John 9:8-23 Bible Teaching

John 9.23
Milk
April 27th 2014
Welcome – explain the following, then:

Live Streaming
Prayer by . . .
Sermonette by . . .

Music
Silence

Okay. We left off last week with Jesus telling the man born blind to take himself to the pool of Siloam and to wash and that he “believed enough” he trusted enough . . . he had FAITH enough in the words and instructions of Jesus to follow through and in following through the man received his sight.

So let’s read what happens next.

Now last week we remained on verse 7 and that took up all our time but today we’re going to hit verses 8-23 . . . so let’s get to it.

The man has come back seeing and (verse 8)

8 The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.
14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

John 9:8 The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

It’s no wonder there was some excitement going on – I mean a man born blind coming around who could then SEE! Wow.

I mean this is a miracle of miracles, right up there with a legless man growing another pair and walking around.

I would suggest that this miracle is as big (and maybe even bigger) than someone being raised from the dead because it was firmly established, by the proof of years and years, that this man was certainly blind – nobody would fake that for a lifetime.

Someone deemed dead who is raised could be called into question with the idea that they were never really dead in the first place . . . but a man born blind!

Well in came the neighbors.

I love this next line – makes me smile:

9 Some said, “This is he:” others said, “He is like him:” but he said, “I am he.”

Our minds are really wired for certainty as paths are created by and through our senses and experience that when repeated (over and over again) they “dig deeper” into the brain, causing trails and paths of recognition and memory.

For this cause many of us have a VERY difficult time seeing “outside the box,” so to speak. We know what we know, we see what we see, and much of it is predicated off the stimuli and experiences we been subject to prior that helps define our perceptions.

This is one reason (among many) why sensory experience can be so failing in discerning and detecting truth – much of it is subjectively tainted.

The neighbors were used to viewing this man born blind within a certain context. Perhaps he was hunched over, or held his head in a certain manner, or his carriage and general disposition was displayed in a certain fashion – and now that he could physically see these types of things changed . . . and so those who had probably seen him everyday weren’t sure of his identity.

This phenomena occurs with Mary at the tomb of Jesus too.

Even mental and or emotional states can alter the way we view, see, or recognize others.

I’ve told this story before but when my older brother was alive and parenting a young family of five their dog Oprah – a black lab – ran out in the street and was hit by a car and killed.

All the family went out and gathered around her tearfully, and then went into the house to mourn, leaving Oprah on the front lawn.

A half an hour later a black lab walked into their living room as the kids sat around crying.

It was Oprah – who it seemed had just been knocked unconscious and upon revival, came back in the house – business as usual.

What was funny was nobody in the family recognized her. They though she was another dog from the neighborhood.

Why? In their minds she was dead and gone.

This seems to be the case here with the man born blind.

Those who knew him asked, “Is not this he that sat and begged?” And some said, “This is he:” and others said, “He is like him.”

I love the last line of verse nine though where the once blind man says, ”I am he.”

Can you imagine growing up blind and only recognizing people by the tone of their voice to then actually be able to put a face to the voice!

There’s plenty of material here for some great humor but I’m gonna let it pass. In any case the neighbors got inquisitive (saying – verse 10)

10 “How were thine eyes opened?

And the man recites the process as John had written it before, saying:

11 A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

It’s passages like this that reinforce my love and trust in the word of God as being legit and reliable.

I say this because the man born blind did not know much else about who gave him sight. So we don’t see him claiming Jesus was the Son of God or the promised Messiah – all he says is:

“A man named Jesus made clay, anointed my eyes, and told me to go to the pool of Siloam and wash – which I did, and I came seeing!”

12 Then said they unto him, “Where is he? He said, I know not.”

Now the next verse gives us insight into the culture of the day – especially the sway the religious leaders had over the people.

13 They (the neighbors) brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

When it says the Pharisees it means to the members of the Sanhedrim.

We could guess why they did this but cannot be sure.

In the face of miracles and good news almost everything was brought to the priest for inspection so it could have something to do with this.

Maybe they were pushing this miracle in the face of the Sanhedrim or maybe they wanted to get Jesus (the healer) in trouble as He had violated the Sabbath. For this latter reason John adds

14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

This seems to give us an indication of what motivated the neighbors to taking the man to the religious rulers.

And when we think about it this would be completely normative. Under the law, if the children of Israel broke the law there could be repercussions that would fall on the whole house.

So ratting each other out would be a natural reaction to living under the law.

Standing before the religious leaders we read:

15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, “He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.”

This is really a fascinating passage if we allow ourselves to think about it.

There, standing before them was a man who had his sight after a lifetime of being blind and the question asked was not:

“Tell us, were you blind but now you see?” but was instead, “How did you receive your sight?”

Do you see the difference in motivation revealed in the question asked?

I have had to grow up and change in this area. Coming from Mormonism (and then into another form of religion, American Evangelicalism) I too (for a time) became obsessed with How people experienced things relative to God rather than focusing on the fact that they HAD experienced them.

I suppose this stems from a natural need for “order” and “certainty” and making sure everything is properly done rather than living and walking by faith in and of itself.

“How” is to focus on “mode” and “law” rather than rejoicing in the fact that something has happened.

“How” is typically religious and a form of control if asked for any reason other than the joy of hearing about another person’s experience.

Keepers of the religious gates love how.

Not to many years back we had a woman who would come to CAMPUS and between meetings interrogate people saying:

“Have you been born-again?” If the response was “no,” there was an immediate, “why not?”

How does a person answer such a question? I mean if the sending of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of a person is up to God how can anyone really answer this?

Anyway, if the response to the question was, “Yes, I’ve been born again,” she would step closer and say, “how . . . how did this happen?”

Then if she didn’t hear the answer that she was looking for she would actually look at the person and say:

“You’re not born again.”

I have to admit that I’ve been secretely grateful that she moved on to another gathering place.

In any case, how people are baptized, how they pray in tongues (if they pray in tongues), how often they attend church, or read the Bible or contribute to the church . . . “how this, how that,” in my opinion, misses the bigger and more important issues about people and their walk which is

Does a person trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ alone to save them . . . which is a billion times more important that how they were converted.

We’ll here, standing before the Pharisees, the Man born-blind was asked how he received his sight – because amazingly enough whether or not he had received his sight was irrelevant – “how” ruled that day.

So he told them. (verse 16)

16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.” Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

I understand the importance of sound doctrine and how confused and mislead people can become when it is not provided.

Because of this we continue our assessment of Mormonism (and any other ism that adds or takes away from the biblical fact that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith).

But over the years I have become more and more (not less and less) . . . relaxed? Liberal? Trusting in the fact that our loving God is in control and there are many who differ on doctrine that have come to faith (despite their sect or creeds).

I have “lessoned in zeal” due to passages like this – where Jesus Himself, who was there doing a good work (causing a man born-blind to see) and that He was judged and condemned for the “how” of His work rather than the fact that it was successful.

There are lessons to be learned here, folks.

In any case some of the leaders said that despite the fact that Jesus gave this man sight “He was not of God,” and the reason they gave was because “He obeyed not the Sabbath!”

First of all there had to be an assumption that their views of the Sabbath were correct.

Then they had to believe that they were therefore in the position to judge others according to the views they held sacred.

Let me reiterate a few things about views – religious or otherwise.

In the scope and face of love I’m not so sure they matter so much . . . or even at all.

Certainly, we know from the word of God that there are some essentials to being saved.

But interestingly enough we all have views on what makes this list up!

So again, views are at best tertiary to faith and love.

As a teacher of the word I would strongly suggest that anyone who seeks to even see the kingdom of heaven must be born from above.

I will let the ways and means and how’s up to God.

I would also suggest that this rebirth (from above by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) is founded on an epistemological knowledge that Jesus is the I Am – and this means that a person knows his spiritual identity (not necessarily his physical or ontological identity).

Once this heavenly adoption or rebirth has taken place I would suggest that everything else is left to interpretation and the response believers are to have with others is one of agape love (which is one of patience, longsuffering, kindness, mercy, etc., etc).

Certainly there are plenty of things to learn as believers but I would strongly suggest NONE of them are worth strong words, harshness, division, or attack.

I would include in this the Trinity, version of the Bible, mode of baptism, any rejection or implementation of law, rebuking for sin, or any religious demand.

I would also suggest that since God is void of ego – completely void of ego – that God cannot be offended, and therefore in response to men or women who appear to be offending God the believers response is one of faith and love, not one of retaliation or wrath on God’s behalf.

In other words we honor God by loving others in His name, not through any other (human) means which we are wont to justify in the name of defending Him.

Here the Pharisees said plainly (thinking they were in the place to make such a judgment) that Jesus was “a sinner,” that God would not be behind His works.

The miracles couldn’t be denied – they were public and verifiable.

But they could deny they were from God, therefore intimating that they were from the devil.

And here we are presented with another temptation – to assign good to the devil when it was not done in the lives of someone like us.

This is exactly what they were doing to Jesus here. He had done a miraculous thing – GIVEN sight to a man born-blind!

But because He was not one of them (He was uneducated, the son of a carpenter, from Galilee, and hung out with sinners) they said His miracles could not have been from God – and therefore were done through trickery or from an evil source.

It’s of note that the earliest enemies of the Good News (like Celsus, Porphyry, and Julianas) never questioned Jesus miracles as having happened.

But they did attempt to prove that they were done by some evil influence or to account for them as happening in some other way.

Here too, I have been on the dogmatic trail – no more.

If something miraculous and good is done in the name of God I am going to accept it as of God until shown otherwise.

Jesus Himself said that God let’s the rain and sun fall and shine on the good and the evil – if that is the case I am not going to think it is in my purview to decide whether a miracle that benefits man is from God or not.

I will praise God and let every man be a liar.

So there was a division between the religious leaders with some saying that the miracle was no good because He did it on the Sabbath and others saying that a miracle like this had to be from God.

And there was a schism between them.
(verse 17)

17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

What is your opinion, man born blind, of the man who hath opened up your eyes?

And the man, not aware of the Lord and His divinity plainly gives his response and says: “He is a prophet.”

Which is another way of saying that the man who healed him acted on God’s behalf.

From his response we are let into a first row view of what God does in those who begin to see due to His healing.

First we have a man who was the lowest of low on the societal rung – a blind beggar. The only thing that would have made him lower would have been if he were a woman from Samaria.

So the Lord picks him out, touches him, gives him directives that could only be accomplished by faith, and then leaves him.

The man is brought before the religious rulers and not only hears but for the first time sees them arguing over the origin of the miracle.

And when they ask the man his opinion of the man he says, “He’s a prophet (meaning He is from God).

Slowly but ever so surely we see this man now being strengthened in his character.
Just wait.

But even at this point he doubtlessly knew that these powerful leaders were opposed to his person – at least some of them were.

But He was not ashamed.

In my early walk I was ashamed by the place of the Lord in my life. There are even times today when (in my soul) I might find myself to be tempted to lesson His presence in my life.

Admittedly, the world can have a profound but often subtle influence against the Jesus freak.

The man here resisted shame but openly said, “He is of God.” (verse 18). This pushed the Jewish religious leaders in a new defensive corner – they were now going to question the veracity of the tale to begin with, wondering if the man was really born-blind. (verse 18)

18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

And they asked the mans parents three specific questions:

19 saying, “Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

1st. Is this your son?

2nd. Was he born-blind? and,

3rd. How does he now see?

This would undoubtedly be a very frightening experience to parents in this day and age and I would suggest that thy intended to try and intimidate them.

20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

So, relative to the first two questions they apparently answered without any hesitation.

“We know that he is our son and we can attest that he had been born blind.”

But when it came to the third question they hedged. The reason I put it this way is because while they may have been speaking the truth, and that they did not know the means or who had given Him his vision, they did not feel comfortable giving God the glory for what may have been due to the fear of Man.

Listen to what they say:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

Even if they couldn’t positively answer the third question it seems that they could have responded more favorably.

I mean, their son who had been blind from birth could now see, for goodness sake. And yet they don’t seem to show forth much excitement, do they?

Instead, they put the third question right back on their son, saying:

He is of age (among the Jews this age was fixed at thirteen years so we know he was older than thirteen) He’s of age – ask him about it.

I mean, they could have said,

“In terms of how he got his sight or who gave it to him we are unaware but we praise God for this miracle and gift and know that such goodness is of Him.”

But this is not what happened. And John tells us why (in the next verse) saying:

22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

It seems, from the way John writes this that in this specific case of the man born-blind that the Jewish religious leaders had already made a rule that if anyone said this healing was due to Him they would be kicked out of the synagogue – and so the parents were obviously aware of this and reacted accordingly.

To be kicked out of the synagogue was to be ex-communicated, or treated without communication by people with whom you once had discourse and fellowship.

Among the Jews there were two grades of excommunication –

one for “lighter offences,” (and if I am correct I think there was twenty-four of these) and the other for “greater offences.”

The first for lighter offences meant that a man, let’s say, could not get within 4 cubits of his wife or friends or enter the synagogue for thirty days.

The other was far more severe as a person was forever banished from the worship of the synagogue but also had great curses placed on his head and was forbidden from all relations with all the people.

They referred to this as “the curse,” and it was so bad that once imposed a banished Jew could not buy or sell with others even if they were about to die.

I think that it was this latter punishment was what they intended to inflict if anyone should confess that Jesus was the Messiah and it was the fear of this terrible punishment that kept the man born blind’s parents from expressing their opinion.

So they deferred it back on their son.

From this we discover a common thread through scripture – standing up for God and His ways in the face of the world and being willing to suffer for it, or not and saving one’s self.

In Daniel chapter six we read of Daniel being a man of God and of great character.

So much so that he presided over all King Darius’s princes – who were greatly jealous of him but knew they couldn’t trap him.

So they said to themselves, “We’re not going to get Daniel to fail unless it has something to do with his devotion to God.”

So they went to King Darius and got a law passed that said, “For thirty days nobody can petition their God for anything but have to come to King Darius for all things. And if they break this rule they will be thrown in the lions den.”

And Darius signed the degree.

It is here where we see Daniel unafraid to serve his God as chapter 6 verse 10 says:

“Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.”

And you know the rest of the story – but instead of being excommunicated, Daniel was thrown in the lions den, much to the chagrin of King Darius.

But we also know that after a night therein Daniel walked right back out, the lesson being that though we stand for our God and King, He is with us and will rescue us in time of need.

Most of the Old Testament prophets, and all but one of the New Testament apostles, and even the Lord Himself, chose to stand for God – to the detriment of their physical well-being – instead of renounce Him or His will, and save themselves.

This was the case with all the earliest believers, with the setting in 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, and with all who have put their best interest behind their faith in God and God alone.

(beat)

We are talking about millions and millions who have been tortured and killed for the profession of their faith.

The writer of Hebrews describes them well, saying in chapter 11:

“and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.”

(beat)

Next week we’ll watch as the man born blind grows in faith . . . and boldness.

Q and A
Prayer