“A Man Called” (9:1-12)
About the only thing a blind man could do in that day was beg, and that is what this man was doing when Jesus passed by (John 9:8). No doubt there were many blind people who would have rejoiced to be healed, but Jesus selected this man (see Luke 4:25-27). Apparently the man and his parents were well known in the community. It was on the Sabbath when Jesus healed the man (John 9:14), so that once again He was upsetting and deliberately challenging the religious leaders (John 5:9ff.).
The disciples did not look at the man as an object of mercy but rather as a subject for a theological discussion. It is much easier to discuss an abstract subject like “sin” than it is to minister to a concrete need in the life of a person. The disciples were sure that the man’s congenital blindness was caused by sin, either his own or his parents’, but Jesus disagreed with them.
In the final analysis, all physical problems are the result of our fall in Adam, for his disobedience brought sin and death into the world (Rom. 5:12ff.). But afterward, to blame a specific disability on a specific sin committed by specific persons is certainly beyond any person’s ability or authority. Only God knows why babies are born with disabilities, and only God can turn those disabilities into something that will bring good to the people and glory to His name.
Certainly both the man and his parents had at some time committed sin, but Jesus did not see their sin as the cause of the man’s blindness. Nor did He suggest that God deliberately made the man blind so that, years later, Jesus could perform a miracle. Since there is no punctuation in the original manuscripts, we are free to read John 9:3-4 this way: “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents. But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of Him who sent Me, while it is day.”
Our Lord’s method of healing was unique: He put clay on the man’s eyes and told him to go and wash. Once Jesus healed two blind men by merely touching their eyes (Matt. 9:27-31), and He healed another blind man by putting spittle on his eyes (Mark 8:22-26). Though the healing power was the same, our Lord varied His methods lest people focus on the manner of healing and miss the message in the healing.
There were at least two reasons for our Lord’s use of the clay. For one thing, it was a picture of the incarnation. God made the first man out of the dust, and God sent His Son as a real Man. Note the emphasis on the meaning of “Siloam”–“sent.” And relate this to John 9:4: “The works of him that sent me” (see also John 3:17, 34; 5:36; 7:29; 8:18, 42). Jesus gave a little illustration of His own coming to earth, sent by the Father.
The second reason for the clay was irritation; it encouraged the man to believe and obey! If you have ever had an irritation in your eyes, you know how quickly you seek irrigation to cleanse it out! You might compare this “irritation” to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit as He uses God’s law to bring the lost sinner under judgment.
But the illumination now led to a problem in identification: Was this really the blind beggar, and who caused him to see? Throughout the rest of John 9, a growing conflict takes place around these two questions. The religious leaders did not want to face the fact that Jesus had healed the man or even that the man had been healed!
Four times in this chapter people asked, “How were you healed?” (John 9:10, 15, 19, 26). First, the neighbors asked the man, and then the Pharisees asked him. Not satisfied with his reply, the Pharisees then asked the man’s parents and then gave the son one final interrogation. All of this looked very official and efficient, but it was really a most evasive maneuver on the part of both the people and the leaders. The Pharisees wanted to get rid of the evidence, and the people were afraid to speak the truth!
They were all asking the wrong question! They should not have asked, “How?” but “Who?” (Simply rearrange the letters!) But we are so prone to ask, “How?” We want to understand the mechanics of a miracle instead of simply trusting the Savior, who alone can perform the miracle. Nicodemus wanted to know how he could reenter his mother’s womb (John 3:4, 9). “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). Understanding the process, even if we could, is no guarantee that we have experienced the miracle.
When asked to describe his experience, the man simply told what had happened. All he knew about the person who had done the miracle was that He was “a man called Jesus.” He had not seen our Lord, of course, but he had heard His voice. Not only was the beggar ignorant of Jesus’ identity, but he did not know where Jesus had gone. At this point, the man has been healed, but he has not been saved. The light had dawned, but it would grow brighter until he saw the face of the Lord and worshipped Him (see Prov. 4:18).
At least twelve times in the gospel of John, Jesus is called “a man” (see John 4:29; 5:12; 8:40; 9:11, 24; 10:33; 11:47, 50; 18:14, 17, 29; 19:5). John’s emphasis is that Jesus Christ is God, but the apostle balances it beautifully by reminding us that Jesus is also true man. The incarnation was not an illusion (1 John 1:1-4).