Muchacho Polaco

After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

My initial observation is that this seems incredibly strange. It’s always seemed strange. Spitting in dirt, making mud with your spit, then putting it the guys eyes?

There’s a similar experience in Mark 8:

They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?

Bethsaida (not to be confused with the pool called Bethesda in John 5) is far north in Galilee. Here there is no indication of mud being involved. And secondly, the way in which the man is healed is in two stages.

Another story of Jesus healing two blind men can be found in Matthew 9:

And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, “See that no one knows about it.”But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.

Here Jesus is recorded as just touching the men’s eyes. No spit, no mud. And then finally all three synoptic gospels record the story of Bartimaeus, a blind beggar that shouts after Jesus to heal him. Luke 18 records it this way:

What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me recover my sight.” And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.”And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.

And with this example, there is no spit, no mud, no touch, just words. So the manner in which Jesus heals blind people in the Bible is different on every occasion. There are similarities to be sure, but his manner seems person-specific.

There seems to be no small list of ideas proposed by various people as to why Jesus used spit and mud. Here’s an example:

Since the blind man was born blind, probably he had no eyeballs at all, just empty sockets

Except, the text says nothing about him not having eye balls and there’s absolutely no reason to think he wouldn’t have them. Here’s something even more ridiculous:

Jesus spat on the man’s eyes because spitting back then was a common form of insult. Jesus was insulting the works of the devil, canceling the devil’s works, thus why he formed his spit with the earth, the devil’s domain, and turning it into a miracle of God, thus trumping any works of the devil and showing he had power over this earth and God would get glory out of it.

Ambrose writes of this miracle,

“The only reason for his mixing clay with the spittle and smearing it on the eyes of the blind man was to remind you that he who restored the man to health by anointing his eyes with clay is the very one who fashioned the first man out of clay”

Another observation regarding this text is that there is no recorded interaction between Jesus and this man before Jesus puts these mud balls into the man’s eyes. Then the man is instructed to go wash to mud out in the pool of Siloam.

What was this man thinking? He allows Jesus to do this work on him and then obeys him when he instructs him to wash out the dirt. I can’t imagine what must have been going through his mind.

Had the blind man heard the question of the disciples? If so, then presumably he would have heard the answer given by Jesus. Hearing that compassionate answer could very well have been why he trusted Jesus. The blind man had probably been led to believe his entire life that he was blind because of sin. And not only had he likely been led to believe this, he most certainly would have been treated as if this is the case. The behavior of the disciples and the behavior of the religious leaders give the impression that this guy was likely despised (but perhaps tolerated).

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,