Read: John 9: 8-34
As mentioned on
Day 61, one of the similarities between the third and sixth signs is that they
both took place on the Sabbath. On both
occasions, this led to a major confrontation between Jesus and the
Pharisees. In both instances, the
Pharisees begin an investigation, not to confirm Jesus’ identity as the Christ,
but to prove that Jesus’ willingness to violate the Sabbath law was proof that
He could not possibly be the Messiah.
In neither case
was Jesus present when the Pharisees conducted their interrogation. He did,
however, reappear to both men after their interviews. In the case of the blind man, this is
especially significant because the blind man had not seen Jesus during their
initial encounter. After Jesus made and
applied His sacred saliva salve, He told His patient to go and wash. It was
only after the man had obeyed this command that he regained his sight, and by
then Jesus was gone. Therefore, when the Pharisees questioned him, the once-blind
man was not able to identify Jesus, having never actually seen Him. When the Pharisees asked who had healed him,
he responded, "the man they call Jesus." Unlike the blind man, the
paralytic man from chapter 5 had been able to see Jesus during their encounter,
but could not identify Him by name. When questioned about the identity of his
Healer, the paralyzed man "had no idea who it was" (John 5:13). It
was only after Jesus reappeared to him that the man was able to identify his
Healer by the name, "Jesus."
Of the two
investigations, the Pharisees seemed to be more concerned with the healing of
the blind man. Their concern may have been because of the clear messianic
implication of such a miracle. There
seems to have been a general understanding among the Jews that the ability to
restore sight to the blind would serve as a sure sign of the arrival of Messiah
(see Matthew 11:4-6; Luke 7:21-22; Isaiah 61).
The healed man may have been referring to this when he told the
Pharisees, "Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born
blind" (John 9:32). The Pharisees first attempted to deny that this was
the same man who had been blind. After interviewing the man's parents, they
were forced to abandon that approach. Rather than recognizing the significance
of such a sign, the Pharisees just ignored the implications of this miracle and
instead questioned the method and timing of the act itself. They also attempt to deflect the meaning of
such an event by asking the man to answer questions they were unwilling to
entertain themselves: "What do you say about him?" "Don't you agree this man is a
sinner?" "How can this man do
something like this when we don't even know where he comes from?"
The Pharisees'
interrogation methods have an interesting effect on the formerly blind
man. He starts out reasoning that Jesus
must be a "prophet" (John 9:17) but ends up acknowledging that Jesus
must be from God or He would not have been able to do the things He did. The irony of a "blind" man seeing
what the Pharisees were unwilling to acknowledge is one of the most beautiful
aspects of this passage.
The parallels
between these two encounters serve to highlight the main difference between
them. The paralytic man bows to the pressure of the religious leaders and turns
Jesus in for violating the Sabbath law. The blind man, however, chooses to
stand up for Jesus and ends up cast out of the synagogue.
Both men were
in need Both men were helpless. Both men received a miraculously cured. Both
men faced a challenge over the source of their healing and the identity of
their Healer. Only one was willing to accept the truth.
Jesus,
Teach me to see Your hand at
work and to acknowledge You as the worker of all miracles. Give me the courage
to declare Your name with the confidence of knowing that those who are willing
to confess You before others, You will confess before Your Father.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment