Ep. 65: Messianic miracle

CLICK HERE for the corresponding devotional in Yeshua Adored

JOHN 9

After the scene in the Temple just described we have, probably on the next day, the healing of the man born blind, at the Temple entrance, the chosen spot for those in need to gather. Because this healing became known very quickly, we presume this is where the healing happened.

It was the Sabbath and Jesus with his disciples was passing by a blind beggar. On the Sabbath. He would, of course, neither ask for nor receive charity, though some would help him privately. The blind were regarded as especially entitled to charity and the Jerusalem Talmud relates some touching instances of the favour displayed towards them.

As the Master and his disciples passed the blind beggar, Jesus saw him, with that look which they who followed him knew to be full of meaning. Yet they were so used to the ways of the Pharisees, that there was no thought of possible mercy, with the following thought pre-eminent, through whose guilt was he so afflicted - his own, or that of his parents?

As this man was ‘blind from his birth’ the possibility of sin before birth would suggest itself, at least as a speculative question, since the ‘evil impulse’ (Yetser haRa) might even then be called into activity. At the same time, both the Talmud and the later charge of the Pharisees, ‘in sins were you born altogether’ imply that in such cases the alternative explanation would be considered, that the blindness might be caused by the sin of his parents. It was a common Jewish view, that the successes or failures of the parents would appear in the children. In fact, up to thirteen years of age, a child was considered part of his father and as suffering for his guilt. More than that, the thoughts of a mother might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring and the terrible apostasy of one of the greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the sinful delight his mother had taken when passing through an idol-grove! Lastly, certain special sins in the parents would result in specific diseases in their offspring, and one is mentioned as causing blindness in the children.

It was their opinion that God does not interfere in the ordinary course of everyday life. But there is another and a higher aspect of it since Jesus has come and is really the Healer of all disease and evil by being the remover of its ultimate moral cause. This is indicated in his words when, putting aside the clumsy alternative suggested by the disciples, he told them that it was so, in order that the works of God might be made manifest in him. They wanted to know the ‘why’. He told them the ‘in order to’, of the man’s calamity.

He told them the purpose which it and all similar suffering should serve, since Jesus has come, the Healer of evil. Thus. He tackled the question in terms of the moral purpose which suffering might serve. And this, because the coming and work of the Christ have made it possible to us all.

He had to work fast during the few hours still left of his brief working day. He may also have anticipated any objection to his healing on the Sabbath. As the Light of the World. He could do no else but shine so long as he was in it. And this he demonstrated by the healing of the blind. Saliva was commonly regarded as a remedy for diseases of the eye, although not for the removal of blindness. With this. He made clay, which he now used, adding to it the direction to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam, a term which literally meant ‘sent.’ A symbolism of him who was the ‘Sent of the Father’.

The blind man seems to have been ignorant of the character of his Healer and it needed the use of some means to make him receptive. His sight was restored by clay, made out of the ground with his spittle, whose breath had at the first breathed life into clay. And this was then washed away in the Pool of Siloam, from whose waters had been drawn on the Feast of Tabernacles, that which symbolised the pouring forth of the new life by the Spirit.

Lastly, we may ask why such a miracle should have been performed on one without faith, who does not even seem to have known about Jesus? We can only repeat that the man himself was intended to be a symbol, ‘that the works of God should be made manifest in him.’ And so, what the Pharisees had sought in vain, was freely offered when there was a need for it. With wonderful simplicity, the man’s obedience and healing are recorded.

We judge that his first impulse when healed must have been to look for Jesus, naturally, where he had first met him. The formal question now put to him by the Jews was no more than an inquisition rather than the outcome of a wish to learn the circumstances of his healing. And so we notice in his answer the cautious desire not to say anything that could incriminate his benefactor. He tells the facts truthfully and plainly; he emphasises the means by which he had recovered sight.

Then they bring him to the Pharisees, not to take notice of his healing, but to use it as a charge against Jesus. Such must have been their motive, since it was universally known that the leaders of the people had, of course informally, agreed to take the strictest measures, not only against Jesus but also against anyone who professed to be his disciple. The grounds on which the present charge against Jesus would rest was plain; the healing involved a breach of the Sabbath Law. The first of these was that he had made clay. Next, it would be a question of whether any remedy might be applied on the holy day. It was declared lawful to apply, for example, wine to the outside of the eyelid on the grounds that this might be treated as washing; but it was sinful to apply it to the inside of the eye. And as regards saliva, its application to the eye is expressly forbidden, because it was evidently intended as a remedy. There was, therefore, abundant legal grounds for a criminal charge, which the Pharisees initiated.

Firstly, as if not satisfied with the report of those who had brought the man, they made him repeat it. The simplicity of the man’s language left no room for evasion or deception. They may have been the accusers but Rabbinism itself was being judged here! The facts could neither be denied nor explained and the only ground for attacking Jesus with it was its breaking of their traditional law. Which was approved by God? Their traditional law of Sabbath observance or he who had done such miracles? With this dilemma, they turned to the simple man before them. What was the impression left on the mind of the one who had the best opportunity for judging?

‘He is a Prophet’! So they turned to the parents. After all, the man might not have been really blind so they decided to cross-examine them. But on this most important point the parents, with all their fear of the anger of the Pharisees, remained unshaken. He had been born blind; but as to the manner of his cure, they declined to offer any opinion. Thus, as so often, the plots of the enemies of Christ resulted in the opposite of those wished for. For to people so wretchedly poor as to allow their son to live by begging, the consequence of being put outside the congregation - which was to be the punishment of any who confessed Jesus as the Messiah - would have been dreadful.

We can understand how everyone would dread such an outcome. The Rabbinists provide twenty-four grounds for excommunication, of which more than one might serve the purpose of the Pharisees. But in general, to resist the authority of the Scribes, or any of their decrees, or to lead others either away from ‘the commandments,’ or to what was regarded as a profanation of the Divine Name, was sufficient to incur the ban.

As nothing was forthcoming from his parents, the man who had been blind was once more summoned before the Pharisees. It was simply to demand a recantation from him, though this was put in the most roundabout manner. You have been healed. Admit that it was only by God’s Hand miraculously stretched forth and that ‘this man’ had nothing to do with it, except that the coincidence may have been allowed to try the faith of Israel. It could not have been Jesus who had done it, for they knew him to be a ‘sinner!’

Certainly, this was the condemnation of Jesus but he who had been healed of his blindness was not to be so betrayed into a denunciation of his Great Physician. It was his turn now to bring back the question to the issue which they had originally raised; and we admire it all the more, as we remember the consequences to this poor man of so confronting the Pharisees. There was the unquestionable fact of his healing of which he had personal knowledge (of course!)

The renewed inquiry now by the Pharisees as to how Jesus had healed him was met by irony from the man. Was it because they felt the wrongness of their own position and that they should become his disciples? It stung them to the quick. They lost all self-possession and with this their moral defeat became complete. This ‘ignorant’ layman had now the full advantage in the controversy. How come that the leaders of Israel should confess themselves ignorant of the authority of One who had the power to open the eyes of the blind, a marvel which had never before been witnessed.

If he had that power where did it come from and why? It could only have been from God. They said he was ‘a sinner’ and yet there was no principle more frequently repeated by the Rabbis than that answers to prayer depended on a man being ‘devout’ and doing the will of God. There could therefore be only one conclusion. If Jesus had not Divine Authority. He could not have had Divine Power. The Pharisees had nothing to answer and, as not infrequently in similar cases, could only in their fury cast him out with bitter accusations.

Edersheim adds to this:

‘Would he teach them, he, whose very disease showed him to have been a child conceived and born in sin and who, ever since his birth, had been among ignorant, Law-neglecting ‘sinners’? But there was another, who watched and knew him; he whom he had dared to confess and for whom he was content to suffer. Let him now have the reward of his faith, even its completion; and so shall it become manifest to all time, how, as we follow and cherish the better light, it rises upon us in all its brightness and that faithfulness in little brings the greater stewardship.’

Tenderly did Jesus seek him out and asked him, ‘Do you now believe on the Son of God, through this experience?’ And is it not always so that faith is based on the conviction of personal experience? Thus is faith always the child of experience and yet its father also; faith not without experience and yet beyond experience; faith not superseded by experience, but made reasonable by it.’

In language plainer than he had ever before used, Jesus answered and with an immediate confession of faith, the man worshipped him. And so it was, that the first time he saw his Deliverer, it was to worship him. What a contrast was this faith and worship of the poor simple man, once blind, now in every sense seeing, to the blindness of judgment which had fallen on those who were the leaders of Israel!

It had been a contest between traditionalism and the Work of Christ. They also were traditionalists, were they also blind? But they had misunderstood him by leaving out the moral element, thus showing themselves blind indeed. It was not the calamity of blindness, but it was a blindness in which they were guilty and for which they were responsible, which indeed was the result of their deliberate choice. Therefore their sin - not their blindness only - remained!

This is an extract from the book, Jesus : Life and Times, available for £10 here (Finalist for Academic Book of the year at 2023 CRT awards)