Please forgive the tardiness of this last installment in this series. There are lots of valid reasons, as well as some good and poor excuses, but, in the interest of preserving the “bite-sized” endeavor of this blog, I will simply continue from where I left off…

In verses 24-27 of John 9, we see the incessant and insincere interrogation of the once-blind man. This is not unlike the many questions that Jesus Himself was often subjected to by the religious leaders - even during the kangaroo court proceedings leading up to His crucifixion. The interrogators were not interested in discovering the truth; they were hoping for reasons not to believe. Perhaps you’ve been subjected to a similar line of questioning.

Fortunately, the once-blind man was assured of the reality of the healing brought to him by Christ, and did not waiver in his conviction that Jesus had wrought in him the works of God. I enjoy the exchange that is recorded in verses 29 and 30:

“We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from.” The man answered and said to them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes!

I am reminded of the “One Solitary Life” sermon/poem by James A. Francis - somewhat made famous by Martin Luther King in his “The Drum Major’s Instinct” speech. The sermon includes these words about Jesus:

He is the centerpiece of the human race and the leader of progress. I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as that One Solitary Life.

Indeed - even nineteen centuries ago - the impact of Christ upon the culture was unmistakable. The scholars of the Scriptures of all people should have both expected and recognized the Messiah by His works, but they were so blinded by their own ambitions that they could not receive Him.

How aptly that the chapter, and this series ends with these verses:

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.” Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

A continuing commentary on John chapter 9

To understand the stirring among the both the religious leaders and the laity, we must consider the uncontested claim in verse 32 of the text: “Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind.”

This was an exceptional miracle. Indeed, no past healing of congenital blindness is recorded in all the miracles of the Old Testament. The exceptional nature of this miracle made it difficult for some lay persons to believe (”Others said, ‘He is like him.’” - [v. 9]), and difficult for some religious leaders to dismiss it as a Messianic sign, as evidenced by their irrational explanations (”Therefore some of the Pharisees said, ‘This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.’” [v. 16]; “‘Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.’” [v. 24]).

The Pharisees called for the parents of the once-blind man to get their testimony concerning the blindness of their son at birth. I imagine that some were hoping to discover the truth so that they would know whether or not to believe, while others of them had already decided not to believe and were hoping to find out that the man was not born blind so that they could more easily dismiss the miracle, and thereby dismiss Jesus (Y’shua) as the Messiah.

The parents confirmed the man’s blindness from birth, but diplomatically deflected the question (see v. 21) concerning the cause of his healing for a bad reason: “His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.” (v. 22). Now the parents may not have heard Jesus speak the words recorded in Matthew 10:33 (”But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.”), but I cannot help but think that the subsequent guilt that they felt for putting their reputation ahead of their faith far exceeded any fear that they felt prior to their deflecting the question.

In the interest of bite-sized portions, I’ll wrap-up this commentary in another, final post.

Continued commentary on John chapter 9…

Jesus said, “I [translations based upon the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testaments read “We”] must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” What Christ meant exactly, I can’t say authoritatively; but it is clear form His statement that there was - or is - a limited time for the work of God on Earth. Certainly, He had a relatively short window of opportunity before His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection and ascension; The night of His betrayal was also a night of spiritual darkness (see Luke 22:53). Whether the night in which “no one can work” is a collective or individual experience, we must make the most of our days, for the days in which we live are evil (Eph. 5:15,16).

When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And He said to him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing.

Although many were healed through the touch of Jesus, I don’t think that there were any special powers of healing in His saliva, nor the dirt from which He made the clay to put on the man’s eyes. Many people sought Christ for healing, but there is no record of anyone asking Him to spit in a vial, that they may take it home for future maladies. What I think is going on here is a method of taking the emphasis off of the method itself. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus employed different “methods” of healing. He gave sight to the blind through spit (here, and Mark 8:22-25), through simple touch (Matt. 9:27-30), and by the power of His word alone (Mark 10:51,52). Lest we put God “in a box” and derive formulas or a rituals for His work among us, Jesus employed various methods to keep us in wonder of Him. The marvelous thing is that the blind man obeyed the word of the Lord (”Go, wash…”), and returned seeing.

It humors me that when Jesus’ taught His disciples to pray, He began with a series of cautions - including an admonition that we ought not to “use vain repetitions as the heathen.” Following the instruction on how NOT to pray, He offered a sample prayer (Matt. 6:1-13). What do we do today? On many occasions we recite this prayer word-for-word, as if the prayer itself is somehow holy. It is essential that our focus be on the One to Whom we lift our voices - and not so much on the words. In fact, probably the best prayers are expressed without words at all (Rom. 8:26).

Next time we’ll look at the excitement stirred up by this healing.

(Continued from Part 1, of course)

With the first half of His sentence in reply, Jesus completely voids the erroneous teaching that birth defects are the direct cause of the parents’ sin or the in utero behavior of the child himself, i.e., that bad things only happen to bad people: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” Jesus begins. Now, while the first half of His sentence was enough to stun His disciples, the latter half must have blown their minds: “but that the works of God should be revealed in him”. Hold on there! Not only was this man’s blindness not caused by sin, but he’s been blind from birth by divine design?

I don’t think that we can establish a doctrine that every tragedy that strikes our lives is purposely authored by the Almighty, but seemingly bad things working out to God’s glory and our benefit is not a foreign concept to the Scriptures or to the experience of believers. Consider Joseph, the son of Jacob/Israel. Looking back on his journey that began with his brothers throwing him into a pit, onto slavery, through prison, and eventually to the Egyptian government, he told his brothers, “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.” (Gen. 50:20). Again, I’m no Hebrew scholar, but this passage seems to indicate NOT that God was able to rescue things after the fact, but that God supervised the whole journey to accomplish His purposes. Consider the ministry of Joni Eareckson Tada. Read and ponder Acts 2:23.

Hey, look! We’ve made it though 3 verses. These are Bible bites, after all. Next time we’ll take on John 9:4-7.

This past Sunday, I was slated to deliver a message at a local jail, during the Sunday evening chapel service. Unfortunately, an incident occurred at the jail on Saturday, causing the facility to be on “lock-down” for three days. My next opportunity to speak there is more than a month a way, so I thought I’d use this prolonged preparation opportunity by sharing my message with you in more detail than the time constraints of the aforementioned venue would allow…

My text for this message is the Gospel of John, Chapter 9. We read in the first two verses:

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

The question of the disciples was not unusual, seeing as they likely grew-up in the shadow of a religious tradition that taught that birth defects were the result of sin. If the parents were found to be blameless, then it must have been the child himself who sinned in utero - perhaps by kicking his mother too violently while in the womb; so taught the religious leaders of that era.

Today, people grasp for answers to similar questions, such as “Why do bad things happen to good people?” Ultimately, they are asking “If God is good, why is there evil in the world?” Now a question like that makes a few, rather unfounded, assumptions: First, it assumes that the person asking the question is a fair judge of “good” and “evil”. I find that ironic, since often the same people who pose such questions also believe in moral relativism. If morals are something invented by individuals and their collective society, how can they expect someone outside of their community - a supernatural being, no less - to conform to their view of morality? Next (by implication), it assumes that the person has knowledge of “good” and “evil” apart from God. That is, it assumes that God, if He exists, should not only conform to their view, but be subject to it - that is, that the questioner is in a position to both prescribe moral behavior to, and find fault with God. If that be the case, then God would not be a God at all, but a servant of men’s desires; which - in a convoluted way - is likely their point, i.e., God doesn’t conform to my image, therefore He must not exist. Utter silliness.

In typical fashion, the entirely unexpected answer of Jesus is quite profound. To be continued in Part 2.