John 9 2

John 9:2 kjv

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

John 9:2 nkjv

And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

John 9:2 niv

His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

John 9:2 esv

And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

John 9:2 nlt

"Rabbi," his disciples asked him, "why was this man born blind? Was it because of his own sins or his parents' sins?"

John 9 verses

John 9 2 Meaning

The disciples, seeing a man blind from birth, asked Jesus to identify the cause of his congenital condition. Their question, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?", reflects a prevailing cultural and theological assumption that physical ailments, particularly those from birth, were direct consequences of sin—either by the afflicted individual (perhaps in a pre-natal state or by divine foreknowledge of future sin) or by their parents, inherited as divine punishment. They were seeking to attribute blame as an explanation for suffering.

John 9 2 Context

John chapter 9 describes Jesus' miraculous healing of a man born blind. This event takes place during or shortly after the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem, intensifying the growing tension between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, particularly the Pharisees. The healing occurs on the Sabbath, which further provokes controversy. The disciples' question in verse 2 directly precedes the healing and serves as a critical setup for Jesus' teaching in verse 3, shifting the focus from blame and sin to the revelation of God's works and glory through suffering. Historically and culturally, it was a common, deeply ingrained belief among many Jews, based on interpretations of Old Testament passages (e.g., Ex 20:5, Deut 28), that physical disability and suffering were direct divine punishments for specific sins—either committed by the individual or inherited from their parents. The idea of in utero sin, or God seeing future sins before birth, was a debated concept but not unheard of in rabbinic thought or speculative theology of the time, allowing for the "this man" option in their question despite his congenital blindness.

John 9 2 Word analysis

• And his disciples asked him: This phrase indicates the disciples' ongoing learning and engagement with Jesus. It highlights their struggle to understand difficult situations through their established theological framework.
• saying, Master, (διδάσκαλε, didaskale): A respectful title commonly used for religious teachers, signifying their deference to Jesus' authority while seeking his instruction on a complex issue.
• who did sin, (τίς ἥμαρτεν, tis hemarten): "Who sinned?" The interrogative pronoun "who" seeks specific identification. "Did sin" uses the aorist tense, pointing to a completed action in the past, suggesting a specific sin or series of sins causing the blindness. The question reveals an assumed direct cause-and-effect relationship between sin and suffering.
• this man, (οὗτος, houtos): Refers directly to the man born blind. This part of the question presents a theological challenge, as he was blind from birth. Speculations around this included pre-natal sin (a child sinning in the womb, a concept found in some Jewish writings but not widely accepted) or God punishing for foreseen future sins.
• or his parents, (ἢ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ē hoi goneis autou): This was the more conventional explanation for congenital suffering, aligning with passages like Exodus 20:5 where children suffered consequences of parental sin. It suggests a corporate responsibility or an inherited curse.
• that he was born blind? (ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ, hina typhlos gennethe): The Greek hina clause here is best understood not as purpose ("in order that") but as the perceived consequence or result of the sin. The question assumes the congenital blindness is not a random affliction but a divinely ordained consequence for a specific sin, seeking to identify the precise individual(s) responsible.

Words-group by words-group analysis

• "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents": This group of words captures the core theological dilemma the disciples faced. It reflects their ingrained presupposition that suffering, especially congenital affliction, must be directly attributable to a specific, identifiable sin. They present an either/or choice for Jesus, showcasing their limited framework of understanding suffering primarily through a retributive lens.
• "that he was born blind": This phrase specifically details the man's condition – his blindness was congenital, an innate part of his existence from the very beginning. This detail makes the question of "this man" having sinned particularly problematic and highlights the deep-seated nature of the disciples' inquiry into prenatal or inherited sin.

John 9 2 Bonus section

The disciples' question, while framed within their Jewish understanding, echoes a universal human struggle: finding meaning and cause in suffering. Without a complete understanding of God's redemptive plan and purposes beyond punitive justice, the default human response often turns to assigning blame. This tendency can be seen in various forms even today, where people search for a "reason" or "fault" when tragedies strike, rather than seeking God's ultimate purpose. Jesus' response to this question (in the subsequent verse) is a profound theological and practical counter-point, establishing that God's ways often transcend our limited rationalizations of suffering and can even repurpose human brokenness for His glory and revelation. It highlights the spiritual battle against reductionist views of suffering and God's interaction with the world.

John 9 2 Commentary

John 9:2 functions as a critical setup for Jesus' profound teaching on suffering. The disciples' question encapsulates a common but flawed human tendency to attribute all misfortune, especially congenital conditions, to direct divine punishment for specific sins, creating a culture of blame. Their limited understanding offered only two culprits: the individual or their parents, presuming an easily identifiable cause-effect chain. This theological error is important, as it directly prefaces Jesus' radical reorientation of perspective in John 9:3, where he clarifies that such suffering is not always about punitive justice but about providing an occasion for the glorious works of God to be manifest. It subtly challenges humanity's tendency to judge and condemn those who suffer, forcing a shift from "whose fault is it?" to "what is God's purpose in it?". The question itself, though based on a faulty premise, reveals an earnest desire to understand God's justice and dealings in the world.