Human beings generally seek for answers or a rationale that can help them deal with the hard questions of pain, suffering, and evil. Like most confused human beings, the disciples assumed that the problem would be more tolerable if they could probe the questions of why. Accordingly, they sought to assign blame for the man’s unhappy state in life

Similarly, when the disciples asked Jesus, “Who sinned?” (John 9:2), they frankly eschewed the role of a caring servant and chose instead to adopt the role of judge

By contrast, however, Jesus rejected their question as nonproductive speculation and chose instead the role of a caregiver who recognized that the works of God would be manifested through his Son’s work

Jesus, however, refused to accept the disciples’ alternative of blame and in fact shifted the base system of the discussion from blame to the grace of God in the face of human need. The story line thus signals that in this pericope Jesus was going to use the man’s tragedy to reveal the works (erga) of God

The mention of the works of God leads to a further statement on work both in terms of reaffirming the personal mission of Jesus (“Him Who Sent Me”) and the role of Jesus with his followers (“We Must Do the Work,” 9:4). The emphasis in this verse clearly falls on the earthly work of Jesus

The implication in both stories seems to be that the healer demanded the man in need to obey the healer’s instructions. As such the reader should not miss the close connection between obedience or effectual believing and experiencing the powerful work of God

The rules of the rabbis, however, did not forbid all acts of mercy on the Sabbath because it was argued that if someone were in imminent danger of death, a Jew could come to the person’s aid. But the blind man did not fall under such a rule, and therefore they would have judged the healer here as guilty (see, however, my comments at 7:22–23 concerning the change the rabbis themselves made concerning healing).

The parents had no problem answering the authorities’ first question (9:19). They identified their son and provided witness to his congenital blindness (9:20). But the second question of the Jews they stoutly avoided answering, like persons who refuse to become involved in assisting helpless victims for fear of the consequences to themselves (9:22). Instead of entering into the hearing further, the parents turned the question back to the questioners. Both pled a lack of knowledge concerning the facts of their son’s new condition and insisted on his own competence to bear witness for himself

The transformed blind man’s reply here is a classic statement. What was incredulous to him was that the officials who supposedly represented the perspective of God actually failed to recognize the work of God. As a result, not only did they not recognize God’s work in this unique healing event (the healing of congenital blindness), but they also failed to recognize the origin of the healer

But the power brokers of religion in this story would not listen to the common wisdom of a transformed man and instead followed the usual pattern for dealing with challenges to their authority. They categorized the man with a name, “sinner,” and excluded him from their community

The question that Jesus asked him concerning his believing in the Son of Man probed him to the very core of his being. Here believing did not mean the mere acceptance of signs (cf. 2:23–25) but the active commitment of himself to the Son of Man, who brought God’s hope and forgiveness to the world. The man had already proven himself to be faithful in spite of his never having seen Jesus

The man then responded with a model confession involving both believing and worshiping