This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom

The Gospel of John – 20 – Blind Men's Bluff – Daily Wisdom

The Gospel of John – Part 3 Authentication Of The Word – Blind Men’s Bluff

Today we continue our series, the Good News according to John the Apostle. Last week, we saw Jesus declaring, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” In addition, we learned when we follow that light, we can live in spiritual freedom  32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

—9:1—

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 

John provides very little detail about the time and place of this encounter because it is a logical continuation of Jesus’ escalating clash with the religious elite in Jerusalem. However, we know it occurred after the Feast of Tabernacles (September/October) and before Hanukkah (November/December), somewhere near Jerusalem, outside the temple complex.

John presents the episode as spontaneous because Jesus did not have a meeting in His appointment calendar. The apostle gives the impression that the encounter was a mere coincidence, but make no mistake, the air of randomness is intentional. John allows us to accept the incident as haphazard, only to reveal the truth. Whereas sin has stirred the world into a chaotic mess,/ the Creator interjects order. Where the sinful world system randomly and capriciously causes affliction,/ the Lord gives purpose to misfortune—for His glory and the good of those who believe. Some things never change.

—9:2–4—

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

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.

(Theme song Work for the Night is Coming)

In those days, it was a custom for people with disabilities to claim spots along a well-traveled street leading to the temple—and this is still a common sight near religious sites today in the middle east. While the man born blind undoubtedly joined many others that day, he drew the disciples’ attention more than his peers, probably because his condition was congenital rather than the result of disease or injury. His disability aroused their curiosity.

The disciples’ question reflected a common understanding of sin in first-century Judaism, which is still sadly common today. The disciples saw the man’s affliction as the just penalty for someone’s sin, either his or his parents. It’s human nature to find someone to blame.

The Pharisees and Sadducees regarded misfortune as the direct result of someone’s sin. The religious world attempts to reduce life to easily quantifiable terms in which good earn blessing while affliction is the just penalty of wrongdoing. It’s the basis of kings claiming “divine right” and an easy excuse to ignore those needing mercy.

We mustn’t be too hard on the disciples; they merely understood the world as it had been taught. Their theology resulted from generations of blind men leading other blind men. (title) Their treatment of the man saddens me more than their ignorance. The disciples looked upon the man born blind as nothing more than an interesting theological case study, not a fellow human in need of compassion. Their lack of emotion disturbs me. Don’t we sometimes have the same mindset and use it as an excuse not to help others? (1st picture on insert)

Jesus answered the question directly and then gave the disciples a theological principle that can be applied to any instance of affliction or hardship. God did not cause this man’s affliction; the fallen world did that. Nevertheless, the Lord gave this man’s affliction a divine purpose before anything had been created. The blind man lay at the intersection of the fallen world’s affliction and God’s preordained choice to turn his blindness into an occasion for rejoicing; he lay waiting for the preordained moment when Christ would “happen by” and then fulfill His Father’s mission.

Take note of the Lord’s use of pronouns in this literal translation of 9:4: As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.  The “work of God” is to bring salvation to humanity to redeem those who will believe. Jesus came to complete the work of God through specific deeds in complete obedience, and He calls us to do the same. The Lord then used the images of day and night to warn that His time on earth would end soon—which illustrates another theological truth: the time of grace is limited before the world suffers the ultimate judgment of God.

—9:5–7—

5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

6 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7 “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

As soon as Jesus finished correcting His disciples’ faulty theology, He declared again, “I am the Light of the world,” and then He gave the man sight. (put gloves on) He spat on the ground, mixed it with the substance of man’s creation (Gen. 2:7) (sprinkle dirt – make mud), and smeared the clay over the man’s eyes. In this single act, Jesus asserted His authority over disabilities, sin, bad theology, religion, the temple, the Sabbath, and even the religious leaders who opposed Him. And He had this opportunity because this blind man, as an infant, came into the world decades earlier without the ability to see.

We can only speculate as to why the Lord used a mixture of saliva and clay to heal the man. The method is similar to the magical formula for healing in the greek sanitarium. And to His method for healing others (Mark 7:33 tongue; 8:23 spit on eyes). We are never told why Jesus sent the man to wash in the pool. John adds an editorial note that the Hebrew name is based on the verb “Sent,” but we don’t know why he considered this important.

It would be idle speculation to guess about things we don’t know. However, we know this: /the Father sent Jesus, /Jesus sent the blind man to the pool with specific instructions, /the man followed Jesus’ instructions to the letter, /and he received sight just as promised.

—9:8–12—

8 His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” 9 Some claimed that he was.

Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”

But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”

10 “How then were your eyes opened?” they asked.

11 He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.”

12 “Where is this man?” they asked him. “I don’t know,” he said.

Try to imagine the scene. The man’s community undoubtedly knew him well because his begging for alms had made him a fixture for many years. His whole life, the Pharisees pitied him for his sin-inflicted malady, /the Sadducees tsked in condescending approval of God’s justice,/ a few showed compassion, /and others silenced their jingling coins as they tiptoed by. Then, one day, this same man suddenly bounded into the temple without his stick and beggar’s basket, marveling at the splendor of God’s house. Remarkably, worshipers noticed a familiar face yet failed to see the truth of what had occurred.

We see plenty of debate /and hear lots of questions, /but where is the excitement? Where is the joy on behalf of this man who had been miraculously healed? They dragged him to an inquisition instead of leading him to a celebration. He was made to stand before the Pharisees to answer for his healing as though he had done something wrong.

From the Pharisees’ point of view, something was indeed very wrong. You will recall the disciples’ original question, which began with the widely held assumption that physical affliction was proof positive that someone had sinned and was suffering God’s judgment. The man’s sudden and miraculous healing threw doubt into everything the Pharisees knew about God, sin, and justice. Did the Lord change His mind? Did He set aside justice? Was the man no longer guilty of sin? So theological questions eclipsed joyous celebration.

—9:13–17—

13 They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14 Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. 15 Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.”

16 Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.”

But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

17 Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.”

John’s narrative typically compresses time. Verse 14 suggests the man’s inquisition occurred sometime after the Sabbath, perhaps a few days later. When asked how he had received his sight, he merely recounted the events, which established the pattern for the balance of their interaction. The Pharisees wanted the man to answer theologically; however, the man held tightly to the facts. While the Pharisees tried to spin the facts to fit their preconceived notions, the man wouldn’t budge from his bottom-line perspective except to say that Jesus was a “prophet”— one sent from God to proclaim His Word.

—9:18–23—

18 They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. 19 “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”

20 “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. 21 But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” 22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. 23 That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

The Pharisees had a problem on their hands. They desperately needed to discredit Jesus to maintain moral superiority before the people. Yet, even according to their tradition, only an authentic man of God can work miraculous “signs” (3:2; 9:16). Therefore, the miracle must be discredited. Because the man would not cooperate, the religious leaders summoned his parents, hoping to uncover additional facts supporting their intentions.

This was not a search for truth. This was a deliberate sifting of facts, in which inconvenient evidence was set aside in favor of what would build a damning case against the Pharisees’ enemy, Jesus Christ.

The Pharisees’ campaign of fear and intimidation was well-known, so the parents would offer nothing more than the barest facts, instead deferring to their son. They said, “He is not our responsibility; if someone is to be punished for his testimony, punish him.”

—9:24–29—

24 A second time, they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.”

25 He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind, but now I see!”

26 Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”

27 He answered, “I have told you already, and you did not listen. So why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?”

28 Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”

(2nd Picture insert)

The Pharisees struggled to build a case against Jesus, leading them to desperation. Despite the overwhelming evidence, their opening statement at the man’s second inquisition reveals their predetermined conclusion. Take note of the exchange. The Pharisees tried to persuade the man to agree with their conclusion that Jesus was a “sinner,” but he kept returning to the facts. So, the Pharisees attempted to sift through the facts again, perhaps to find an inconsistency in the man’s testimony. The man’s response (9:27) highlighted the absurdity of the questioning. This angered the Pharisees, who then resorted to intimidation and personal attack.

—9:30–34—

30 The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. 32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

34 To this, they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

At the beginning of the inquisition, man maintained a neutral stance concerning Jesus. The question of Jesus’ identity and whether or not He was a sinner didn’t affect him. He knew only what his experience told him: once he was blind, now he could see. By the end, however, the Pharisees’ absurd quest to condemn Jesus pushed the man closer to genuine belief. His final response to the Pharisees could not have been more different from that of the invalid by the Bethesda Pool, who informed the leaders that it was Jesus. (5:11–15).

The contrast between the man and the Pharisees could not have been more conspicuous, which he highlighted in his final speech. The religious leaders knew the Scriptures better than anyone and had been trained in Hebrew history and theology. Yet, the man born blind (supposedly because of God’s punishment for sin) had no difficulty putting the facts together to arrive at an obvious conclusion. Moreover, his response rested upon the theological traditions the Pharisees held most dear.

By the end of the inquisition, the Pharisees had no option but to set aside the facts and play their trump card: their superior position of power. In my experience, it is a clear admission of defeat when someone starts quoting from their resume during a debate. It’s even more apparent when that person resorts to using power to silence their opponent. The Pharisees admitted, “We don’t have an answer, so we’ll excommunicate him.”

—9:35–38—

35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

36 “Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.”

37 Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.”

38 Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

(3rd picture insert)

The man’s unwillingness to set aside the truth about Jesus parallels the miracle of sight. He wanted to see Jesus as He was, whereas the Pharisees wanted an excuse to reject Jesus. Yet, while the man demonstrated uncommon courage despite the grave consequences of ex-communication, he did not know Christ as Savior. Therefore, Jesus “found” him (see 1:41–45; 5:14). By that time, his heart had been prepared for the Lord’s invitation, so his immediate response was worship.

—9:39–41—

39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment, I have come into this world so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

This point was not lost on the Pharisees, who challenged Jesus with the question, “What? Are we blind too?” The structure of the question in the original language indicates that the person asking, anticipates a negative response. In other words, the Pharisees expected Jesus to say, “Why, no, of course, you are not blind.” But Jesus didn’t cooperate—He knew them to be spiritually blind.

Jesus’ response forms a paradox. Those spiritually blind do not think they are missing anything and deny their need. Those who “see” admit their need for spiritual sight. Spiritually blind people conceal their sinfulness to bluff themselves and everyone else into thinking they do not need salvation. People with spiritual sight readily recognize their sinfulness and desperate need for a Savior.

This story of the man born blind, who received sight, and the Pharisees, who bluffed their way through blindness, reminds me of an old saying I learned as a child: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” John warned of this in his prologue in John 1:9-13:

9 The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He came into the very world he created, but the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own people, and even they rejected him. 12 But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. 13 They are reborn—not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God.

APPLICATION: JOHN 9:1–41

How to Respond to Intimidation

The man born blind encountered a dilemma after the Lord gave him sight. Cave to the intimidation or hold to the truth. The religious experts who ruled over the temple could not deny the miracle, so they pressured the man to silence his testimony and thus discredit Jesus. But the man refused to play their game.

In the man’s response, I see a four-point worthy model to follow when someone in authority tries to silence the truth through intimidation. (Bulletin Insert)

First, the man appealed to undeniable facts (9:15, 25, 32). It says, “The truth is your real threat, not me.”

Second, the man answered directly, yet briefly (9:17). Answering directly and briefly leaves enemies of truth less ammunition to destroy their target.

Third, the man refused to argue (9:26–27). Refusing to argue denies enemies of truth any opportunity to turn a debate into a personal matter.

Fourth, the man remained fearless and resolved (9:30–33). Resolving to hold tightly to the truth deprives enemies of the truth of the power to intimidate.

By the end of this encounter, the religious elite made themselves look foolish when their tactics failed to accomplish anything. Having been defeated by truth, they fell back on their flimsy credentials and then abused their power (9:34). While the man suffered some negative consequences, he gained more than he lost. His separation from a corrupt religious institution gave him new life in Jesus Christ. Now this man could not only see physically. His eyes were open to the truth of Jesus Christ. That is the lesson for today’s passage which is summed up once again in 8:32 & 36 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Next Sunday, Jesus teaches us He is the good shepherd in a message titled,  “The Living Door.” Please read John 10:1-42 in preparation for next week’s message.