed themselves rather than the flock, left the injured unbound and the strayed unsought, and ruled harshly — and it ends with God declaring that He will search for His sheep Himself and shepherd them personally. Jesus is speaking to religious leaders, immediately after they have thrown a healed man out of the synagogue, and picking up the one passage in the prophets that addresses exactly their office and exactly that failure.

The double image the comment notices — shepherd and gate — is also worth keeping rather than resolving. In the pastoral practice of the time, a shepherd would often lie down across the opening of an enclosure at night, so that nothing entered or left except over him. Jesus is not mixing metaphors carelessly; He is describing a shepherd who secures the fold with his own body, which is where the chapter goes next when He speaks of laying down His life for the sheep.

22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:22–30)

The Feast of Dedication is not one of the observances mandated in the Mosaic Law. The Feast of Dedication, aka Hanukkah, is a holiday to commemorate the victory of the Maccabees over the persecution and desecration of the temple under Antiochus Epiphanes which occurred between the OT and NT time period. So as the Jews celebrate during the Feast of Dedication and remember the victory of the Maccabees, they ask Jesus if he is the Messiah. Their expectation was for the Messiah to go above and beyond what the Maccabees had accomplished, a mighty military hero that would liberate them from Roman rule.

However, God had more in mind than just liberation from the Romans, He was providing a way for liberation from sin. Why was Jesus rejected? Jesus wasn't offering them what they wanted. The Jewish leaders wanted freedom from Rome. In their self-righteousness, they didn't perceive a need to be set free from sin.

Who are the sheep? Those sinners who by God's grace and election understand that they are in bondage in sin and cling to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to be set free. Coming to an understanding of our own wretchedness is a gift of God.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The Festival of Dedication recalls the restoration of the temple after its desecration under Antiochus IV. The original rightly distinguishes this commemoration from the feasts prescribed in the Mosaic Law. First Maccabees 4:36–59 provides an ancient account of the rededication and the institution of its annual celebration. This historical memory gives the setting resonance: Jesus speaks about his identity in a place and season associated with restored worship and deliverance from oppression.

John does not, however, explicitly tell us that every questioner expected a new Maccabean military campaign. That expectation is a plausible element of the wider historical setting, not a complete diagnosis of each person's motive. The safest reading begins with what Jesus identifies: his works already bear witness, yet the hearers refuse that testimony. The question is not merely whether he will perform a political role they prefer, but whether they will receive the revelation already given. Read John 10:22–39.

Jesus' promise goes beyond temporary liberation by naming eternal life and protection from final ruin. This does not make political oppression unimportant. It locates the deepest saving gift in relation to the Father and Son, a gift that the replacement of one earthly ruler with another cannot secure. The good shepherd gives himself for his people rather than merely recruiting them to establish his public success.

The passage challenges readers to distinguish receiving Christ from using him to authorize a preferred program. A person may want relief, victory, recognition, or national renewal while resisting the Shepherd's call to repentance and trust. Recognizing sin's bondage is indeed a work of grace, but it should lead toward hope in the one who gives life. The Messiah's gift is greater than our initial demand because it addresses a need deeper than the circumstances we first want changed.

Friends, one of the most comforting passages in Scripture is John 10:27–30,

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.

These verses assure believers that they cannot lose their salvation. Jesus says that believers will "never perish." He holds us in His hands, such that nothing can take us out. Furthermore, over Jesus' hands is the Father's hands, such that nothing will remove us from the double strength of the divine hands holding us. It is clear that our security is not from the strength of our faith but rather the strength of God's faithfulness to keep His promises to us.

Interestingly, the context of this passage on the believer's security arises out of a dialogue with the religious rulers, who wanted Jesus to affirm that He is the Christ. Jesus tells them that He has done so already, but they have not believed. Then Jesus makes an interesting statement. He says that they do not believe "because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you." This is consistent with what we learned from John 6, namely, that people cannot believe unless God has enabled them. Here in John 10 Jesus says the same thing in different words. People cannot believe unless God has chosen them to be in the sheepfold of Jesus. But since this choice depends on God alone and not man, it provides infinite and eternal security for the believer.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The promise of security is inseparable from the identity of the one who makes it. Earlier in John 10, Jesus contrasts the good shepherd with the hired hand who abandons the sheep when danger comes. Jesus lays down his life for them and takes it up again. His assurance that no one can snatch them away is therefore grounded in the costly fidelity already described, not merely in a picture of superior physical strength.

Hearing, being known, and following belong together in verse 27. The sheep are not identified through a momentary feeling of safety but through their relationship with the Shepherd. This does not make the strength of their grip the ultimate ground of security; Jesus explicitly places the emphasis on his gift of eternal life and his Father's power. It does prevent assurance from being detached from continuing responsiveness to his voice. Read John 10:11–30.

The image of a second divine hand placed over Jesus' hand is a helpful devotional picture, but the text does not describe that physical arrangement. It presents the Son's keeping and the Father's keeping as united. The declaration that they are one follows this shared work. The immediate context concerns unity in protecting the sheep, while the wider Gospel gives the statement its larger Christological depth.

The original interprets the unbelievers' exclusion from the flock through sovereign election. That reading should retain its connection to the passage's direct pastoral purpose: believers are invited to rely on the Shepherd, not to speculate endlessly about a hidden list. A frightened Christian can ask whether he or she is turning toward Jesus' voice, receive his stated promise, and seek the support of fellow believers. The Shepherd's knowledge is personal and active; it is the knowledge of one who gives himself for those entrusted to him.

Jesus responds to the Jews contesting His claim to be the Son of God in John 10:33–36. They tell Him they're not stoning Him for any good work, but for blasphemy — for making Himself, a mere man, out to be God. Jesus responds by asking whether it isn't written in their own Law that God said, "you are gods" — and if Scripture calls those who received God's word "gods," and Scripture cannot be broken, why do they accuse Him of blasphemy for calling Himself God's Son, when the Father Himself set Him apart and sent Him into the world (a paraphrase of John 10:33–36)?

What did Jesus mean quoting Psalm 82:6? In that psalm's context, Israel's own leaders (the "great assembly," v. 1) are called "gods" and "sons of the Most High" because they're appointed representatives of God — yet rebuked for their unjust rule (vv. 2–5). Despite being called "gods," they'll die like ordinary mortals, fall like any other ruler (v. 7). The psalmist, Asaph, instead awaits the Messiah, addressed as "God" (v. 8), who will judge the earth justly and inherit the nations (cf. Isaiah 9:6–7; Psalm 2). So Psalm 82 is itself a Messianic psalm, condemning the injustice of the "sons of God" while awaiting the true justice the "Son of God" will bring — making it a remarkably fitting passage for Jesus to cite against the Jews here.

In citing this psalm, Jesus both rebukes His accusers, who resemble the unjust leaders the psalm condemns, and affirms His own Messianic identity as Son of God — turning the accusation of blasphemy back on them. Who's truly blaspheming? Jesus, confirming His identity through the Father's own works, in keeping with Scriptural prophecy? Or the Jews, rejecting the very prophetic Scriptures God gave them to follow (notice Jesus's emphasis that "Scripture cannot be broken," John 10:35)?

Consider another related exchange, in Mark 12:35–37, where Jesus Himself raises the question of the Messiah's identity as Son of God — asking why the teachers of the law call the Messiah merely the "son of David," when David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, calls Him "Lord," quoting the LORD's own words to "my Lord" to sit at His right hand until His enemies are made a footstool (a paraphrase of Psalm 110:1). If David himself calls Him "Lord," Jesus asks, how can He merely be David's son?

Once again, Jesus quotes Scripture — here, Psalm 110:1 — to affirm the Messiah isn't merely David's descendant, but the Son of God, equal with God, since even David calls Him "Lord," a title reserved for God.

Notice Jesus doesn't simply answer His accusers by declaring "I am the Son of God" — He answers by citing Scripture and showing how His works fulfill exactly what's prophesied for the Messiah (cf. John 10:24–25, 37–38). In the immediate context, He'd just given sight to a man born blind — a uniquely Messianic miracle (cf. John 9:32–33; Luke 4:16–21, citing Isaiah 61:1–2; Psalm 146:8). Interestingly, this miracle happens with no pretension or display at all — Jesus makes mud and applies it to the man's eyes, with no crowd even present; the man doesn't learn who healed him until much later, and as far as we know, never even asked to be healed in the first place. Jesus seems to have deliberately avoided drawing undue attention, especially given the Jewish leaders' hostility. In fact, across the four recorded instances of Jesus healing blindness, He uses a different method every single time (cf. Matthew 9; Mark 8; Luke 18; John 9). Notably, when the Pharisees can't dispute the miracle's authenticity, they instead question the method and launch baseless personal attacks against Jesus.

People whose hearts remain hardened, unopened by the Holy Spirit, won't judge Jesus's words and works correctly — they can't see, hear, or believe rightly, remaining in the darkness of their sinful condition (cf. Ephesians 2:1–3). But we who do see, hear, and believe have been chosen by God to be His sheep, secure by His grace in our eternal inheritance — as Jesus says, His sheep hear His voice, He knows them, they follow Him, and He gives them eternal life; no one can snatch them from His hand, nor from the Father's, since He and the Father are one (a paraphrase of John 10:26–30).

AI-Expanded Reflection

One small correction: the second passage discussed here is Mark 12:35–37, not Mark 9:35–37 as originally noted — Mark 9:35–37 concerns Jesus teaching about greatness and receiving a child, entirely different content from the Psalm 110 exchange about David calling the Messiah "Lord." Beyond that correction, the pairing of John 10 and Mark 12 makes a genuinely strong case: both passages show Jesus deliberately choosing indirect argument over direct assertion, letting His own Scriptures make the case for His identity rather than simply declaring it outright — a consistent pattern worth noticing across His disputes with religious leaders throughout the Gospels.