|
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER VOLUME 6, NUMBER 7, FEBRUARY 19, 2006 A MAN BORN BLIND (JOHN 9) PART 1 In John 9 we read the account of the healing of a man who had been born blind. We do not know exactly where in the city of Jerusalem this event took place. Since we are told in v. 8 that this man “sat and begged” it is possible that it occurred near the main entrance to the temple. As Jesus passed by He saw this man who had been born blind. His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” This question gives us some insight into a commonly held belief among the Jewish people of that time. It was generally held that all suffering was retributive, the result of sin. Some have suggested that the disciples’ question also indicates a possible belief in the transmigration of souls; that perhaps this man had sinned in some previous existing state. However, there is nothing to indicate that they knew this man had been blind from birth. They thought he was blind as the result of some sin in his life, or perhaps his parents had sinned before he was born and his blindness was punishment to them. (This type of thinking is also found in Luke 12:1-5.) Jesus responded with, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.” The Lord’s answer is not to be taken to mean that the man or his parents were not sinners. It simply means that their sins were not the cause of his blindness. Rather, it was part of the providential plan of God and through him the mighty power of God was going to be revealed. Lest any should question the “fairness” of God in this circumstance, it would be good to consider what happened with this man as pointed out in verses 35-38. The passage says, “Jesus heard that they had put him out; and finding him, He said, Do you believe in the Son of Man? He answered and said, And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him? Jesus said to him, You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him.” Jesus’ method of cure was somewhat unusual in this case. He spat upon the ground, made clay of the spittle, and anointed the man’s eyes. Then He gave him instructions to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. Perhaps several things can be said of the Lord’s approach in this case. (1) It served as an aid to the man’s faith. He could feel that something was being done for him. (2) It helped to draw attention to the miracle by raising the expectation of any who saw it. (3) It also served to bring Jesus into conflict with the Sabbath traditions of the Jews, both by applying the clay and the man going to wash it off. The man obeyed the Lord, washed, and was cured. * A word about the pool of Siloam. “Siloam (sent; specially a sending of water through an aqueduct.) A pool at Jerusalem; probably identical with Shiloah, the waters of which go softly (Isa. 8:6), and the pool of Shelah, which was by the king’s garden (Neh. 3:15). Josephus says that it was situated at the extremity of the valley of cheesemongers, near a bend of the old wall beneath Ophlas, i.e. Ophel. The name is preserved in the Birket Silwan, which occupies the general site of the ancient pool. It is a rectangular reservoir, 58 feet long, 18 broad, and 19 deep, built of masonry, the western side of which has considerably broken down.” (Davis Dictionary of the Bible, p. 763) I would suppose that a man born blind who suddenly received his sight would have a slightly altered appearance. That, coupled with the impossibility of the cure, probably led to the confusion of his neighbors. “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” they asked. “This is he” some said; while others stated, “No, but he is like him.” The man himself said, “I am the one.” This led to the obvious question, “How then were your eyes opened?” The man’s response was direct and to the point, containing only the facts with no embellishment. “The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me, Go to Siloam, and wash; so I went away and washed, and I received sight.” This led his neighbors to want to see how the Pharisees would react. After all, the cure had been wrought on the Sabbath day, and Jesus had made that clay. The Pharisees also asked the man how he had received his sight and he told them, “He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” The reaction demonstrates that not all of the Pharisees viewed Jesus in the same way. Some stressed the Jewish tradition in the face of the evidence and declared Jesus to be a sinner because He had done this on the Sabbath day. Others recognized the significance of the miracle and declared that a sinner could not do these things. Thus there was division concerning Jesus even among the Pharisees. They turned again to the man and said, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” The healed man’s response was “He is a prophet.” This was a very logical deduction and shows that the man’s faith was progressing as he listened to the arguments of the Pharisees and considered carefully the ramifications of what had happened to him. The discussion was not at all going the way the Pharisees desired it to go so they chose to deny the cure. They denied that the man had been born blind and had miraculously received his sight. They even called for his parents and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?” That’s a good question, and we are going to resume this study next week with their answer.
Greg Litmer
|