THE MAN BORN BLIND

THE MAN BORN BLIND

John 9

        When the apostle John wrote his Gospel he selected from the ministry of the Incarnate Word eight signs in the realm of His works. All those selected were in some sense matchless in their revelation of the power of God operating through His Son. This one stands out as peculiar, for it is the only one on record of our Lord's dealing with what today we describe as congenital (inherited) disease. It is possible there were other cases, but this is the only one definitely recorded.

        In order to a correct apprehension of the account, the whole of chapter 9, and chapter 10 so far as verse 21 should be read. There is really no break between these chapters. The discourse of our Lord runs to the verse John 10:21.

        In that discourse we find His great statement, "I am the Good Shepherd," and His declaration concerning other sheep that must be gathered, that there may be one flock. That discourse of Jesus has its distinct bearing upon the account of this man. It was indeed the outcome of what He had done for him, and the interpretation of His final action in connection with him.

        The time notes of this account are not very clear, and there are different opinions concerning them. Personally I think it is to be linked very closely with chapter 8, and indeed contains a continuation of the account of how, at the Feast of Tabernacles recorded in chapter 7, He had declared Himself to be the Source of living waters. I think the connection is very close. He had been in the midst of those opposed to Him, whose opposition had been characterized by great bitterness. They had listened to what He had said to them, and then with a touch of supercilious disdain they had said, "Thou art not yet fifty years old." I never read that without wondering whether it is not a revelation of His appearance. He was not 33 years old, but probably looked much older. He had told them that their father Abraham had seen His day, and had rejoiced so to do. This led to the words: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"

        It was to them a most absurd suggestion. It was in that connection that He uttered that great claim, "Before Abraham was, I am." Then they took up stones to cast at Him, but He hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, and as He passed by He saw a man blind from his birth.

        As we read on in the account, we find that the man was a beggar that he obtained his livelihood by sitting and receiving alms from the passers-by. Such men were almost invariably gathered in the Temple precincts. Jesus, Who had made His great claim, "Before Abraham was, I am," now passed from the Temple, and as He did so, He saw a man blind from his birth.

        As we attempt to look at this man, there are two things of importance, first an outstanding and arresting fact, and then some incidental things, not unimportant, but taking a secondary place.

        The arresting central fact, then, is that here is a man sitting, as a beggar, seeking alms. Moreover, a man born blind, that is blind from his birth, a man who had never looked into his mother's face, had never seen the face of Nature, and had never beheld the Temple courts. He may have been strangely familiar with them by touch that marvelous new sense that always comes to people deprived of sight. Nevertheless, as we have said, he had never seen the Lake, had never seen the hills, and had never seen the flowers. He was a human being, apparently and almost certainly in possession of all his other powers, lacking this high gift of sight.

        We are brought face to face with the centrality of this matter, and its exceptional nature by the problem raised in the mind of the disciples as they looked at the man.

        Evidently our Lord drew their attention to the man, if only by His own looking at him. John carefully tells us that He saw a man, and the disciples asked Him their question. As they looked upon the man, upon whom they saw Him looking, a problem was at once suggested, which it is quite possible that they had often discussed, perhaps in the presence of the man himself. It was the problem of men born into this world with a limitation and disability, lacking this great gift of sight. Their question was: "Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind." It was a question as to the relationship between this disability and sin. Their thinking is at once revealed. They were sure that there was some connection between human disability and sin, and they were right. That was their philosophy, and so far, they were perfectly correct. No man is ever born blind in this world except as the result of something wrong, some breaking of law somewhere. It is not the will of God that a man should be blind. I am not for the moment saying, of course, that limitation is the result of personal sin, which it certainly is not in every case. Indeed, here is the problem. We emphasize the fact that when God created a man in His own Image and likeness, He gave him the marvelous gift of sight. Here is a man lacking that gift. The question arose as to why. The belief was that there must be sin somewhere to account for this.

        Then they made their half suggestions, which seemed to cover the ground for them. Either he had sinned, or his parents. Their question suggested first that he might have committed some sin; or on the other hand; that his parents had been guilty of sin. Thus they made two propositions. They were convinced that there was a connection somewhere between this frustration of the Divine intention, and sin. The first suggestion would seem to suggest the idea that the man's sightlessness was the result of his own sin.

        Thus, as we look at this man, we find ourselves face to face with the problem which is continuous in human history. At some time or other, almost invariably, we have to face and discuss it. A human being is seen suffering from a limitation that is a terrible handicap, frustrating the highest purposes of life, and that from life's beginning. We may employ a very familiar phrase in this connection, and say that we are confronted by the problem of evil, and its relation to some moral depravity. These disciples conscious of such a problem, and knowing that they were with their Master, Who they believed could give light and explanation of problems, asked Him the question: "Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind."

        Now, let us observe quietly and remember clearly that our Lord gave them no solution of the problem. He dismissed their suggested solutions, declaring that the man was not suffering as the result of any sin committed by him; neither was he suffering as the result of sin committed by his parents.

        Now we come to the point in the narrative where there are differing interpretations, and we need to proceed with reverent care. In doing so we will first observe the statement made exactly as it is printed in the Revised Version, following the punctuation: "Neither did this Man sin, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. We must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work."

        The punctuation there which places a full stop after the word "him" is misleading. Let us change it, and again examine the change carefully. "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents. But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, we must work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day."

        The change looks slight, but it really is radical. The old punctuation has led expositors into a most curious region of difficulty, and attempted explanation, in which they all and always break down when they attempt it. That punctuation would mean that our Lord said, This man did not sin nor his parents, but he was born blind to give God the opportunity to manifest His power. I admit that that is a brutal interpretation, but that is exactly what it means. The inference is that this man had been born blind, had lived through the years without a sight of his mother's face, of Nature, or of the Temple courts, had gone through life with frustration of his personality, in order that God should have this opportunity of revealing His power. To me that view of God savors of blasphemy. God does not bring a man into this world, and allow him to suffer for thirty years the frustration of personality, in order to show His power to remove that limitation.

        If we read the paragraph with the amended punctuation, which I have suggested, we shall find a great difference of opinion. It may be better at this point for me to say that nearly thirty years ago this paragraph gave me great pause. I translated it, and introduced the punctuation I now suggest. I then submitted it to a most eminent scholar, and he replied that: "He would be an exceedingly bold scholar who would undertake to prove that the punctuation should be one way or the other on the mere ground of the Greek itself. It seems as if the question would have to be finally decided on doctrinal grounds, for it is plain that the difference in punctuation would change the meaning altogether. If one rendering would be more in spirit with the tenor of Christ's teaching, as seems quite probable, that would be quite naturally preferable." Upon the basis of that opinion I adopt the new punctuation. Thus our Lord did not solve the problem suggested, but proceeded at once to do the work for which, as He said, He had been sent, and that was the work of removing the disability which caused the problem.

        This account, therefore, is vital because in it we see a man who is an abiding type of individual suffering, not the result of personal wrong-doing, or even of wrong-doing of immediate ancestors. Unquestionably such disability is the result of a violation of law somewhere. The whole point that we would emphasize is that our Lord gave no solution of the problem, but did remove its cause in the case of the individual.

        Still looking at this man, and turning from this essential fact to those which are incidental, we find him to have been a simple soul, who was prepared to do what he was told. He made no appeal to Jesus except, as the fact of his necessity was an appeal. Our Lord approached him evidently on His own initiative, and forming clay, He anointed his eyes, and said, "Go, wash." Simple as it is, we cannot avoid being arrested by the immediate obedience of the man. Necessarily there was something in the presence and the voice and the touch of Jesus, although the man could not see Him, which produced an effect. He immediately arose and went. He started as a blind man, perhaps feeling his way to the pool, or gaining help from someone to lead him there.

        As we watch him through the account, we see that he was an honest soul. He refused to be deflected from the facts. When he came back with his sight, it was to his own people, to his home, and to his neighbors. We can imagine their amazement as they looked at the man they had known so long asking alms, and never seeing them as they passed by, now looking at them. It was so amazing a sight that some doubted his identity. He, however, was perfectly sure, and asserted the fact. He told the account quite simply that a man that is called Jesus had made clay, and anointed his eyes, had told him to wash in Siloam. He had been, and had returned, and was able to see them.

        At this point the nightmare of tradition is manifested. They immediately became concerned that the thing had happened on the Sabbath day, and I think with no hostile intention, they nevertheless took the man to the rulers, those in charge. Before these also he adhered to his statement concerning what had actually happened. When they tried to perplex him, he grew satirical, and asked if they also would become His disciples. Still watching him, we see him yielding to light as it broke upon him. He first affirmed the fact. He had received his sight. Later he said, that he did not profess to know the Person Who had wrought the wonder, and so did not profess to know whether He was a sinner or not. The one thing he did know was that having been blind; he was now able to see. While he was telling his account, evidently there dawned upon him the consciousness that the One Who had wrought the wonder was a prophet, and obeying that growing light he declared that it was so. They urged him to give glory to God, Which they did not mean, attribute the wonder of his sight to God, but, Be truthful, and declared that they knew nothing about Jesus to who He was, or how He gained His authority. The light was still growing upon the man, and he said that it was a marvelous thing that they did not know whence He came, that from the foundation of the world it had not been known that a man born blind had received his sight, and he was now convinced that He must have been from God. The final light broke when presently our Lord revealed Himself to him, and he said, "Lord, I believe," and worshipped Him.

        As we turn to watch our Lord's dealing with this man we are arrested by that which is a commonplace thing, and yet a wonderful thing. "He saw him." The Greek word employed is ends which has a twofold significance. It may be used quite simply of the fact of sight, but it may also be used to describe perception and understanding. It was surely so in this case. Our Lord saw, perceived, understood the whole of the facts of the case. Everything resulted from that vision.

        It is quite evident, too, as we have already said, that there was something in that very look of Jesus which attracted the attention of the disciples to the man. Then they raised their question, and as we have seen, our Lord offered them no solution, but declared that He was in the world as its light; that He was in the world working the works of Him Who had sent Him. He then did that very thing. He wrought the wonder by which the disability which had caused the problem was removed, as He gave this man the blessing of sight. It is an interesting fact that He employed clay, and the anointing of the eyes. Unquestionably the method was rendered necessary by something in the man, of which we are ignorant. He gave sight on other occasions without anointing clay. By this method, therefore He reached the will of the man, and brought him to the place of obedience.

        The value of the account lies within the fact that we are constantly faced by problems that baffle all our thinking as we look out upon conditions in this world. In the light of this account we ask, what has Christianity to say to these problems? And the reply is that it attempts no solution, but that it is its mission to remove the cause of the problem. It may sound an almost commonplace thing to say, but I say it with great deliberation, we shall have more time in eternity to consider these problems, and with more intelligence.

        The one sure thing before us at the moment is that the work of Christ and His Church is to approach disability with relief and release. It might be said in passing that we find nothing in the Old Testament about the opening of blind eyes except prophetic words. We read of the healing of the body, of the cure of leprosy, but what the man said was perfectly true: "Since the world began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind."

        It is the very superlative nature of this sign which creates its value.

        But there is more in the account. As the result of this man's testimony they cast him out, which means far more than that they put him outside the synagogue. It was an act of excommunication. It was when Jesus heard that they had taken this action that by the old order of things, and by the will of those in authority the man was excommunicated, that "He found him."

        Finding him, He at once challenged him: "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

        Here we pause simply to say that there are those who believe that the question should read, "Dost thou believe on the Son of man?" There is no question about it that some of the old MSS. have the question in that form, and it may be that it was so. But even in that case it must be interpreted by our Lord's use of the phrase; and the form, in the last analysis makes very little difference. He had said to His own, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" Peter had made the answer, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now He asked the man this question either in the one form or the other. Personally I am inclined to believe that it was the form found in our text: "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" for the man was evidently arrested, as probably he would not have been had the other form been used. This is proven by his reply: "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him?"

        Then it was that Christ revealed Himself completely as He said to him: "Thou hast both seen Him, and He it is that speaketh with thee."

        Immediately the man replied, "Lord, I believe."

        And "he worshipped Him." That was an act following belief and it was the act of complete surrender and submission. Thus our Lord is seen receiving this man into a new economy, and a new relationship. The full interpretation of it all must be discovered by that which is not possible to us in detail now, namely the examination of all the discourse of our Lord which ensued. In the course of that He said "I am the door," "I am the Good Shepherd." He was instituting a new economy which was to supersede the old. This man had been put out of that old economy by the action of the authorities, and Jesus found him, asked him the testing question, received his confession, and thus opened the door into the new fold where there is one and only one Shepherd.

        Thus the whole account is indeed, as we said at first, singular and central. It is revealing in the matter of the problem of evil, and the revelation of the fact that the mission of Christ was not that of solving problems, but that of removing disabilities. He is seen as having come to banish our blindness and open our eyes, and receive us into the new economy of the Kingdom of God on the basis of our submission to Him.