What did Jesus mean in Jn.9:37: "You have BOTH seen him and ..."?

Question

In John chapter 9, there is a man that has been blind from birth. He had never seen anything in his life. Yeshua anoints the man's eyes with clay, and then tells him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The man, still blind, goes to the pool and recieves his sight. Other men that had seen the blind man before, asked him how he recieved his sight. He tells them what happened, and they cast him out. Then...

"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God (Critical Text and every other translation: man)?

He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both (Καὶ) seen (ἑώρακας: perfect active) him, and it is he that talketh with thee." (John 9:35-37)

Yeshua tells him that he has both seen the son of man in the past, and he is looking at the son of man presently. However, the man had never seen Yeshua before because he was still blind when he went to the pool of Siloam. So I have two questions...

Was Yeshua referring to the "neighbors" when he told the blind man he has seen the son of man before?

[A previous version of this question also asked, Who is the son of man in John 9:35?]

Answer 1

First, I agree that technically, Bʀɪᴀɴ's answer is valid. However, I think there are two other explanations that fit the context better, one of which is simply a refining of Brian's answer.

First Possibility

There is a small statement in the sequence of events that the OP missed (bolded below). Notice the sequence:

• Jesus makes clay, anoints eyes, and commands the blind man to go wash in the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:6-7a).
• The man leaves and does so (Jn 9:7b)
• The man "came back seeing" (Jn 9:7c; NKJV, no textual variants)
• Neighbors react (Jn 9:8-12)
• Neighbors bring him to the Pharisees for initial interrogation (Jn 9:13-17)
• Pharisees call the parents (Jn 9:18-23)
• Pharisees interrogate man again (Jn 9:24-34a)
• Pharisees cast him out (Jn 9:34b)
• Jesus finds him and makes the statements in question (Jn 9:35-38)

Nothing in the text indicates that Jesus removed himself from where he had placed clay on the man, yet verse 7 clearly states the man came back to that place "seeing." So it may well be that Jesus (and his disciples) were among the crowd of people that the man was first beholding when he returned. It was only after this that the neighbors shuttled him off to the Pharisees and thus Jesus had to then go find him after hearing they had cast him out.

Would Jesus have "stood out" if He were still there? Not necessarily. Recall this all happened in what appears to be a place just outside the temple (Jn 8:59 and 9:1), at least within Jerusalem, so the crowd was likely quite large, and seems enough so that Jesus was able to avoid capture. So there was likely a large crowd, and Jesus and his 12 disciples may not have been "noticed" from among a larger crowd by anyone associated with this event (neighbors or otherwise).

If this possibility is correct, it would make Jesus' statement referring to a slightly more remote past event of the man seeing him just after his return from the pool.

Second Possibility

Another possibility is that Jesus is referring to the immediate past, but emphasizing the fact that the man who was blind has seen Jesus. The Greek uses the word καί there with another καί, and so the translation "both" for the first use is reasonable as a translation of καί used in such a correlative sense. But a correlative sense for καί can also be rendered "not only ... but also."¹

If the latter English rendering is used, it brings out the emphasis that seems implied to be in the verse "not only have you seen him [you who could not see is the implied contrast], but also it is that one [ἐκεῖνος] who is talking with you!" This translation conveys a more intensive idea, similar to "even you have seen him and it is that one who is talking to you" (as καί can give an intensive idea),² but that intensive is better expressed in a correlative through the "not only ... but also" rendering.

But a question may arise: why the switch from perfect tense to present tense within the statement ("you have seen ... it is that one who is talking")?

It may simply be due to the switch in subject. The first statement is with the former blind man as subject, the latter with Jesus, though referring to himself as a third person "that one," or the "he" that was the object of the first statement of who had been seen.

But there also is a literary and theological reason in the context. The emphasis in Jesus's statement is on the man having already received his sight, but now was receiving the revelation of the specific individual who performed the miracle, that being the person presently talking to him. This phrasing sets up a reverse contrast with what follows of the Pharisees who already knew the specific individual who worked the miracle, but were yet presently "blind" to His work (v.39-41).

Conclusion

Either concept provides a reasonable explanation for Christ's use of language. He is either playing off the fact that the man had already seen him (but did not know it) after his return from the pool or the fact that the man could now see him (for he had been during their short discussion), emphasizing the miracle (and thus Jesus being who He said He was) and this man seeing that miracle for what it demonstrated, that Jesus was a man from God.

---

NOTES

¹ William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. καί 1.f.

² Ibid., 2.b.

Answer 2

Jesus said this to assure the man that He was the Son of God and the One who healed him.

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?”

36 He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”

37 And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.”

38 Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him.

39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.” -John 9:35-39 (NKJV)

"You have both seen Him..." is in reference to any time in the past, which includes the 30 or more seconds in the past it would have taken Jesus to walk up to the man and start this dialog. There is no time limit for something in the past to not be far enough in the past to not qualify as being in the past (I never thought I'd get the opportunity to say something like that).

Jesus directly refers to Himself as the 'Son of God' (or 'Man' for the NU-Text) in verses 35-37, with the man's reaction of calling Jesus 'Lord' and worshiping Him in verse 38 acknowledging the fact that he understood that Jesus was calling Himself the Son of God.

The man would have seen Jesus walk up to him, and when Jesus started talking to the man, his response in verse 36 clearly shows that he was not aware that this was the One who healed him. So Jesus tells him that He is the Son of God in verse 37 and acknowledges His own power to provide sight in verse 39.

Answer 3

The majority of Greek texts, as well as early Latin and Syriac translations, actually read "son of God" [υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ], not "son of man". The so-called "Critical Text" compiled by Nestle-Aland chose to insert a variant reading that occurs in 9 manuscripts. The Bible translation you are using probably relies on this particular text. The most authoritative commentary on the Gospel of John in antiquity is that of John Chrysostom in the late 4th century; he cites this verse as saying "son of God" in his Homily LIX.

Since Christ Himself used the expression "son of Man" to refer to Himself (e.g. Matthew 8:20, 9:6, etc.; Mark 2:10,28, etc.; Luke 5:24, 6:5, etc.; John 3:14, 6:27, etc.), it is not surprising that some copyists may have inserted "son of man" instead of "son of God" in this particular verse.

In any case, from either Patristic commentary or the conflation we see in the available manuscripts, I believe that it is safe to say that those manuscripts which contain the phrase "son of man" are referring to Christ, the son of God.