Muchacho Polaco

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

Verse 1 connects chapter 9 with the end of chapter 8 where Jesus had left the temple abruptly as the Jews had picked up stones to kill him. They wanted to kill him because Jesus had identified himself as I AM.

There are six instances of blind people being healed in the Gospels, but this is the only instance where the one healed was blind from birth. The man has no idea what the sun looks like, or what the color blue is like, or what the ocean looks like.

The age of the man is not given, but a Jewish male is considered a man at the age of 13 (women at the age of 12 because apparently they mature faster). There’s nothing in the text to identify this man’s age, but it could be much younger than what immediately comes to my mind when I hear the word man.

The question the disciples ask is difficult to understand. If the man was born a sinner, at what point would his sin have accounted for the blindness? The only options they could have in mind seem to be:

1) in the womb
2) in some pre-incarnate form
3) punishment for a future sin

Numerous commentators go with #1. Calvin thinks #2. If you believe God rewards based upon his knowledge of future events (arminians on election), then #3 would probably make just as much sense.

If it wasn’t the blind man’s sin, then the only other option evident to the disciples is that his parents must have sinned. I don’t think anyone would dispute that the sins of some can effect others. Babies are often born blind when the mother has gonorrhea. That sort of blindness is clearly the result of the parent’s sin. But there are babies born blind which are not the result of the sin of the parent.

In order to ask a question like that you have to think a few things about yourself.

– If sin caused things like that, then you must be alright with God because you are alright.
– If someone had something wrong with them, then they must not be alright with God.

It is easier to judge then to heal.

The text doesn’t explain the motive behind the question. The disciples pick a man suffering from a disability to ask a question about the cause of the disability. The way in which the question is worded would suggest there was a standard explanation to the problem of suffering. That is, they seem to think that if suffering exists, then it can only be explained by a specific sin. That seems to be Job’s friend’s understanding of suffering as well.

Sin always results in some form of suffering, but suffering is not always the result of some form of sin. Jesus evidences that in verse 3.

“He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities” (Psalm 103:10).

Jesus isn’t saying that this man or his parents are sinless. He is stating that the blindness isn’t the consequence of their sin. The blindness was given to the man that the works of God might be displayed in him.

What works of God? Is that a reference to Jesus healing this man from blindness? Was the blindness given at birth for the sole purpose of this meeting?

Sermon by Glenn Durham:

By misinterpreting passages which speak of the national and societal effects of corporate rebellion even to the third and fourth generations – by misapplying those to individuals, those born healthy were proud of their righteousness: “This man born blind may be pitied, but his punishment is well deserved. And (don’t you know) my eyesight is well-deserved.” But the Bible allows no such self-exaltation. Jeremiah 31.29-30: “In those days they shall no longer say: ‘’The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ 30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Ezekiel 18.20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.”

First, drawing a straight line denigrates our sin. If I were to receive in the body the just punishment for but one of my sinful thoughts this morning, I would be undone. A straight line implies the punishment fits the crime. But even in discipline, God’s people receive less than deserved.

Glenn goes on to ask the question which I think is behind the disciples’ question. Why then do we have suffering?

1. The promotion of spiritual maturity and Christ-like character (James 1.2-4).
2. To promote endurance—the ability to turn adversity into spiritual prosperity (James 1.2-4).
3. To promote wisdom—the ability to relate truth to experience (James 1.5-8).
4. To produce humility (James 1.9-11).
5. To provide the opportunity for rewards (James 1.12).
6. To prove the genuineness of our faith (1Peter 1.6-8).
7. To manifest the fruit of the Spirit (2Corinthians 4.11; Galatians 5.22,23).
8. To provide opportunities to witness for Christ (1Peter 3.15; Philippians 1.12).
9. To learn contentment (Philippians 4.11).
10. To help others who suffer (2Corinthians 1.3-24).
11. To rebuke believers guilty of pride and spiritual cowardice (1Corinthians 4.9-16).
12. To demonstrate the power of God in our lives (2Corinthians 11.24-33; John 9.2).
13. To learn obedience to the will of God (Hebrews 5.8).
14. To vindicate the character of God before Satan (Job 1.6-12).
15. To vindicate us before Satan (Job 1.6-12).
16. To instruct the believer in the holiness of God’s character (Job 42.5,6).
17. To deliver us from sinful thoughts and actions (Hebrews 12.5-11).
18. To wean us from earth and fix our hearts on heaven, where our hope is (Colossians 3.1-2).
19. To drive us to the Word (Psalm 119.71).
20. To create a more unified church and a more interdependent body of believers (“one another” verses).
21. To teach us about our weaknesses and cause us to depend on God (2Corinthians 12.7-10).
22. To bring him glory (the Bible).

Sermon shared by Rodney Buchanan

The second thing addressed in this story is: The reality of spiritual blindness. There are two kinds of blindness in the story. One is of the man who was born with a physical defect of blindness. The second is of the religious folk who had a spiritual defect and were spiritually blind. And the story tells us that spiritual blindness is worse than physical blindness.

The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.

There are no small number of expositors that attribute an act of betrayal to this man due to this passage. They believe he is trying to save himself from trouble by pointing to Jesus as the responsible party for his sabbath violation. But I don’t think that is what is happening.

First, the Jews had asked the man in verse 12 “who told you you to take up your bed and walk?” (apparently oblivious to the fact that a miracle had happened). But here in verse 15, he doesn’t introduce Jesus as the one that told him to pick up his mat and walk, but rather, he introduces Jesus as the healer.

In verse 14 Jesus told this man not to sin any more. This man was to be holy. But for some reason it is believed that when this man told the Jews who had healed him, he had violated some sort of agreement with Jesus not to tell anyone.

That might have been the case in Luke 5:

While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. And he charged him to tell no one, but “go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them.

But there’s no indication that Jesus wanted this man to keep quiet about what had happened to him. After all, that would have been impossible given the very public nature of this miraculous event. Even in Luke 5, Jesus commanded the healed leper to go and tell the religious leaders (ie, the priests) of what had happened.

This man recognized Jesus’ authority and significance when he picked up his mat and carried it away. Up to this point in John’s story, the only hostility we see involving Jesus is when Jesus is driving people out of the temple with a whip. I don’t see what evidence this man would have had that the religious authorities would have been hostile toward Jesus (at least, not at this point in time).

And it’s probably true that there is some degree of self-interest here. After all, the allegation was that this man had violated the sabbath. That’s a serious allegation. But this was an unusual circumstance, and God’s law has provisions for exceptional circumstances. By appealing to Jesus, this man is showing that he did nothing wrong.

The man departed, and told the Jews.—We are not told what reason underlay his report to the Jews. It is natural that he should give the answer which he could not give before (John 5:13), and that he should wish to secure himself from the charge of Sabbath-breaking by supplying his authority. The narrative does not suggest that he did this in a tone of defiance, which has been found here from a remembrance of John 9, still less that he used his new strength immediately to bring a charge against the Giver of it. The impression is rather, that he felt that this power came from a prophet sent by God, and that he told this to those who were God’s representatives to the nation, supposing that they would recognize Him too. – Ellicott

In the temple – The man seems to have gone at once to the temple – perhaps a privilege of which he had been long deprived. They who are healed from sickness should seek the sanctuary of God and give him thanks for his mercy. Compare the notes at Isaiah 38:20. There is nothing more improper, when we are raised up from a bed of pain, than to forget God our benefactor, and neglect to praise him for his mercies. – Barnes Notes

Barnes makes an excellent point that even those today whom suffer from debilitating sickness can relate in their inability to gather corporately in worship. Ryle also draws the same conclusion as the two above:

There is no proof that the man did this with an evil design. Born a Jew and taught to reverence his rulers and elders, he naturally wished to give them the information they desired and had no reason to suppose, for anything we can see, that it would injure his Benefactor.

Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.

This reminds me of a story my sister shared with me years ago. She said they were enjoying an afternoon meal at a local restaurant when one of her young ones, then just a baby, began choking on a piece of food. She said that she was terrified as the baby’s face began to turn blue as apparently he was not able to breath and appeared to be suffocating to death. She told me a man approached the table, did something to the baby to dislodge the food. The obstruction was removed and the baby was able to breath again. However, the man that did this had promptly walked away and left the restaurant. There was no opportunity to know he was or to thank him.

Jesus seems to have done something similar. He departs before the man can even ask his name. The text doesn’t read that Jesus moved away because there was a crowd. Although some commentators interpret this as the reason of Jesus’ departure. Perhaps that’s because other texts seem to indicate this as a reason for why Jesus leaves various situations.

But if it wasn’t the crowd that motivated Jesus to leave, what was it? Calvin thinks the following:

He therefore withdrew for a little, that the Jews might have it in their power to judge of the fact itself, without reference to any person.

There is a lot of people in this area. It is the sabbath. Jesus commanded this man to pick up his bed, carry it, and walk. That’s a volatile situation that Jesus has ignited. Jesus then walks away.

Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.”

“Afterward” doesn’t specify the amount of time that elapsed between verse 14 and what went on before. Most seem to think it was the same day, though there’s nothing in the text that would seem to require that interpretation.

The man is in the temple. That’s where you go to offer worship and thanks to God. That seems to be the appropriate response by one that is grateful for what God has done. The Church is not the temple of God, but like the temple, it is where the people of God congregate to worship and give thanks. Those that have been healed by God have a natural disposition to gravitate toward worship and thanksgiving.

Here Jesus links suffering to sin. Many commentators take this as evidence that the man’s 38-years of misery and suffering were attributable to some past sin in the man’s life. That’s certainly possible. Sin does have physical consequences. Consider 1 Corinthians 11.27-30:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Sin is a disease that affects us physically. But sin is not the only thing that affects us physically. For this reason, one cannot attribute sin to every illness. That is made evident in passages such as John 9.

Physically, it might have been hard to imagine something worse than the suffering this man experienced over the course of the prior 38-years. For this reason, Piper sees Christ’s warning relating to the final judgement:

I take that—final judgment—to be the “worse thing” (in verse 14) that will happen because there aren’t many natural things worse than the 38 years this man endured,

So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.”

The man was carrying his bed while he walked, as Jesus had commanded. But now he’s being reminded that what he is doing is unlawful. Was it unlawful? Most modern commentary suggest the allegation is rooted in an early rabbinic tradition which was adding to the law of God.

In Sproul’s book on John (and in his sermons, which are identical in content to the book), he says:

Now, I ask you where in the Word of God does it say it is unlawful for a person who has been healed of paralysis to carry his bed? You know the answer to that question: nowhere. But the rabbis, in their historical interpretation of the law, had enumerated thirty-nine specific types of work that were illegal on the Sabbath (lay, and the thirty-ninth rule of Sabbath observance the very last one in the list was the prohibition against carrying something from one place to another. As a result of that human rule, the Jews reacted very negatively when they saw this man a man who had been lying paralyzed for thirty-eight years walking and carrying his bed.

It’s true the rabbis enumerated 39 prohibitions in the Babylonian Talmud, but that was written long after the time of Jesus. Despite being much later, the traditions are said to have originated during the time of Jesus.

Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been [resolved] by him during those silent thirty years when he was pondering his future mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud. Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teaching which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud?

The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions. – Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson

And also from a Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.

Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.

The 39th rule relates to carrying things, or transference from one domain to another. Presumably then that rule originates here during the time of Pharisees here in John 5.

Calvin understands the nature of the conflict and believes God’s law expressly forbids carrying burdens on the sabbath.

And it was the Sabbath. Christ was well aware how great offense would immediately arise, when they saw a man walk along laden with burdens; for the Law expressly forbids

to carry any burden whatever on the Sabbath-day, (Jeremiah 17:21.)

Jeremiah 17:21 reads:

Thus says the LORD: Take care for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the Sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem.

The Jews were right to interpret Jeremiah 17 as relevant for proper Sabbath observance, but what they were not considering were acts of mercy done on the Sabbath. At least, they weren’t being consistent in their consideration. In Matthew 12, Jesus reminds them of this inconsistency (verses 11 and 12):

He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

It seems the religious leaders have missed the intent of the Sabbath. In verse 7 of the same chapter, Jesus had said (quoting Hosea 6.6):

If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Acts of mercy were not a violation of sabbath ordinances. And the Jews knew that to some degree because, as Jesus pointed out, they engaged in acts of mercy on the sabbath when emergencies occurred (like an animal falling into a pit). They just weren’t consistent.

So in this man’s situation. Had he just been carrying his mat on the sabbath with no other reason than to transport it from one location to another, then it seems he would be in violation of the sabbath. But he had been healed on the sabbath. And this was an obvious act of mercy.

The context does not make it clear that the “Jews” (whomever that’s referring to, presumably Jewish leaders), knew that this man had been healed from his disability on the sabbath. If that was the case, then their accusation seems warranted. So the healed man explains to them:

But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’”

The man reveals to them that he had been healed. His defense is an appeal to the person that healed him. The person that had healed him told him to do these things.

Some commentators see this as similar to Adam’s defense in Genesis 3:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

Adam had violated God’s command and then blamed God for the conditions in which that violation took place. But that’s not what is happening here. This man had not sinned. On the contrary, he had obeyed Jesus’ command by carrying his mat and walking. His appeal to the man that healed him was an appeal to that man’s authority. He just didn’t know that man’s name:

They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?”

I think the question is telling. They didn’t ask, Who is the man who healed you?, rather, they’re focused on the take up your bed and walk part as though there not even prepared to consider that acts of mercy are exceptions to sabbath prohibitions. They seem to have tunnel vision.

This is all the more indicting given they are standing in front of a pool called Bethesda. Which means House of Mercy.

Calvin has insightful commentary regarding the rashness of the Jews judgement:

It is the Sabbath. It was the duty of all to maintain the sanctity of the Sabbath, and, therefore, they justly and properly accuse the man. But, when the excuse offered by the man does not satisfy them, they already begin to be in fault; for, when the reason was known, he ought to have been acquitted. It was a violation of the Sabbath, as we have said, to carry a burden; but Christ, who laid the burden on his shoulders, discharges him by his own authority. We are therefore taught by this example to avoid every rash judgment, until the reason of each action be fully known.

Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.

The speed in which this miraculous event occurs reminds me of the words of Paul in 1Cor. 15.52 when speaking of the putting on of the resurrected body:

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

This man had been physically disabled for 38 years, and then instantly this had changed. He was now able to walk. This phenomenon is all the more curious as the miracle had to have been in part mental. Like the blind man from birth who was able to see immediately when healed in John 9, this man was able to walk immediately. Just having two functional legs doesn’t mean you can walk. Newborns have legs, but they aren’t born walking. Generally, you have to learn to walk (or re-learn how to walk). Those that experience leg injuries that have underwent surgical correction often spend an enormous amount of time in rehabilitative therapy trying to learn how to walk again. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. His legs are physically restored AND he knows how to use them.

And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath.

Jesus tells him to do three things. Get up. Pick up your bed. And walk. The man does all three. And it’s not as if Jesus isn’t aware of the immediate antagonism this man would experience. They are in Jerusalem during a feast. They are standing in front of a gate to the city where a flow of traffic would be pouring into the city. There was a lot of observers. In a sense, this man is on display.

Presumably this man would have known that it would have caused problems to carry his bed on the Sabbath. He’s physically disabled, not mentally disabled. Everyone would have known that. So for him to do so would have been seen as scandalous. But even so, the man does as Jesus tells him. He doesn’t object and remind Jesus what day of the week it is. He doesn’t appeal to the religious leaders and remind Jesus that what he is asking would violate their understanding of the law. Jesus has demonstrated his authority and this man responds appropriately. He does what Jesus tells him to do, despite the consequences. Even when everyone is looking. Even though it’s not safe for him to do so. Picking up his mat could cost him his life.

Here’s the apparent dilemma. On the one hand, the religious authorities have taught the people that carrying a bed on the Sabbath would be a violation of the law. But Jesus has told the man to violate that law (or perhaps, that this was an exceptional case which would exempt the action of carrying the mat as a violation of the law). Jesus is telling the man to carry his mat, the religious leaders have taught him otherwise. But the actions of Jesus have established him as authoritative. So there are two competing authorities presented to this man. He chooses to obey Jesus.

This dilemma reminds me of the Garden.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The serpent contradicted the word of God and in so doing, encouraged Eve to evaluate the situation for herself. In effect, setting herself up as an authority to determine the truth of the word of God. And it was by this authority that Eve determined that God’s word was not true. And so she ate.

What should she have done? Or what should her husband have done (who stood silently and cowardly by her side as she was essentially attacked by the serpent)? Well minimally they should not have questioned the word of God. Any time one questions the word of God, they are, as Eve, setting up another standard in order to judge the word of God. That new standard then becomes the highest authority, not the word of God. It is nothing less than an effort to dethrone God. That was the agenda of the serpent. It is still the agenda of the serpent.

I started a men’s group in the house that meets on Friday evenings. The group chose the topic of ‘covenant’ to study. The group consists of 5 guys, all of whom enjoy studying subjects in depth. We’ve met twice previously now, the first to identify a subject and the second to start that subject. We are tentatively scheduled to meet tonight if everyone’s schedule can accommodate.

The last time we met we identified a covenant as a social construct that defines the parameters of a particular type of relationship. We considered the difference between unilateral and bilateral covenants. We then spent some time contrasting a covenant with a contract. I had previously given them the analogy of a prostitute and a wife to help identify the differences between the two. We discussed duration, stipulations, breach, misrepresentation, oaths, symbolism/sacraments, and sanctions (both positive and negative).

The homework I offered them was to consider the covenant ceremony instituted in Genesis 15 with Abraham, as well as the covenant ceremony in Jeremiah 34.

Questions to consider are:

1) What is the significance of the animals cut in half?
2) What is the significance of the torch moving through the halves of the animal while Abram is in a trance?
3) Is this a unilateral or bilateral covenant?
4) Same questions repeated for Jeremiah 34.

The list of animals seems strange, but yet Abram seems familiar with the process. The general consensus is that the animals split in half symbolizes the consequence to one that violates the conditions of the covenant.

The torch and oven moving through the animals symbolizes God, who often appears in similar forms (burning bush, pillar of fire, etc).

The covenant is presumed unilateral which is illustrated by God alone passing through the animal pieces.

In Jeremiah, animals are likewise split in two (see verse 18) and God references that imagery when explaining what will happen to those that violated the terms of the covenant. This covenant seems bilateral in that conditions are expected to me met by the men that entered into the covenant.