A Man Born Blind
Preaching
A BUCKET FULL OF MIRACLES
Preaching The Miracles Of Jesus
As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man's eyes, saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see.
The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, "Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?" Some were saying, "It is he." Others were saying, "No, but it is someone like him." He kept saying, "I am the man." But they kept asking him, "Then how were your eyes opened?" He answered, "The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and said to me, 'Go to Siloam and wash.' Then I went and washed and received my sight." They said to him, "Where is he?" He said, "I do not know."
They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also began to ask him how he had received his sight. He said to them, "He put mud on my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see." Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not observe the sabbath." But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?" And they were divided. So they said again to the blind man, "What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened." He said, "He is a prophet."
The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?" His parents answered, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself." His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."
So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and they said to him, "Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner." He answered, "I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see." They said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" He answered them, "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?" Then they reviled him, saying, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from." The man answered, "Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." They answered him, "You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?" And they drove him out.
Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered, "And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him." Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he." He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped him.
Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not blind, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
This is the story of a miracle that is important mostly as the beginning of the real action of the story. Most often the miracle itself is the centerpiece of the story, but in this instance the focus is on people's reaction to the man who was healed, not the healing itself.
This can make the lesson easier as a subject for a sermon by providing an alternative to a miraculous healing which can easily be dismissed. A focus on the reactions of the audience can translate quite easily into a contemporary view of modern reactions to Jesus and the stories we hear of his actions.
Further, it is possible to consider this miracle story as John presents it as an allegory of the mission of Jesus. Many elements of the story are strikingly meaningful, leading to the idea that John presents it as holding more meaning than we expect to find in a simple story. It is quite likely that the details have been heightened to present a second, allegorical level of meaning for the readers and hearers of this text.
Finally, this lesson comes on the Fourth Sunday In Lent. As a season of great solemnity and somberness, Lent stands largely alone. Advent, in modern usage, often follows the Lenten lead, but the general tenor of the secular festivities at the time usually undermines an effort to maintain the solemnity. Lent, coming at a time of the year which is often characterized by dreary weather and a dearth of holidays, has less secular competition in establishing a mood of solemnity.
Sundays, as commemorations of Easter, are not counted as part of the forty days of Lent. In the liturgical tradition, Lenten fasts are punctuated by relief on Sundays, which results in the fact that an accurate liturgical understanding often confuses those not familiar with the traditional interpretation of the season. The Fourth Sunday In Lent is, traditionally, a day for a more celebratory worship. Often known as Laetare or Refreshment Sunday, the mood of this Sunday is less solemn and more joyful than the other Sundays of this season, a theme of this day which is somewhat muted in this lesson, but still present.
About The Text
This is one of the miracles of the Gospel of John, likely derived from a source commonly known as the Gospel of Signs. The liturgical calendar picks up the last three signs of this text in this year, with this being the fifth of the seven signs; the raising of Lazarus being the sixth, and the entry into Jerusalem being the concluding sign. Even though the Johannine use of the signs source is somewhat obscured by the insertion of the Marcan account of the entry into Jerusalem, the general outline is still apparent here.
Most commentators are quite clear that the text of the gospel has been modified and edited into its present form, in large part to make the story better able to serve the evangelist's purposes. Those purposes are highlighted in the sermonic possibilities listed below.
Words
who sinned - The question posed by the disciples is very much the sort of question that might be asked by students of a teacher for clarification. The question also assumes the general understanding of that time and of many people before and since, namely that blindness, and other physical deformities, illnesses, and even financial and relational problems are the direct result of sinful conduct. This attitude is based in a variety of traditions, some Jewish, others from other religious traditions, which speak to the appealing nature of a cause and effect understanding of individual problems - sinful behavior leads to physical punishment. One source of the tradition is in the tractate On the Sabbath among the writings of the Talmud, which explains that there is no death without sin, no punishment without guilt.
This is quite a logical question to ask, therefore, about a man born blind. By virtue of his disability, the blind man is the very image of sinfulness (v. 34). The only question seems to be, "Who is the author of the sin, the man or his parents?"
The possibility of sinning before birth was likely regarded at the time as a probable cause, even if written sources discussing this possibility seem to date somewhat later than the life of Jesus. What is not being considered is the possibility of a sinful previous life or some sort of transmigration of sinful souls, which was absurd in the Judaism of the time, even if it was a part of the philosophical discussions of the time. It has been suggested that these absurdities might have been precisely what the question was meant to imply, so that the answer of Jesus could highlight the absurdity of the dogmatic understanding of the effects of sinful behavior.
spat - The Greek verb used here is also an example of onomatopoeia in the original. The root form is ptuo, which certainly emulates a common sound of expectoration.
Siloam (which means Sent) - With a certain level of irony, the one who was sent by God (v. 4), in turn, sends the blind man to the Pool of Siloam, the name of which is said to mean "sent." The name refers to the water in the pool, which was "sent" into the city of Jerusalem from the spring Gihon. Thus, the Pool of Siloam contained "sent" water; water which did not originate there.
The explanations, of both the reason for the man's birth defect and the name of the pool are regarded as editorial additions by the evangelist, which serve as clear indications that the story has a deeper meaning, to the point that it can be considered as an allegory for the sacrament of baptism. In this instance, the point seems to be that the washing of baptism allows Christians to see more clearly than even those who have been raised with the Word of God as disciples of Moses.
I am - In Exodus 3:15 Moses inquires of the burning bush what name he should use when the people back in Egypt ask who sent him to them. The voice from the bush responds, in the Septuagint, "ego emi." This is the emphatic form in Greek, including the pronoun ego, which can also be assumed as part of the verb emi. It is stated for effect.
In the New Testament the phrase ego emi appears 48 times, with fully half of the appearances being found in the Gospel of John (24 of 48). About half of the remaining occurrences are found in the other gospels, with the remaining instances being found in Acts and Revelation. The phrase is usually assumed to signify, particularly in John, Jesus's claim to divinity, or, at the least, to the role of a divinely inspired messenger. Here, in verse 9, the term is used not by Jesus, however, but by the man born blind.
In verses 4 and 5, Jesus responds to the disciples' question with a phrase that sounds similar, but which is only the verb form in the Greek. The pronoun is not explicitly stated in Jesus' words, leading to the conclusion that these uses are not intended as claims of anything by Jesus, but merely as a normal verbal usage.
The use of the phrase by the man born blind is likely attributable to the dramatic nature of the argument swirling around the man, with some of his neighbors insisting he is who he says he is, and others saying he is only someone like himself. Into this argument, one which likely is escalating to ever louder voices and perhaps into the threats of violence, the man shouts the words ego emi! The use of that particular phrase would almost certainly silence the argument for the moment, either due to the nature of the words or due to the emphasis implied in the construction.
the Pharisees - The most progressive party in Judaism in the time of Jesus, composed largely of lawyers and legal experts who tried to live according to the Law. While some members of this group became followers of Jesus, they are regularly reported as being in opposition to his activities, as happens here. In John it is more common for the opposition to Jesus to be described as "the Jews," but the Pharisees are also used as foils for Jesus in both John and the other gospels. The Pharisees were not as strict in their legal interpretations as the residents of Qumran seem to have been, and in fact, it seems they were regularly criticized by the Qumranites for their lax interpretations of the Law.
Sabbath day - The Sabbath was, traditionally, timed from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. According to verse 14, Jesus broke the law of Sabbath observance twice on this occasion - first by making the mud by mixing spittle and dirt, and second by curing the man's blindness. Humanitarian considerations aside, healing on the Sabbath was forbidden unless a life was in danger. Additionally, a slightly later legal opinion included the idea that anointing an individual's eyes was not permitted on the Sabbath as well. These three breaches of the Sabbath Law, while each a serious offense, might be permissible under some interpretations, but more serious charges were made in verse 16. Here the unmentioned legal point is from Deuteronomy 13:2--6, where any worker of signs, no matter how effective, who leads people away from God is to be put to death. The subtext here is the leveling of a charge which, if proved to apply, could result in Jesus' death.
sinner - A sinner is someone who does not follow the laws of the Jews, at least as they were understood and promulgated by the Pharisees. While there are differing bases for the judgment, it is clear that both sides in the Pharisee camp judged Jesus to be a sinner. The question that divided them was what sort of sin was he most guilty of.
For what it is worth, the idea that a sinner is not able to perform signs is not exactly a tenet of the Jewish tradition. The Pharonic sorcerers imitated the signs of Aaron (Exodus 7:8--12) early plagues of Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:22 and 8:7). Further, the implication of Deuteronomy 13:2--6 clearly indicates the ability of false prophets to work wonders, an idea confirmed by Jesus' words in Matthew 24:24.
Ask him, he is of age - In some ways this statement and the reason given for it in verse 22 call the dialog here into question. There is very little evidence of legislation which excluded followers of Christ from the synagogue in the first half of the first century. Only toward the end of the first century did such legislation take effect. This leads to questions of the historicity of the account, a concern not shared by the evangelist. In his writing, John is addressing the situation of the church at the time of composition, and adjusting conflicts to reflect the situation at the time of composition seems to be a preferred way to communicate to his readers. Historicity, at least in the modern sense, is not one of the evangelist's concerns. Aside from the statement that the man born blind is of age, i.e., thirteen years old, there is no further indication of his age.
Give glory to God! - This is really a technical term which means "Tell the truth," in the spirit of Joshua 7:9.
disciples of Moses - The phrase is somewhat difficult. It is not commonly used of rabbinic scholars, although it is used on occasion for Pharisaic scholars in opposition to Sadducean scholars. The issue here, and regularly in the synoptics, is the disparity between Moses and Jesus, who is often presented as a new Moses.
In John, the miracles are meant to prove Jesus' authority, and the issue here is that the followers of Moses are unable to discern that the Son of Man is working these signs for their benefit, so that they might believe. As he heals the blind man, the eyes of the leaders of the Jewish establishment are blind to the arrival of the Messiah. In Johannine language, when the incarnate light comes to them, they remain in the darkness.
believe in - The Greek word normally translated as believe is somewhat odd in its use. The word requires an object be expressed with it to express the subject of the belief. Typically this is expressed, as here, with a phrase beginning with the word "in." Belief must, according to the language, always be anchored in something or someone. The more modern concept of belief, that it is possible to believe in believing, is impossible to express in Greek.
Parallels
The Gospel of John is relatively unique. Only very brief snippets have much in common with the synoptics. This is one of the portions of John which actually does have some parallels, both internally to John 5, and to the two stories in Mark of healing a blind man (as well as the parallels to the second story in Matthew and Luke).
In John 5:1--18, 19, and 30, it is possible to see a number of similarities to the lesson. Both stories are, of course, taken from the Signs Gospel, both take place in the Jerusalem area, both involve restoring the sight of a blind man who did not ask for healing, both events took place on a Sabbath, both stories result in opposition from the Jews, and both stories involve extensive editorial additions from the evangelist.
Beyond this list of similarities, there is no reason to attempt to identify any literary parallels between the two accounts. The similarities might serve to call the independence of the two events into mild question, but it is not necessary to assume that only one miracle lies behind the two stories.
Mark 8:22--26 is the story, unique to Mark, of the two--step healing of a blind man at Bethsaida. It is interesting that the name of the village is similar to the name of the pool in John 5:2, and involves the use of spittle (John 9:6, spittle and mud) as an agent in the healing. Beyond these surface similarities, there is little more that parallels the action in John 9.
Another parallel in Mark 10:46--52 (and the parallels in Matthew 20:29--34 and Luke 18:35--45) is somewhat more interesting. While it provides no more evidence of literary parallels than the other sections already examined, it places the healing of a blind man in the area of Jericho, the last stop in Mark before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This chronological placement parallels John's placement in the story. In John, Jesus proceeds to Bethany, where he raises Lazarus and rests before the events of the final week. The slight delay in John does not obviate the obvious similarity in timing between the synoptic and Johannine accounts.
It is likely that the recounting of a healing story of a blind man not long before the culmination of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem was a part of the tradition from a very early date. Further, it is likely that the timing of the events reflected in John and the synoptics reflects something approaching the actual historical sequence of events.
The People
As Individuals
The man born blind is an interesting character. His age is, beyond the mere fact that he is at least thirteen, indeterminate. On the other hand, once his sight has been restored, he sees quite clearly. Without introductions, he is able to identify Jesus as the one who opened his eyes, and in verse 35 he recognizes Jesus in the flesh without, apparently, ever having seen him. The question of how he would know what Jesus looked like, considering the long--distance nature of the miracle, is a question the text does not answer, or even address.
It is reasonable to suspect that others in the crowd would supply the information to the man. In fact, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a contingent of the crowd accompanied the man to the Pool of Siloam to observe the results of the miracle. When the man was able to see, the crowd could easily have supplied the gaps in his knowledge.
More interesting is the man's refusal to get into a theological discussion with the Pharisees until provoked. Rather than theologizing, the man sticks to the bare facts in his first interview (John 9:13--17). Even the assertion in verse 17, "He is a prophet," is somewhat ambiguous. The prophets were not noted for healing miracles, with the exception of Elijah and Elisha (and possibly Isaiah, see 38:21). What seems to be indicated here is an affirmation by the man born blind that Jesus has the divine power of a prophet.
In his second interview (John 9:24--34) the man begins in the same way, sticking entirely to the facts of the case without editorial comment. Then, in verse 27, the man is obviously tired of being the subject of a Pharisaic investigation and he flares into irony - "Do you also want to become his disciples?" The implication is that the man is already a disciple of Jesus, apparently and simply by virtue of being the recipient of a healing.
The Pharisees react predictably to the jibe from the man, and he then confronts them with the central truth of the incident. The theological comments make the point of the evangelist quite clearly, and lead to yet another disparaging comment from the Pharisees before they expel him from their presence (and perhaps from the synagogue, or traditional Jewish circles as well).
After this stirring defense of the actions of Jesus and the implications of them, there is a final confrontation between Jesus and the man, in which the man is once again less than completely clear about what has happened, or at least about the identity of Jesus. Once the situation is explained to him, he quickly professes belief in Christ.
The parents of the man are actually worried about a situation that wasn't present in the time of Jesus, namely being expelled from the synagogue. It is possible that they were also somewhat concerned about another problem. At the time, the commandment to honor parents was understood to mean making provisions for a person's parents in their old age. A person was adjudged to have fulfilled the commandment when provisions were made for this support.
It is possible to hear a touch of bitterness in the parents' comment - "Ask him, he is of age" (John 9:21). If the man born blind is of age, he should be providing some support for his parents, but as someone with a disability, it is more likely that his parents were still providing some portion of support for their adult son. In this case, the problem sounds quite modern, when many grandparents suddenly find their "golden years" devoted to caring for their adult children and younger grandchildren as a matter of necessity which is imposed on them.
The Pharisees are the epitome of obstinate antagonists for Jesus. They find themselves unable to understand the basic mechanism by which a person they judge to be a sinner can perform such actions. At the conclusion of this lesson, the Pharisees are confounded and are obviously the blind ones. More than simply another disparagement of the Pharisees, this use also provides a prelude to the plot hatched in John 11:45--53, as well as an inherent explanation for the inability of Caiaphas to understand the true implications of his prophetic statement in the meeting that developed the plot (John 11:49--50). Placing the Pharisees in the larger context of this gospel provides another view of the skilled editorship and literary ability of the evangelist.
As Images And Signs
Since John 1:4, the image of light has been associated with the Word of God and Jesus. In John 1:5, a theme of this gospel is enunciated - The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. And the ninth chapter of the gospel expands on that single sentence, providing a fully detailed story about the struggle between the light and darkness, complete with details of the struggle and applications to the lives of the readers (and hearers) of the lesson.
When we understand this story as an allegory, which is one way (not the only way) to understand what the evangelist is doing here, it becomes clear that Jesus, the light of the world, gives light to the man who has been living in darkness for his entire life. This miraculous event causes problems for the custodians of the Mosaic tradition (the Pharisees) because the healing takes place on the Sabbath, an obvious breach of the law. As a lawbreaker, also known as a sinner, it seems obvious to the Pharisees that the sinful man Jesus couldn't possibly have accomplished a miracle with God's blessing.
This inability to grasp the miracle as proof of Jesus' authority is a sign of the blindness of the Pharisees, a problem which is, in reality, much more serious than the physical blindness of the man who was healed. As is a common theme in Luke, and other gospels, this is a reversal of what people might expect to hear from Jesus. The "common--sense" understandings of the Pharisees are stood on end by the successful healing on the Sabbath. They, and in fact the man born blind as well, had always understood that no sinner could possibly perform such mighty acts as healing.
Starting from the fact that Jesus was clearly a sinner who had obviously broken the Sabbath Law, the Pharisees were unable to understand what was happening in the ministry of Jesus. The man born blind, on the other hand, began with his newly restored eyesight, and reasoned that because he could see, the man who had accomplished this miraculous feat had to be someone who worshiped God and obeyed his will (John 9:31). Thus, two participants, the Pharisees and the subject of the miracle, both examine the same facts and use the same assumption to arrive at totally different conclusions.
In their efforts to resolve the conflict, the Pharisees accuse the man of lying to them. They go so far as to summon the man's parents to verify his story that he was, in fact, born blind. When it checks out, all they can do is to eject the man from their fellowship. They are unable to resolve the basic problem they are facing. Their problems simply multiply as they insist on beginning with the nature of the worker of the miracle.
The man has a much simpler resolution. He can see suddenly, and he is absolutely convinced of the character of the person who caused this miracle in his life. Newly able to even see light, he is now a devoted follower of that light. All problems have been resolved when he begins with the results of the miracle.
The evaluation of Jesus as a sinner by the Pharisees might be a troublesome picture for some people. The religious authorities of his day had little or no difficulty in so labeling him, and the charges are presented here with no particularly obvious effort to refute the charges. It certainly seems possible that the need to present a perfectly sinless Jesus was not as strongly felt by the evangelist as it has been felt by some apologists after the gospel was completed.
There are two ways to understand the technical breach of the Sabbath recounted in this account, two defenses which might be offered for such behavior. The first is that offered by Mark when the disciples plucked some grain and ate it on the Sabbath. This act of harvesting was the basis for accusations by the Pharisees and the cause of a defense by Jesus based on David's actions in 1 Samuel 21:1--7. Jesus summarizes by stating that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). This is a rather more relaxed attitude than that of even the Pharisees, in which the strict rules of the Sabbath observance are made secondary to the needs of people, particularly the need for healing by the man born blind in this instance.
In Matthew's version of the incident recounted by Mark, Jesus' comment on the Sabbath is omitted, but a more legalistic justification is offered. The priests in the temple are required to make a Sabbath offering (Numbers 28:9--10), which is a form of work. However, as this is the work of God, the priests are held guiltless of breaking the Sabbath (Matthew12:5). In order to do the work of God, it is, therefore, considered acceptable, or at least guiltless to break the Sabbath.
Either of these justifications might be understood in the lesson here, but neither is stated explicitly.
The Action
In The Story
The lesson begins with some interesting points. First, there is little visible connection between what comes before in John 8 and this incident. Events simply begin, with little indication of setting or effort to connect with what has gone before. This has led some to suggest the story should be found in some other location within the gospel. The story simply begins with Jesus and the disciples walking along when they happen to see a man who was blind from birth.
Another interesting point involves the initial confrontation with the man. From the miracle stories of the synoptics, most people are very used to hearing a request for healing as a prelude to the actual healing. In fact, we are so used to hearing the request that when it is not present, it is easy to assume it was really there. But, in fact, the man born blind does not ask for a miracle. In fact, whether he might have asked for one or not, from the rest of the story it is clear he has heard very little, perhaps nothing about Jesus prior to the events recounted here. And even if he had heard of him, he has no idea of which individual might be the person he has heard about.
There is no request here. Rather, the picture presented is a rather impersonal one. Jesus finds a blind man begging at the side of the road, the disciples ask a question, and Jesus heals the man's blindness. This simple act, and the day of the week on which it took place, cause two separate sets of difficulties.
First, the Pharisees, the religious authorities of the day, had substantial problems with the fact that a healing (work) took place on the Sabbath. Work is forbidden on the Sabbath, and even if humanitarian considerations make this seem a rather harsh restriction, it should be noted that acts which resulted in healing, but were required to save a life, were not forbidden. It was acts such as the one Jesus performed with the unfortunate man born blind which should, to conform to the requirements of the law, be postponed until the next day.
Much of the problem the Pharisees had has been examined previously, including the issue of a healing, by definition a manifestation of God's power, accomplished as the result of a sinful act. Further, the action took place outside the religious establishment. As the plot in John 11:45--57 is hatched and unfolds, it is the religious establishment that provides the leadership which opposes Jesus and plots and finally clamors for his death. The present incident is certainly one that encourages the Pharisaic leaders to desire the end of Jesus' ministry.
In this incident, we can profitably note that the Pharisees spend most of their time trying to shake the story of the man born blind, to prove him a liar and charlatan by interviewing his parents, and finally by having a loud argument with the man. The problem here can be seen as an effort by the Pharisees to avoid facing the real problem, the true source of their discomfort - Jesus.
In The Hearers
The second difficulty in this story is one which is basic to all the stories of miracles in the New Testament. Why are miracle stories included? In the Gospel of John, the purpose is quite clearly stated - "Jesus did this, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him" (John 2:11). Miracles in this gospel are meant to create belief (see, for example, John 4:53b; 6:2, 14, and 30). The difficulty here is encapsulated in Jesus' answer to the disciples' question - "He was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him" (John 9:3). This answer brings to mind a rather unflattering picture of God, who creates people with severe deformities and disabilities so they will be available later as subjects for demonstrations of God's power. This is a rather dismal view of God, and not a very comforting one. Suffering and personal anguish are not taken into account. People are discounted and diminished to the point of being mere props to be used to make a point.
The theological point here is strictly limited to miracles as a cause for belief. In the context of this lesson, the miracle and the reactions of the characters in the story emphasize the various ways in which belief can be brought forth. Not all the reactions are a growing belief in Jesus. Not that this disparity of reactions is unexpected in John (see John 6:60--71 for another example of this tendency). In many ways, this story is not meant to be an historical account of individual people, but a story which illustrates the way belief works itself out in life. As such, it is not appropriate to the push the story too far and demand a humanitarian understanding of all the characters in the story.
The Sermon
Illustrations
Many stories and sayings remind us of some of the worst aspects of controversy. Here are two with a country accent:
A country philosopher once pointed out that people are willing to meet each other half way; the trouble is most people are pretty poor judges of distance.
And then there was the small, rural church that faced a motion in the annual meeting to buy a new chandelier. Only one man protested. He complained, "First, not a one of us can even spell that word. Second, nobody here can play it, even if we did get it. And third, what we really need in this church is more light."
Speaking of light, a theme of this lesson:
A pilot was flying his small, single--engine plane in the late afternoon. Before he could line up his approach to the small, unattended field where he planned to land, darkness had settled in and he was unable to see the field. For a time the pilot circled the field, trying to think of some way to land the plane before he ran out of gas.
Finally, as the gas gauge settled toward the E, a man on the ground heard the plane and realized the problem. He drove his car to the field, drove up and down the runway, and then parked at the far end, with his headlights illuminating the airstrip to guide the pilot to a safe landing.
Perhaps the issue of this lesson might be understood as the difficulty of the Pharisees with the challenge of Jesus to their world:
Consider a child who was riding his bicycle and was hit by a car. When people hear of the accident, they don't ask what happened to the bicycle, they ask about the child. At the best, the current world situation is our bicycle, and we have been in an accident. The issue isn't the condition of the bicycle, or the condition of the world; the issue is our spiritual health, our spiritual well being after we have been over run by sin.
Then there is also the comment from the late philosopher Eric Hoffer, "Taking a new step, uttering a new word is what people fear most."
Approaches To Preaching
As unusual an approach as it might be, the fact that the miracle precedes belief in this case is worth consideration. Belief is not a prerequisite for salvation in this case. And, as much as we might try to establish a variety of requirements for membership in the church, and membership as a requirement for salvation, one aspect of this lesson is clearly contrary to institutional desires to make some sort of commitment a prerequisite that can only be accomplished in or by the church.
On Laetare Sunday the reaction of the man born blind is also worth consideration. Not only his faith, but also his natural reaction of joy and excitement at suddenly being able to see for the first time in his life (even if underplayed in the text) fit the traditional mood of the Sunday quite well.
Related to the issue of requirements, there is the matter of baptism. The lesson does have at least a thread of sacramental recognition in the requirement to wash in the Pool of Siloam. This has been recognized as a possible reference to the sacrament of baptism for many centuries. And the general requirement of membership in the church of having been baptized is certainly minimal at best.
Further, the evangelist's purpose in this lesson certainly includes the exposition of the ways the light triumphs over darkness. There are many ways this occurs, and not all of them are ways that the religious establishment finds appropriate, as the Pharisees demonstrate in this lesson. Baptism as the act that opens our eyes to see the light of Christ, and to see our salvation is another way to proclaim the Word from this lesson.
The miracle in this lesson is an excuse for the discussion of the reactions of the various witnesses to the events. The man born blind responds with, understandably, joy and faith in Jesus. The Pharisees respond with disbelief and a desire to disprove the events. The man's parents respond with a desire not to be involved, a sort of apathy. The other characters, who are largely off the stage in the story, can be thought of in a variety of ways. Likely gossipy as they follow and observe the main characters, perhaps disbelieving as they follow the man to the Pool of Siloam to see if he is really cured, maybe even a little bloodthirsty like the spectators at a bullfight or car race who are waiting for the accident they hope will come.
Finally, Jesus describes his coming as "judgment" (John 9:39), a reversal of the current order of things. As the events have worked out, the man born blind sees, and the Pharisees have demonstrated their spiritual blindness. The judgment continues to this day, and confronts people all the time. When those who do not see are enabled to see, and those who see become blind, the issue is one which resonates in much of the biblical tradition, a topsy--turvy reordering of the order of things that seem so commonsensical. Instead, the blind see, and the sighted are blind. And that question confronts us all - do we see or are we blind?
The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, "Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?" Some were saying, "It is he." Others were saying, "No, but it is someone like him." He kept saying, "I am the man." But they kept asking him, "Then how were your eyes opened?" He answered, "The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and said to me, 'Go to Siloam and wash.' Then I went and washed and received my sight." They said to him, "Where is he?" He said, "I do not know."
They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also began to ask him how he had received his sight. He said to them, "He put mud on my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see." Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not observe the sabbath." But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?" And they were divided. So they said again to the blind man, "What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened." He said, "He is a prophet."
The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?" His parents answered, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself." His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."
So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and they said to him, "Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner." He answered, "I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see." They said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" He answered them, "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?" Then they reviled him, saying, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from." The man answered, "Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." They answered him, "You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?" And they drove him out.
Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered, "And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him." Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he." He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped him.
Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not blind, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
This is the story of a miracle that is important mostly as the beginning of the real action of the story. Most often the miracle itself is the centerpiece of the story, but in this instance the focus is on people's reaction to the man who was healed, not the healing itself.
This can make the lesson easier as a subject for a sermon by providing an alternative to a miraculous healing which can easily be dismissed. A focus on the reactions of the audience can translate quite easily into a contemporary view of modern reactions to Jesus and the stories we hear of his actions.
Further, it is possible to consider this miracle story as John presents it as an allegory of the mission of Jesus. Many elements of the story are strikingly meaningful, leading to the idea that John presents it as holding more meaning than we expect to find in a simple story. It is quite likely that the details have been heightened to present a second, allegorical level of meaning for the readers and hearers of this text.
Finally, this lesson comes on the Fourth Sunday In Lent. As a season of great solemnity and somberness, Lent stands largely alone. Advent, in modern usage, often follows the Lenten lead, but the general tenor of the secular festivities at the time usually undermines an effort to maintain the solemnity. Lent, coming at a time of the year which is often characterized by dreary weather and a dearth of holidays, has less secular competition in establishing a mood of solemnity.
Sundays, as commemorations of Easter, are not counted as part of the forty days of Lent. In the liturgical tradition, Lenten fasts are punctuated by relief on Sundays, which results in the fact that an accurate liturgical understanding often confuses those not familiar with the traditional interpretation of the season. The Fourth Sunday In Lent is, traditionally, a day for a more celebratory worship. Often known as Laetare or Refreshment Sunday, the mood of this Sunday is less solemn and more joyful than the other Sundays of this season, a theme of this day which is somewhat muted in this lesson, but still present.
About The Text
This is one of the miracles of the Gospel of John, likely derived from a source commonly known as the Gospel of Signs. The liturgical calendar picks up the last three signs of this text in this year, with this being the fifth of the seven signs; the raising of Lazarus being the sixth, and the entry into Jerusalem being the concluding sign. Even though the Johannine use of the signs source is somewhat obscured by the insertion of the Marcan account of the entry into Jerusalem, the general outline is still apparent here.
Most commentators are quite clear that the text of the gospel has been modified and edited into its present form, in large part to make the story better able to serve the evangelist's purposes. Those purposes are highlighted in the sermonic possibilities listed below.
Words
who sinned - The question posed by the disciples is very much the sort of question that might be asked by students of a teacher for clarification. The question also assumes the general understanding of that time and of many people before and since, namely that blindness, and other physical deformities, illnesses, and even financial and relational problems are the direct result of sinful conduct. This attitude is based in a variety of traditions, some Jewish, others from other religious traditions, which speak to the appealing nature of a cause and effect understanding of individual problems - sinful behavior leads to physical punishment. One source of the tradition is in the tractate On the Sabbath among the writings of the Talmud, which explains that there is no death without sin, no punishment without guilt.
This is quite a logical question to ask, therefore, about a man born blind. By virtue of his disability, the blind man is the very image of sinfulness (v. 34). The only question seems to be, "Who is the author of the sin, the man or his parents?"
The possibility of sinning before birth was likely regarded at the time as a probable cause, even if written sources discussing this possibility seem to date somewhat later than the life of Jesus. What is not being considered is the possibility of a sinful previous life or some sort of transmigration of sinful souls, which was absurd in the Judaism of the time, even if it was a part of the philosophical discussions of the time. It has been suggested that these absurdities might have been precisely what the question was meant to imply, so that the answer of Jesus could highlight the absurdity of the dogmatic understanding of the effects of sinful behavior.
spat - The Greek verb used here is also an example of onomatopoeia in the original. The root form is ptuo, which certainly emulates a common sound of expectoration.
Siloam (which means Sent) - With a certain level of irony, the one who was sent by God (v. 4), in turn, sends the blind man to the Pool of Siloam, the name of which is said to mean "sent." The name refers to the water in the pool, which was "sent" into the city of Jerusalem from the spring Gihon. Thus, the Pool of Siloam contained "sent" water; water which did not originate there.
The explanations, of both the reason for the man's birth defect and the name of the pool are regarded as editorial additions by the evangelist, which serve as clear indications that the story has a deeper meaning, to the point that it can be considered as an allegory for the sacrament of baptism. In this instance, the point seems to be that the washing of baptism allows Christians to see more clearly than even those who have been raised with the Word of God as disciples of Moses.
I am - In Exodus 3:15 Moses inquires of the burning bush what name he should use when the people back in Egypt ask who sent him to them. The voice from the bush responds, in the Septuagint, "ego emi." This is the emphatic form in Greek, including the pronoun ego, which can also be assumed as part of the verb emi. It is stated for effect.
In the New Testament the phrase ego emi appears 48 times, with fully half of the appearances being found in the Gospel of John (24 of 48). About half of the remaining occurrences are found in the other gospels, with the remaining instances being found in Acts and Revelation. The phrase is usually assumed to signify, particularly in John, Jesus's claim to divinity, or, at the least, to the role of a divinely inspired messenger. Here, in verse 9, the term is used not by Jesus, however, but by the man born blind.
In verses 4 and 5, Jesus responds to the disciples' question with a phrase that sounds similar, but which is only the verb form in the Greek. The pronoun is not explicitly stated in Jesus' words, leading to the conclusion that these uses are not intended as claims of anything by Jesus, but merely as a normal verbal usage.
The use of the phrase by the man born blind is likely attributable to the dramatic nature of the argument swirling around the man, with some of his neighbors insisting he is who he says he is, and others saying he is only someone like himself. Into this argument, one which likely is escalating to ever louder voices and perhaps into the threats of violence, the man shouts the words ego emi! The use of that particular phrase would almost certainly silence the argument for the moment, either due to the nature of the words or due to the emphasis implied in the construction.
the Pharisees - The most progressive party in Judaism in the time of Jesus, composed largely of lawyers and legal experts who tried to live according to the Law. While some members of this group became followers of Jesus, they are regularly reported as being in opposition to his activities, as happens here. In John it is more common for the opposition to Jesus to be described as "the Jews," but the Pharisees are also used as foils for Jesus in both John and the other gospels. The Pharisees were not as strict in their legal interpretations as the residents of Qumran seem to have been, and in fact, it seems they were regularly criticized by the Qumranites for their lax interpretations of the Law.
Sabbath day - The Sabbath was, traditionally, timed from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. According to verse 14, Jesus broke the law of Sabbath observance twice on this occasion - first by making the mud by mixing spittle and dirt, and second by curing the man's blindness. Humanitarian considerations aside, healing on the Sabbath was forbidden unless a life was in danger. Additionally, a slightly later legal opinion included the idea that anointing an individual's eyes was not permitted on the Sabbath as well. These three breaches of the Sabbath Law, while each a serious offense, might be permissible under some interpretations, but more serious charges were made in verse 16. Here the unmentioned legal point is from Deuteronomy 13:2--6, where any worker of signs, no matter how effective, who leads people away from God is to be put to death. The subtext here is the leveling of a charge which, if proved to apply, could result in Jesus' death.
sinner - A sinner is someone who does not follow the laws of the Jews, at least as they were understood and promulgated by the Pharisees. While there are differing bases for the judgment, it is clear that both sides in the Pharisee camp judged Jesus to be a sinner. The question that divided them was what sort of sin was he most guilty of.
For what it is worth, the idea that a sinner is not able to perform signs is not exactly a tenet of the Jewish tradition. The Pharonic sorcerers imitated the signs of Aaron (Exodus 7:8--12) early plagues of Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:22 and 8:7). Further, the implication of Deuteronomy 13:2--6 clearly indicates the ability of false prophets to work wonders, an idea confirmed by Jesus' words in Matthew 24:24.
Ask him, he is of age - In some ways this statement and the reason given for it in verse 22 call the dialog here into question. There is very little evidence of legislation which excluded followers of Christ from the synagogue in the first half of the first century. Only toward the end of the first century did such legislation take effect. This leads to questions of the historicity of the account, a concern not shared by the evangelist. In his writing, John is addressing the situation of the church at the time of composition, and adjusting conflicts to reflect the situation at the time of composition seems to be a preferred way to communicate to his readers. Historicity, at least in the modern sense, is not one of the evangelist's concerns. Aside from the statement that the man born blind is of age, i.e., thirteen years old, there is no further indication of his age.
Give glory to God! - This is really a technical term which means "Tell the truth," in the spirit of Joshua 7:9.
disciples of Moses - The phrase is somewhat difficult. It is not commonly used of rabbinic scholars, although it is used on occasion for Pharisaic scholars in opposition to Sadducean scholars. The issue here, and regularly in the synoptics, is the disparity between Moses and Jesus, who is often presented as a new Moses.
In John, the miracles are meant to prove Jesus' authority, and the issue here is that the followers of Moses are unable to discern that the Son of Man is working these signs for their benefit, so that they might believe. As he heals the blind man, the eyes of the leaders of the Jewish establishment are blind to the arrival of the Messiah. In Johannine language, when the incarnate light comes to them, they remain in the darkness.
believe in - The Greek word normally translated as believe is somewhat odd in its use. The word requires an object be expressed with it to express the subject of the belief. Typically this is expressed, as here, with a phrase beginning with the word "in." Belief must, according to the language, always be anchored in something or someone. The more modern concept of belief, that it is possible to believe in believing, is impossible to express in Greek.
Parallels
The Gospel of John is relatively unique. Only very brief snippets have much in common with the synoptics. This is one of the portions of John which actually does have some parallels, both internally to John 5, and to the two stories in Mark of healing a blind man (as well as the parallels to the second story in Matthew and Luke).
In John 5:1--18, 19, and 30, it is possible to see a number of similarities to the lesson. Both stories are, of course, taken from the Signs Gospel, both take place in the Jerusalem area, both involve restoring the sight of a blind man who did not ask for healing, both events took place on a Sabbath, both stories result in opposition from the Jews, and both stories involve extensive editorial additions from the evangelist.
Beyond this list of similarities, there is no reason to attempt to identify any literary parallels between the two accounts. The similarities might serve to call the independence of the two events into mild question, but it is not necessary to assume that only one miracle lies behind the two stories.
Mark 8:22--26 is the story, unique to Mark, of the two--step healing of a blind man at Bethsaida. It is interesting that the name of the village is similar to the name of the pool in John 5:2, and involves the use of spittle (John 9:6, spittle and mud) as an agent in the healing. Beyond these surface similarities, there is little more that parallels the action in John 9.
Another parallel in Mark 10:46--52 (and the parallels in Matthew 20:29--34 and Luke 18:35--45) is somewhat more interesting. While it provides no more evidence of literary parallels than the other sections already examined, it places the healing of a blind man in the area of Jericho, the last stop in Mark before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. This chronological placement parallels John's placement in the story. In John, Jesus proceeds to Bethany, where he raises Lazarus and rests before the events of the final week. The slight delay in John does not obviate the obvious similarity in timing between the synoptic and Johannine accounts.
It is likely that the recounting of a healing story of a blind man not long before the culmination of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem was a part of the tradition from a very early date. Further, it is likely that the timing of the events reflected in John and the synoptics reflects something approaching the actual historical sequence of events.
The People
As Individuals
The man born blind is an interesting character. His age is, beyond the mere fact that he is at least thirteen, indeterminate. On the other hand, once his sight has been restored, he sees quite clearly. Without introductions, he is able to identify Jesus as the one who opened his eyes, and in verse 35 he recognizes Jesus in the flesh without, apparently, ever having seen him. The question of how he would know what Jesus looked like, considering the long--distance nature of the miracle, is a question the text does not answer, or even address.
It is reasonable to suspect that others in the crowd would supply the information to the man. In fact, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a contingent of the crowd accompanied the man to the Pool of Siloam to observe the results of the miracle. When the man was able to see, the crowd could easily have supplied the gaps in his knowledge.
More interesting is the man's refusal to get into a theological discussion with the Pharisees until provoked. Rather than theologizing, the man sticks to the bare facts in his first interview (John 9:13--17). Even the assertion in verse 17, "He is a prophet," is somewhat ambiguous. The prophets were not noted for healing miracles, with the exception of Elijah and Elisha (and possibly Isaiah, see 38:21). What seems to be indicated here is an affirmation by the man born blind that Jesus has the divine power of a prophet.
In his second interview (John 9:24--34) the man begins in the same way, sticking entirely to the facts of the case without editorial comment. Then, in verse 27, the man is obviously tired of being the subject of a Pharisaic investigation and he flares into irony - "Do you also want to become his disciples?" The implication is that the man is already a disciple of Jesus, apparently and simply by virtue of being the recipient of a healing.
The Pharisees react predictably to the jibe from the man, and he then confronts them with the central truth of the incident. The theological comments make the point of the evangelist quite clearly, and lead to yet another disparaging comment from the Pharisees before they expel him from their presence (and perhaps from the synagogue, or traditional Jewish circles as well).
After this stirring defense of the actions of Jesus and the implications of them, there is a final confrontation between Jesus and the man, in which the man is once again less than completely clear about what has happened, or at least about the identity of Jesus. Once the situation is explained to him, he quickly professes belief in Christ.
The parents of the man are actually worried about a situation that wasn't present in the time of Jesus, namely being expelled from the synagogue. It is possible that they were also somewhat concerned about another problem. At the time, the commandment to honor parents was understood to mean making provisions for a person's parents in their old age. A person was adjudged to have fulfilled the commandment when provisions were made for this support.
It is possible to hear a touch of bitterness in the parents' comment - "Ask him, he is of age" (John 9:21). If the man born blind is of age, he should be providing some support for his parents, but as someone with a disability, it is more likely that his parents were still providing some portion of support for their adult son. In this case, the problem sounds quite modern, when many grandparents suddenly find their "golden years" devoted to caring for their adult children and younger grandchildren as a matter of necessity which is imposed on them.
The Pharisees are the epitome of obstinate antagonists for Jesus. They find themselves unable to understand the basic mechanism by which a person they judge to be a sinner can perform such actions. At the conclusion of this lesson, the Pharisees are confounded and are obviously the blind ones. More than simply another disparagement of the Pharisees, this use also provides a prelude to the plot hatched in John 11:45--53, as well as an inherent explanation for the inability of Caiaphas to understand the true implications of his prophetic statement in the meeting that developed the plot (John 11:49--50). Placing the Pharisees in the larger context of this gospel provides another view of the skilled editorship and literary ability of the evangelist.
As Images And Signs
Since John 1:4, the image of light has been associated with the Word of God and Jesus. In John 1:5, a theme of this gospel is enunciated - The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. And the ninth chapter of the gospel expands on that single sentence, providing a fully detailed story about the struggle between the light and darkness, complete with details of the struggle and applications to the lives of the readers (and hearers) of the lesson.
When we understand this story as an allegory, which is one way (not the only way) to understand what the evangelist is doing here, it becomes clear that Jesus, the light of the world, gives light to the man who has been living in darkness for his entire life. This miraculous event causes problems for the custodians of the Mosaic tradition (the Pharisees) because the healing takes place on the Sabbath, an obvious breach of the law. As a lawbreaker, also known as a sinner, it seems obvious to the Pharisees that the sinful man Jesus couldn't possibly have accomplished a miracle with God's blessing.
This inability to grasp the miracle as proof of Jesus' authority is a sign of the blindness of the Pharisees, a problem which is, in reality, much more serious than the physical blindness of the man who was healed. As is a common theme in Luke, and other gospels, this is a reversal of what people might expect to hear from Jesus. The "common--sense" understandings of the Pharisees are stood on end by the successful healing on the Sabbath. They, and in fact the man born blind as well, had always understood that no sinner could possibly perform such mighty acts as healing.
Starting from the fact that Jesus was clearly a sinner who had obviously broken the Sabbath Law, the Pharisees were unable to understand what was happening in the ministry of Jesus. The man born blind, on the other hand, began with his newly restored eyesight, and reasoned that because he could see, the man who had accomplished this miraculous feat had to be someone who worshiped God and obeyed his will (John 9:31). Thus, two participants, the Pharisees and the subject of the miracle, both examine the same facts and use the same assumption to arrive at totally different conclusions.
In their efforts to resolve the conflict, the Pharisees accuse the man of lying to them. They go so far as to summon the man's parents to verify his story that he was, in fact, born blind. When it checks out, all they can do is to eject the man from their fellowship. They are unable to resolve the basic problem they are facing. Their problems simply multiply as they insist on beginning with the nature of the worker of the miracle.
The man has a much simpler resolution. He can see suddenly, and he is absolutely convinced of the character of the person who caused this miracle in his life. Newly able to even see light, he is now a devoted follower of that light. All problems have been resolved when he begins with the results of the miracle.
The evaluation of Jesus as a sinner by the Pharisees might be a troublesome picture for some people. The religious authorities of his day had little or no difficulty in so labeling him, and the charges are presented here with no particularly obvious effort to refute the charges. It certainly seems possible that the need to present a perfectly sinless Jesus was not as strongly felt by the evangelist as it has been felt by some apologists after the gospel was completed.
There are two ways to understand the technical breach of the Sabbath recounted in this account, two defenses which might be offered for such behavior. The first is that offered by Mark when the disciples plucked some grain and ate it on the Sabbath. This act of harvesting was the basis for accusations by the Pharisees and the cause of a defense by Jesus based on David's actions in 1 Samuel 21:1--7. Jesus summarizes by stating that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). This is a rather more relaxed attitude than that of even the Pharisees, in which the strict rules of the Sabbath observance are made secondary to the needs of people, particularly the need for healing by the man born blind in this instance.
In Matthew's version of the incident recounted by Mark, Jesus' comment on the Sabbath is omitted, but a more legalistic justification is offered. The priests in the temple are required to make a Sabbath offering (Numbers 28:9--10), which is a form of work. However, as this is the work of God, the priests are held guiltless of breaking the Sabbath (Matthew12:5). In order to do the work of God, it is, therefore, considered acceptable, or at least guiltless to break the Sabbath.
Either of these justifications might be understood in the lesson here, but neither is stated explicitly.
The Action
In The Story
The lesson begins with some interesting points. First, there is little visible connection between what comes before in John 8 and this incident. Events simply begin, with little indication of setting or effort to connect with what has gone before. This has led some to suggest the story should be found in some other location within the gospel. The story simply begins with Jesus and the disciples walking along when they happen to see a man who was blind from birth.
Another interesting point involves the initial confrontation with the man. From the miracle stories of the synoptics, most people are very used to hearing a request for healing as a prelude to the actual healing. In fact, we are so used to hearing the request that when it is not present, it is easy to assume it was really there. But, in fact, the man born blind does not ask for a miracle. In fact, whether he might have asked for one or not, from the rest of the story it is clear he has heard very little, perhaps nothing about Jesus prior to the events recounted here. And even if he had heard of him, he has no idea of which individual might be the person he has heard about.
There is no request here. Rather, the picture presented is a rather impersonal one. Jesus finds a blind man begging at the side of the road, the disciples ask a question, and Jesus heals the man's blindness. This simple act, and the day of the week on which it took place, cause two separate sets of difficulties.
First, the Pharisees, the religious authorities of the day, had substantial problems with the fact that a healing (work) took place on the Sabbath. Work is forbidden on the Sabbath, and even if humanitarian considerations make this seem a rather harsh restriction, it should be noted that acts which resulted in healing, but were required to save a life, were not forbidden. It was acts such as the one Jesus performed with the unfortunate man born blind which should, to conform to the requirements of the law, be postponed until the next day.
Much of the problem the Pharisees had has been examined previously, including the issue of a healing, by definition a manifestation of God's power, accomplished as the result of a sinful act. Further, the action took place outside the religious establishment. As the plot in John 11:45--57 is hatched and unfolds, it is the religious establishment that provides the leadership which opposes Jesus and plots and finally clamors for his death. The present incident is certainly one that encourages the Pharisaic leaders to desire the end of Jesus' ministry.
In this incident, we can profitably note that the Pharisees spend most of their time trying to shake the story of the man born blind, to prove him a liar and charlatan by interviewing his parents, and finally by having a loud argument with the man. The problem here can be seen as an effort by the Pharisees to avoid facing the real problem, the true source of their discomfort - Jesus.
In The Hearers
The second difficulty in this story is one which is basic to all the stories of miracles in the New Testament. Why are miracle stories included? In the Gospel of John, the purpose is quite clearly stated - "Jesus did this, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him" (John 2:11). Miracles in this gospel are meant to create belief (see, for example, John 4:53b; 6:2, 14, and 30). The difficulty here is encapsulated in Jesus' answer to the disciples' question - "He was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him" (John 9:3). This answer brings to mind a rather unflattering picture of God, who creates people with severe deformities and disabilities so they will be available later as subjects for demonstrations of God's power. This is a rather dismal view of God, and not a very comforting one. Suffering and personal anguish are not taken into account. People are discounted and diminished to the point of being mere props to be used to make a point.
The theological point here is strictly limited to miracles as a cause for belief. In the context of this lesson, the miracle and the reactions of the characters in the story emphasize the various ways in which belief can be brought forth. Not all the reactions are a growing belief in Jesus. Not that this disparity of reactions is unexpected in John (see John 6:60--71 for another example of this tendency). In many ways, this story is not meant to be an historical account of individual people, but a story which illustrates the way belief works itself out in life. As such, it is not appropriate to the push the story too far and demand a humanitarian understanding of all the characters in the story.
The Sermon
Illustrations
Many stories and sayings remind us of some of the worst aspects of controversy. Here are two with a country accent:
A country philosopher once pointed out that people are willing to meet each other half way; the trouble is most people are pretty poor judges of distance.
And then there was the small, rural church that faced a motion in the annual meeting to buy a new chandelier. Only one man protested. He complained, "First, not a one of us can even spell that word. Second, nobody here can play it, even if we did get it. And third, what we really need in this church is more light."
Speaking of light, a theme of this lesson:
A pilot was flying his small, single--engine plane in the late afternoon. Before he could line up his approach to the small, unattended field where he planned to land, darkness had settled in and he was unable to see the field. For a time the pilot circled the field, trying to think of some way to land the plane before he ran out of gas.
Finally, as the gas gauge settled toward the E, a man on the ground heard the plane and realized the problem. He drove his car to the field, drove up and down the runway, and then parked at the far end, with his headlights illuminating the airstrip to guide the pilot to a safe landing.
Perhaps the issue of this lesson might be understood as the difficulty of the Pharisees with the challenge of Jesus to their world:
Consider a child who was riding his bicycle and was hit by a car. When people hear of the accident, they don't ask what happened to the bicycle, they ask about the child. At the best, the current world situation is our bicycle, and we have been in an accident. The issue isn't the condition of the bicycle, or the condition of the world; the issue is our spiritual health, our spiritual well being after we have been over run by sin.
Then there is also the comment from the late philosopher Eric Hoffer, "Taking a new step, uttering a new word is what people fear most."
Approaches To Preaching
As unusual an approach as it might be, the fact that the miracle precedes belief in this case is worth consideration. Belief is not a prerequisite for salvation in this case. And, as much as we might try to establish a variety of requirements for membership in the church, and membership as a requirement for salvation, one aspect of this lesson is clearly contrary to institutional desires to make some sort of commitment a prerequisite that can only be accomplished in or by the church.
On Laetare Sunday the reaction of the man born blind is also worth consideration. Not only his faith, but also his natural reaction of joy and excitement at suddenly being able to see for the first time in his life (even if underplayed in the text) fit the traditional mood of the Sunday quite well.
Related to the issue of requirements, there is the matter of baptism. The lesson does have at least a thread of sacramental recognition in the requirement to wash in the Pool of Siloam. This has been recognized as a possible reference to the sacrament of baptism for many centuries. And the general requirement of membership in the church of having been baptized is certainly minimal at best.
Further, the evangelist's purpose in this lesson certainly includes the exposition of the ways the light triumphs over darkness. There are many ways this occurs, and not all of them are ways that the religious establishment finds appropriate, as the Pharisees demonstrate in this lesson. Baptism as the act that opens our eyes to see the light of Christ, and to see our salvation is another way to proclaim the Word from this lesson.
The miracle in this lesson is an excuse for the discussion of the reactions of the various witnesses to the events. The man born blind responds with, understandably, joy and faith in Jesus. The Pharisees respond with disbelief and a desire to disprove the events. The man's parents respond with a desire not to be involved, a sort of apathy. The other characters, who are largely off the stage in the story, can be thought of in a variety of ways. Likely gossipy as they follow and observe the main characters, perhaps disbelieving as they follow the man to the Pool of Siloam to see if he is really cured, maybe even a little bloodthirsty like the spectators at a bullfight or car race who are waiting for the accident they hope will come.
Finally, Jesus describes his coming as "judgment" (John 9:39), a reversal of the current order of things. As the events have worked out, the man born blind sees, and the Pharisees have demonstrated their spiritual blindness. The judgment continues to this day, and confronts people all the time. When those who do not see are enabled to see, and those who see become blind, the issue is one which resonates in much of the biblical tradition, a topsy--turvy reordering of the order of things that seem so commonsensical. Instead, the blind see, and the sighted are blind. And that question confronts us all - do we see or are we blind?
