THE THIRD MESSIANIC MIRACLE: THE HEALING OF A MAN BORN BLIND
A. Introduction The third messianic miracle was the healing of anyone born blind. It was one thing to heal someone who simply had gone blind, but to heal someone born blind would be a messianic miracle. A lot of details on this third messianic miracle are given in John 9:1-41. This lengthy chapter can be divided into five specific segments.
B. The Physical Healing of a Man Born Blind The first segment, verses 1-12, records the physical healing itself. In John 9:1-5 we read: And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, 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 comes, when no man can work. When I am in the world, I am the light of the world. This incident occurred on a Sabbath day as they walked in the streets of Jerusalem and went by a man who had been born blind. Not only was it the time of the Sabbath, it was also the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, which makes this an especially holy or “high Sabbath.”
The questions of the apostles appear to be very strange, “who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Who committed such a terrible sin that this man was born blind? The strangeness in the question is not whether this man's parents sinned causing him to be born blind. There is the principle of the Mosaic Law in Exodus 34:6-7 that God visits the sins of the fathers “upon the children, and the children's children, unto the third and fourth generation.” It is conceivable that the parents had committed a specific sin and God visited that sin upon their son, causing the son to be born blind. The defect of blindness at birth could have been a result of a specific sin committed by the parents.
Therefore, that is not the strange part of the question. But the question is not merely , “Did this man's parents sin and he was born blind?” but they also asked, “Or was it this man that sinned and then he was born blind?” That is the strange part of the question. How could he have sinned first and then have been born blind? Judaism never taught the doctrine of reincarnation. In light of this fact, how could he have sinned before he was born?
The question asked by the disciples actually reflected the Pharisaic Judaism in which they had been raised. According to Pharisaic Judaism, a birth defect, such as being born blind, was due to a specific sin, either committed by the parents or committed by the individual. But again, how could an individual have sinned first and then be born blind? According to Pharisaic Judaism, at the point of conception, the fetus has two inclinations. In Hebrew, they are called the yetzer hara, which means “the evil inclination,” and the yetzer hatov, “the good inclination.” These two inclinations are already present within the new human being who has just been conceived in the womb. During that nine-month development within the womb of the mother, there is a struggle going on for control between the two inclinations. It might just very well have occurred that, at one point, the evil inclination got the better of the fetus; and, in a state of animosity or anger towards his mother, he kicked his mother in the womb. For this act of sin, for this act of animosity, he was born blind. The disciples' question actually reflected the Pharisaic Judaism in which they had been raised. So they asked, “Did this man sin while he was still in the womb, or did his parents sin causing him to be born blind?”
The disciples are guilty of two fallacies. The first fallacy was to accept the Pharisaic teaching that the child could have sinned in his mother's womb and, therefore, be born blind. The second fallacy is that a birth defect, such as being born blind, must be due to some specific, terrible sin.
In verse 3, Jesus dispelled that Pharisaism very quickly:... Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. In other words, he was born blind not because of any specific sin committed by his parents or by himself.
Of course, all physical problems are due to Adam's fall and are a result of the general problem of sin and fallen humanity. Men die because of the general sin of humanity, because they are descendants of Adam. However, to say that a specific birth defect, sickness, illness, or injury is always due to some particular sin or a particular demon is a fallacious teaching. Yeshua clearly dispelled this teaching by saying that this man did not sin, nor did his parents sin. Quite the contrary, God so arranged for this man to be born blind so that God could gain the greater glory by accomplishing a great work.
Having dispelled and corrected the false theology of His own disciples on this point, He then proceeded with the healing. He chose to heal the person in such a way that it was somewhat of a process so, at this moment, the man never got to see Him. What Jesus did was to spit on the ground, mixing the spit with the dirt; He made a substance of clay and then smeared the clay on the man's eyes. He told the man to go to the Pool of Siloam and wash the clay from his eyes, and then he would be able to see.
It is very significant that of all the places Y eshua could have sent the man to wash his eyes, He sent him to only one pool of the many in Jerusalem–the Pool of Siloam. This pool was not easy to get to from the main part of Jerusalem because he had to walk down a steep hill. This was the week of the Feast of Tabernacles and during this feast, there was a special ritual called “the outpouring of water.” In this ritual, the priests came down from the Temple Mount to the Pool of Siloam, filled jugs with the water from the Pool of Siloam, marched back up the Temple Mount, and poured out the water into the Laver within the Temple Compound. This was followed by great rejoicing. During the Feast of Tabernacles, the main pool, which was the center of Jewish attention, was the Pool of Siloam, the one pool that had the greatest number of Jewish people present who would observe this third messianic miracle.
The man went to the Pool of Siloam, washed his eyes, and when he opened his eyes, for the first time in his entire life, he was able to see! Since everyone knew this man and knew he was born blind, this created a tremendous stir. John 9:8-9 records:The neighbors therefore, and they that saw him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he. There was much confusion because many people recognized him to be that same one, but others had a hard time believing that a man who was born blind had been healed. They responded by saying, “No, he just looks like him.” Finally, the man said, “I am he.” When they finally asked the crucial question, “How are you now able to see?” After all, this is a messianic miracle.
His response, in verse 11 was: He answered, The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam, and wash: so I went away and washed, and I received sight. When they asked him, “Where is he? He said: I know not.” Remember, when Yeshua sent him away to the Pool of Siloam, the man was still in a state of blindness; he had never seen Jesus. Even now when he was able to see, the man still did not know who Yeshua was or what He looked like.
C. The First Interrogation of the Man In the second part, John 9:13-17, the man is interrogated for the first time. Because this was a messianic miracle, the man was taken to the Pharisees for investigation and explanation. Because Jesus chose to heal the man on a Sabbath day, a stir was created on the part of the masses. The Pharisees knew very well that they must somehow act on this issue. As the Pharisees began to interrogate the man to discover the circumstances of his being healed of the blindness with which he was born, a division developed among them.
According to verse 16a: Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keeps not the sabbath. Because they felt that healing on the Sabbath was a violation of the Sabbath, they did not believe that Jesus could be a man of God, let alone the Man of God, the Messiah Himself.
Even among the Pharisees, they were asking the question in verse 16b: But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? Notice the emphasis, not just upon signs, because false prophets could also perform miracles, but upon such these particular signs, these special messianic miracles.
When they asked the man who was born blind and now healed of his blindness what his opinion was about Yeshua, the man simply concluded that at least the man must have been a prophet (v. 17). However, according to Pharisaic teaching, though a prophet might be able to do miracles, like Elijah and Elisha certainly did, to do a messianic miracle was not the prerogative of a prophet, but rather the prerogative of the Messiah alone.
So the first interrogation of the man did not lead to any specific conclusions.
D. The Interrogation of the Parents In the third segment of this passage, John 9:18-22, the parents are interrogated. Among the Pharisees, the question was raised, “Suppose the whole thing is not true to begin with. Just suppose the man never was born blind and the whole thing is a trick.” The parents confirm two things. First that this man was definitely their son and there was no doubt about his being their son. The second thing they affirmed was that he was born blind. So there was no longer any possibility that there was any type of fakery going on or that someone was trying to play a trick on the Pharisees. When the Pharisees asked the parents during the interrogation if their son was really born blind, how was he now able to see, the parents decided to say nothing more and to let their son speak for himself.
The reason for their reluctance is given in verse 22: These things said his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. It had already been decreed that if anyone owned Jesus as Messiah, he would be excommunicated from the synagogue. It is obvious that the parents wanted to believe in Him, and perhaps at this point they had become secret believers in His Messiahship, because they saw that He not only performed a messianic miracle but also performed that miracle on their own son.
In Pharisaic Judaism, there were three specific levels of excommunication. The first level is called the hezipah, which is simply a “rebuke” that lasted anywhere from seven to thirty days and was merely disciplinary . It could not be taken unless pronounced by three rabbis. That was the lowest level of excommunication. An example of the hezipah is found in I Timothy 5:1. The second level is called the niddui, which means, “to cast out.” It would last a minimum of thirty days and was disciplinary . A niddui had to be pronounced by ten rabbis. Examples of the second type are found in II Thessalonians 3:14-15 and Titus 3:10. The third and worst type of excommunication is called the cherem, which means to be “un-synagogued,” to “be put out of the synagogue and to be separated from the Jewish community .” The rest of the Jews considered someone under the cherem curse to be dead, and no communication or any kind of relationship whatsoever could be carried on with the person. This third type is found in I Corinthians 5:1-7 and Matthew 18:15-20.
The fact that the expression, “be put out of the synagogue” is used, tells us which level of excommunication the Pharisees had chosen for one who would own Y eshua as Messiah. It was the third and most severe level, the Therefore, the Pharisees were now threatening a Jewish believer–not merely with a rebuke or merely with being cast out temporarily–but to be put out permanently . Because the parents knew what the Pharisees had decreed concerning the issue of Jesus was the third level of excommunication, they chose not to make any further comments, except to affirm those two things: that he was their son, and that he was born blind.
Therefore, the interrogation of the parents, as the first interrogation of the man, also ends inconclusively .
E. The Second Interrogation of the Man The fourth segment of this chapter, John 9:23-34, records the second interrogation of the man born blind. During this interrogation, the Pharisees began to lose their sense of logic.
They called him in for the second time in verse 24 and said to him:... Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. Notice how illogical this statement is. “Praise the Lord!” they say, “because we know that this man, Yeshua, is a sinner.” But one never goes around saying, “Praise the Lord! we know such-and-such is a sinner.” This is not something to praise God for. It is a sad thing when people commit specific acts of sin. But the Pharisees are so beside themselves over Jesus that they are no longer able to think clearly or think in a logical manner.
At this point, the man that had been healed was able to keep somewhat calm and still able to exercise some degree of control. He said to them in verse 25: ... Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. The statement the man made was not just a statement of fact; it was a challenge to the Pharisees, one that they had to answer. What he was saying to them between the lines was, “I was a man who was born blind, not simply a man who went blind. You are the ones who taught me that only the Messiah would be able to heal someone that was born blind. I was born blind. A man named Yeshua was able to heal me. According to the theology, you taught me, I would think you would want to proclaim Him to be Israel's Messiah. Instead, you call him a sinner. Whether or not He is a sinner, I do not know. One thing I do know: whereas I was blind, now I see. Please explain this to me.”
In verses 26-27, the Pharisees took up the challenge and asked the question, “What did he to you? how opened he thine eyes?” (v. 26). The man had already explained to the Pharisees more than once, so, in verse 27, he responded to the Pharisees, I told you even now, “I already told you!” and ye did not hear; “you did not listen,” wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples? Of course, this was not a very smart thing to say to Pharisees, “Would you also like to become the disciples of Jesus?” That was the last thing they were interested in. At this point, the man was no longer being tactful.
They replied in like manner in John 9:28-29: And they reviled him, and said, You are his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is. The Pharisees began to revile the man. They poked fun at him. They obviously saw that the man was not going to be persuaded to accept their statement that Jesus was a sinner. They gave up the man to Yeshua and said, “Well, you can go ahead and be his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know God spoke to Moses, but we don't know where this man is coming from whatsoever.” The implication was that God did not speak to Jesus, so to be a disciple of Moses was superior to being a disciple of Yeshua.
But the man would not keep silent. In verse 30, he went on to answer them: ... Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes. “You are the religious leadership of Israel. You taught me that only the Messiah would ever be able to make me see. Now I do see, and you cannot explain it to me, you who are the religious leaders of the people of Israel.”
He went on to remind them of their own theology in verses 31-32:We know that God hears not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he hears. Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. There are records of the healings of people who went blind, but not one record of someone who was born blind and had been healed. This was a messianic miracle, and for the first time in all of human history, this messianic miracle was performed. The man simply said to the Pharisees that they had no basis or grounds for rejecting the Messiahship of Jesus.
The Pharisaic response is in verse 34: They answered and said unto him, You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us? “You were born in sin.” Why did they say this? Because of the Pharisaic theology that anyone who was born blind was born that way because of some specific sin, either committed by the individual while in the womb of the mother, or by his parents. So they said, “You were born in sin. We were not, because we were not born blind.”
Then verse 34 says: And they cast him out. The “casting out” in this verse is the same as the “casting out” in verse 22, which means, “to be put out of the synagogue.” The man was excommunicated.
F. The Spiritual Healing
The fifth and last segment of this chapter, John 9:35-41, records his spiritual healing. Yeshua heard what had happened, that the man had been cast out of the synagogue. In verse 35, Yeshua approached the man and asked him: ... Do you believe on the Son of God?
In verse 36, the man answered: ... And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? Remember the man had not yet seen Jesus.
His response is in verses 37-38: Jesus said unto him, You have both seen him, and he it is that speaks with you. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. The man saw Yeshua and he worshipped Him. To worship a man was to acknowledge that the man was also God. The formerly blind man, then, had a spiritual healing.
Summary: The result of the first messianic miracle was that the intensive investigation of Yeshua's Messiahship began. The result of the second messianic miracle was the decree that Jesus was not the Messiah on the basis of demon possession. The leadership's response to the third messianic miracle was that anyone who owned Jesus as their Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.
