John 9:6 · Bible study
John 9:6 Commentary: Why Mud and Spittle?
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Examine why Jesus used spittle and clay to heal the blind man. Insights from Greek grammar, historical context, and commentators.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Jesus heals a man born blind using mud made from spittle, demonstrating his power through means that appear contrary to the desired outcome.
- Key words: Pēlon (clay/mud), ptusma (spittle), epechrisen (anointed/rubbed), unique NT verb emphasizing tactile application.
- Main debate: Was Jesus challenging Sabbath legalism (Barnes), testing the man’s faith (Calvin), using a known remedy for the sake of the sufferer’s faith (Cambridge), or all three?
- Theological theme: God’s sovereignty over means; the testing of obedient faith; Jesus as the light of the world who uses creation to restore creation.
- Best use: To teach that God is not bound by human expectations or traditions, and that obedience to his word, even when it seems irrational, leads to blessing.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
When Jesus had said this, He spit on the ground, made some mud, and applied it to the man’s eyes.
WEB World English Bible 2000
When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud,
KJV King James Version 1769
When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
ASV American Standard Version 1901
When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay,
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
These things saying, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and rubbed the clay on the eyes of the blind man, and said to him,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud of the spittle, and put the mud, as ointment, on his eyes.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
When he had said these things, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and spread the clay upon his eyes,
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Esto dicho, escupió en tierra, é hizo lodo con la saliva, y untó con el lodo sobre los ojos del ciego,
Dito isto, cuspiu em terra, e fez lama do cuspe, e untou com aquela lama os olhos do cego.
Après avoir dit cela, il cracha à terre, et fit de la boue avec sa salive. Puis il appliqua cette boue sur les yeux de l’aveugle,
Da er solches gesagt, spützte er auf die Erde und machte einen Kot aus dem Speichel und schmierte den Kot auf des Blinden Augen
Dit gezegd hebbende, spoog Hij op de aarde, en maakte slijk uit dat speeksel, en streek dat slijk op de ogen des blinden;
Detto questo, sputò in terra, fece del fango con la saliva e ne spalmò gli occhi del cieco,
To rzekłszy plunął na ziemię, a uczynił błoto z śliny i pomazał onem błotem oczy ślepego,
Сказав это, Он плюнул на землю, сделал брение из плюновения и помазал брением глаза слепому,
耶穌說了這話，就吐唾沫 在地上， 用 唾沫 和 泥 抹在 瞎子的眼睛上，
Having said these words, he put earth, mixed with water from his mouth, on the man's eyes,
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · John 9:6
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators broadly agree that Jesus’ use of mud and spittle was deliberately paradoxical. Barnes notes that the Jews regarded spittle as medicinal for eye diseases but forbade its use on the Sabbath; by making clay, Jesus deliberately challenged their Sabbath traditions. Calvin argues that the action tested the blind man’s faith and obedience, “Who would not have thought either that he was mocking the wretched man, or that he was practicing senseless and absurd fooleries?” Clarke adds that God “will do his own work in his own way,” using means that appear contrary to the end. Vincent’s Word Studies observes that the verb epechrisen (“anointed”) occurs only here and in verse 11, emphasizing the tactile, personal nature of the act. The Cambridge Bible suggests the clay functioned as a channel of power, helping the sufferer’s faith by giving him something tangible to trust. All agree: the mud did not contribute medically; the miracle belongs wholly to Christ.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Sabbath confrontation: Barnes emphasizes Jesus’ deliberate violation of Pharisaic Sabbath regulations by preparing clay and anointing eyes, showing that mercy trumps tradition.
- Test of obedience: Calvin argues the absurdity of the action tested the blind man’s faith and becomes a model for how believers should trust God’s word against appearances.
- Use of ordinary remedies: The Cambridge Bible suggests Jesus used spittle, a known folk remedy, to help the man’s faith, even though the miracle exceeded any natural power.
- Symbol of new creation: Some early interpreters (noted by Poole) saw the clay as reminiscent of Genesis 2:7, connecting Jesus’ act to the original creation of humanity from dust.
What is clear: Jesus healed a man born blind using mud made from spittle, and the means served to reveal divine power and to call for obedient faith.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the spittle | Ancient medical culture considered saliva a remedy for eye diseases; this background informs the passage. | Some (Barnes, Cambridge) emphasize that Jesus used an ordinary remedy to meet the man’s need for tangible help; others (Clarke, Calvin) argue the combination with clay made the means clearly insufficient, highlighting the miracle and the test of faith. |
| Sabbath implications | The action took place on the Sabbath and deliberately violated Pharisaic traditions about healing and preparing medicines. | Barnes sees a direct critique of Sabbath legalism; others (Calvin, Gill) focus less on the Sabbath controversy and more on the faith response of the man. |
| Role of the mud | The mud had no natural power to heal blindness; the miracle belongs wholly to Christ. | Clarke sees the mud as a symbol of God’s freedom to use contemptible means; Calvin emphasizes it as a test of obedience; some early interpreters (Poole mentions) allegorized it as a new creation act. |
| The necessity of obedience | The man had to obey Jesus’ command to wash at Siloam in order to receive sight. | All agree obedience was essential, but they differ on whether the primary emphasis is the man’s faith (Calvin) or the demonstration that true healing comes through the One who is “Sent” (suggested by the meaning of Siloam). |
Historical & Cultural Context
John 9:6 must be read against first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman medical beliefs. Spittle was widely regarded as having curative power, especially for eye ailments. Vincent cites Tacitus’ account of Vespasian healing a blind man with his saliva, and Pliny’s recommendation to anoint eyes with fasting spittle. However, Jesus does not use spittle alone; he mixes it with dirt to form clay (pēlon), a substance that would seem to make blindness worse. This would have struck his audience as absurd, a point Calvin makes forcefully.
The action also carries a Sabbath controversy. Barnes points out that Jewish tradition forbade the preparation or application of medicines on the Sabbath; the Mishna specifically prohibits putting spittle on the eyes that day (Gill cites Mishna Mikvaot). Jesus’ deliberate creation of clay, a creative act, would be seen as work. Thus the miracle confronts legalistic piety from the start.
Furthermore, the pool of Siloam (v. 7), whose name means “Sent,” reinforces Jesus’ identity as the One sent from the Father. The physical mud becomes a sign that points beyond itself: the One who made man from dust (Genesis 2:7) uses dust to restore sight. Poole mentions that some early interpreters saw this connection. The same Jesus who declared “I am the light of the world” (v. 5) uses the stuff of the earth to dispel darkness.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note two textual variants. First, Vincent observes that some manuscripts read epethēken (“put upon”) instead of epechrisen (“anointed”); the latter is widely preferred and appears only here and in verse 11. Second, the Cambridge Bible and Vincent both note that “of the blind man” (referring to the eyes) is likely an explanatory gloss; the better reading is simply “his eyes.” These variants do not change the meaning of the text.
Reception History
This verse has been read across traditions as a demonstration of Christ’s creative power and a challenge to human preconceptions. In the Reformation, Calvin used it to highlight the testing of faith through seemingly absurd commands. Wesleyan commentators such as Clarke saw it as vindicating God’s freedom to work through any means. The action also entered patristic reflection as a parallel to the creation of Adam from dust (an early reading noted by Poole). Throughout church history, the mud of John 9:6 has reminded readers that God’s ways are not our ways, and that obedience to an apparently foolish command can yield extraordinary results.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Means That Seem Contrary. Jesus uses spittle and mud, things that would appear to worsen blindness. This shows that God’s power is not limited by natural means; he often works through what seems foolish or weak (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:27).
- The Obedience Required. The blind man did not understand Jesus’ method. Yet he allowed Jesus to put mud on his eyes and then obeyed the command to wash at Siloam. His faith was tested through a seemingly pointless action (Calvin).
- The Glory Revealed. The miracle reveals Jesus as the light of the world. The means (mud) point back to creation, and the outcome (sight) shows that Jesus is the Creator who restores what is broken.
Five-point outline
- Jesus speaks, he declares himself the light of the world (v. 5).
- Jesus makes mud, he chooses a material that seems to make blindness worse.
- Jesus anoints the blind man’s eyes, personal, tactile, intimate.
- Jesus sends the man to Siloam, the command to wash is a test of obedience.
- The man washes and sees, the result proves that the power was in Christ, not in the mud or water.
Illustration hooks
- A doctor prescribes a treatment that seems counterproductive (e.g., exercise for exhaustion). The patient must trust the doctor’s wisdom before seeing results.
- A chef combines unlikely ingredients (chocolate and chili) to create something memorable. The final dish only works because of the chef’s skill.
- A teacher gives a strange assignment that students think is pointless. Later they realize it was designed to teach a deeper lesson they could not grasp at first.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does my obedience to Christ require understanding why he commands what he does?
- Why does God sometimes use ordinary means (medicine, work, relationships) to accomplish extraordinary things?
- How can I trust God when his methods seem to make my situation worse before it gets better?
Leading a Discussion
This passage confronts us with a Jesus who does not heal the way we expect. He makes mud from spit and dirt, puts it on a blind man’s eyes, and then sends him to wash. Why such a strange procedure? As you discuss the passage, let the discomfort of the mud push you toward trust in the One who uses unlikely means for his glory.
Discussion questions
- What stands out to you about the way Jesus heals this man? Why do you think he chose to use mud and spittle?
- Read verse 7. The man had to go and wash at the pool of Siloam. What does this command reveal about the nature of faith?
- In what ways does this story challenge the idea that religious tradition or human wisdom can limit God’s work? (Think about the Sabbath issue mentioned by Barnes.)
- Calvin says the blind man overcame the suspicion that he was being mocked. Have you ever felt that God’s instructions seemed absurd? How did you respond?
- This miracle takes place right after Jesus declares, “I am the light of the world” (v. 5). How does the healing illustrate that claim?
- The Pharisees later focus on the fact that Jesus made clay on the Sabbath. Why does this detail matter? What does it say about where true religion can go wrong?
- How might this story encourage someone who is waiting for God to move in a situation that looks hopeless or messy?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Mark 7:33 | He took him aside from the multitude privately and put his fingers into his ears; and he spat and touched his tongue. |
| Mark 8:23 | He took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village. When he had spat on his eyes, and laid his hands on him, he asked him if he saw anything. |
| Revelation of John 3:18 | I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich; and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke's distinctive lesson is that God deliberately chooses methods that appear useless or even contrary to the intended outcome, precisely to humble human pride. The clay and spittle had no medical value; their very unsuitability forces attention to the miracle itself and teaches that God will accomplish his work in his own way.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes points out that Jesus deliberately used spittle on the Sabbath, a practice the Jews considered medicinal and therefore unlawful. By doing so, Jesus exposed their Sabbath rules as superstitious and contrary to God's intent. He also used this symbolic act so the blind man would know the healing power came directly from Jesus.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin sees the strange, even absurd method of the healing as a deliberate test. By making the blind man’s condition worse before curing it, Jesus tries and commends the man’s faith and obedience. The blind man’s willingness to obey despite all appearances, and his humble trust in Christ even with limited understanding, make him a model believer.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator highlights that Christ deliberately used a conventional remedy, clay and spittle, which was believed at the time to help eyes. Christ did not need these means, but by choosing something perceived as appropriate, He made it easier for the blind man to trust and receive healing. This ordinary channel served the sufferer's faith, not any lack of power.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note simply recounts the action itself without interpretation, emphasizing that Jesus acted immediately after speaking. The brief comment draws attention to the physical details: spitting on the ground, making clay, and applying it directly to the blind man's eyes.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill draws attention to the unlikely method Jesus used: spittle and clay, which Jewish tradition considered a weak substance and a strange choice for healing a man born blind. He sees this as an emblem of the gospel itself, which seems foolish to the natural mind yet is the means God uses to enlighten and save sinners.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB emphasizes that the physical actions of spitting and making clay were entirely irrelevant to the healing itself. They served only as a visible sign, not as a contributing cause. The means were incongruous with the effect, making it clear the power came solely from God.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Though the Jews had just mistreated Him, Jesus did not let their hostility stop Him from doing good to them. Henry notes that healing this man who had been a public burden was an act of kindness to the whole community, showing Christ's generous and persistent goodwill even when He was slighted.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent highlights the ancient belief that spittle held medicinal and even magical power for eye ailments, citing Roman writers who describe its use as a charm and remedy. He also draws attention to the specific Greek words for "on the ground" and "anointed," noting a textual variant some manuscripts read as "put on."
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley highlights the irony: the clay could almost blind a seeing person, yet God uses it to heal blindness. His point is that God is equally near whether He works with means or without them. Creatures and methods have no power of their own; only God's almighty operation makes them effective.