Chapter 9
There is a contrast
between chapter eight and chapter nine:
1. In chapter eight we have Jesus in the
temple; in chapter nine Jesus is outside. Outside He has a greater ministry
than inside.
2. In chapter eight He is the light of the
world; in chapter nine He communicates light. There is a person who has been in
darkness since birth and he is going to see for the first time.
3. In chapter nine Christ is rejected and
heckled in the temple; in chapter eight, outside of the temple, He is received
and worshipped.
4. In chapter eight Christ stoops down and
writes on the temple floor; in chapter nine He stoops down and spits in the
dirt and turns it into mud.
5. In chapter eight Christ hides Himself from
the religious crowd; in chapter nine He reveals Himself to a blind man.
6. In chapter eight inside of the temple
Jesus is called demon possessed; outside of the temple Jesus is called Lord.
Basically, this is a fabulous chapter because
it takes Jesus outside of the temple, breaks as it were from the whole
religious structure, and there He performs something that focuses attention on
Him for every generation as long as the world exists.
Outline of the chapter:
The blind man and the miracle, verses 1-12
The blind man and the Pharisees, verses 13-34
Verse 1 – “And as Jesus passed by.” The word Jesus in the KJV is not found in the
original. It is “as he passed by.” We know who it is because of the previous
chapter, last verse. This is a present active participle and means to be in the
process of passing by. In other words, Jesus has just walked out on the
religious crowd and is coming down the steps of the temple. The word for passing by is paragw [a)gw = to go; par is from para which means to be going by
or beside]. “Jesus in the process of going by” is the way it should be
translated. In other words, He was about to step past this blind man when He
stopped. He recognised that this man was responsive.
“saw a man which was blind from birth” – the
word saw is o(raw. Just to give a glance
would be blepw but the word o(raw here means that He gets the
picture when He goes by. He saw the blind man but the blind man can’t see Him,
even though he senses Jesus’ presence. Jesus has just been heckled by the
religious crowd but inside of this blind man He sees something that was
non-existent in the religious crowd – positive volition at the point of
God-consciousness. Jesus could see his positive volition and that is all that
was necessary.
1.
The essence of God. In essence God is perfect and therefore it is
impossible for Him to be unfair to this blind man.
2.
Unlimited atonement. When Jesus Christ goes to the cross He will die
for the sins of this blind man.
3.
Application of the principle of divine volition – sovereignty. It is
not God’s will that any should perish, including this blind man.
4.
There are two points at which we have contact with God. a)
God-consciousness; b) the point of gospel hearing. If any person at the point
of God
consciousness goes on +V, God is responsible for providing
information for that individual so that he can be saved. Jeremiah 29:13; John
6:44; 7:17; Acts 17:27. When we talk about pockets of heathenism in this world,
people are heathen not because they have never heard the Word of God but
because they have heard and rejected, or because they gone on negative volition
at the point of God-consciousness. Romans 1:18-23.
What did Jesus see
first, the body of the man or the soul of the man? The soul of the man!
“blind from birth” –
he was helpless and hopeless. It also meant he was ugly. Congenital blindness
always distorts the features. He is also a beggar, which means his clothes
would be in rags. In his soul he has +V but in his body it is a
hopeless situation. This blind beggar illustrates a great principle of doctrine:
All humanity is as hopeless and helpless as this blind man. “All have sinned
and come short of the glory of God.”
The condition of the
beggar:
1.
He is both in physical and spiritual darkness – unsaved. Luke 1:78,79;
Psalm 107:10.
2.
He needs the light of the world – John 8:12. Jesus gave the light of
the world discourse in the temple. Why? Because the Pharisees and the people in
there
were in spiritual darkness. But when He comes
outside He doesn’t stop and say to this man, “I am the light of the world.” The
plan of God calls for something else and Jesus follows the plan of God.
3.
He did not hear the light of the world discourse in the temple. He
doesn’t have to hear it, he is on +V.
Verse 2 – the question of the disciples. “And
his disciples asked him.” They did not ask Him, this is not the word for
asking. The word here is e)rwtaw which
means to interrogate. Aorist tense: they interrogated Him in a point of
time. They are standing around discussing a person who is listening to them,
and a person who is blind has very keen hearing. This discussion goes right
around him; he is in the midst of them. They discuss him as though he was a
piece of beef on the pavement. They have no sensitivity to his sensitivity.
They are not aware of the fact that a blind beggar could have a soul and be as
sensitive as anyone else.
“saying” – they kept
on saying. They didn’t say it once; they said it enough times that this person
could have fallen apart from self-pity.
“who did sin, this man
or his parents” – the disciples are looking at a body, but that body has a
soul.
“that” introduces a
result clause; “with the result that he was born blind?” There are two
theories. Some held to the “this man” theory, some to the “parent” theory. Both
of these positions are wrong.
The culpability theory
is the religious theory. Number one theory is philosophical; number two is
religious. Culpability is a distortion of scripture, a misinterpretation of
Exodus 20:5. This view was held by Judaism. It says his parents did something
terrible and he is paying for it.
The doctrine of
culpability
1.
The principle of culpability is given in Exodus 20:4-6; Deuteronomy
5:8-10. The true law of culpability as stated in these two passages merely says
that when the parents have weaknesses they often teach their children to be
weak in the same way. It has to do with how parents rear their children.
2.
The law of culpability only runs for four generations and then there is
a change. Exodus 34:6,7; Numbers 14:18.
3.
The mechanics of the four-generation curse is given in the Hebrew of
Proverbs 30:11-17.
4.
The true law of culpability is given in Deuteronomy 24:16 – God will
bless your family down to the thousandth generation where Bible doctrine is
perpetuated in the home. Basically in Israel Bible doctrine was taught in the
home.
5.
When there is a family curse (poor rearing) cursing can be turned into
blessing always – and doctrine breaks the curse. Jeremiah 31:29-34; Deuteronomy
6:6-12; 7:9; Psalm 100:5.
Verse 3 – Jesus answers them, and He rebukes
both the philosophical and the religious view. The word “answered” is an aorist
passive indicative which
means ‘Jesus had an answer’ – Bible doctrine in His soul.
“Neither hath this man
sinned” – Jesus refutes the theory that was the culpability concept of the
Pharisees. The reason for the man’s congenital blindness? The Lord does not
imply that the man or his parents have never sinned, but He says that the sins
of this man and those of his parents have nothing to do with the blind man’s
condition. Principle of application: It is wrong to assume that good health the
sign of salvation or spirituality. Loss of health or illness does not give the
right to judge others.
“but” introduces a purpose clause. God had a
purpose in this congenital blindness; “that the works of God should be
manifest.” The works of God here represent divine good. The word “God” is
literally “the God” and refers to God the Father and His plan.
1.
This is a reference to God the Father, author of the divine plan, who
knew in eternity past that this man would be blind and that he would have +V.
2.
God also knew the combination of genes which would produce congenital
blindness.
3.
This man and his blindness were designed to glorify God and reveal His
grace.
4.
The works of God represent His grace provision.
5.
God is perfect; His plan is perfect – origin of grace.
6.
Therefore in the framework of the perfect plan of God, God must work.
This man is blind; no one can do anything about it. God must work, and does.
7.
The man is hopeless, helpless useless but the grace of God will meet
his need. In meeting his need God the Son is manifest for what He is – the
light of the world.
“should be made manifest” – aorist passive
subjunctive. Aorist tense: point of time
and the timing is perfect; passive voice: the grace of God receives
manifestation; subjunctive mood: the potentiality of the manifestation
depends upon the volition of those who observed this miracle. And there are two
kinds of volition – the volition of the Pharisees who try to put Him down, and
the volition of those who are for Him because they are positive.
Verse 4 – “I must
work” is literally, “We must work.” There is no pronoun “I” and there is no “I”
in the suffix of the verb. “We” refers to God the Father, the first person, and
God the Son, the second person. The Holy Spirit will also be involved in that
he indwells the humanity of the Son. Working
here is the present active infinitive of e)rgazomai, and it means to accomplish something. It is
the purpose of God to work through grace, and only through grace, because grace
reveals the perfection of His character.
“the works” – the product of grace; “of him”
– God the Father who designed the plan; “that sent me” – God the Father sent
God the Son; “while it is day” --
‘day’ refers to the period of the incarnation.
“the night cometh when
no man [one] can work” – refers to the human race. The night refers to the
three hours when he bore our sins on the cross. Darkness covered Golgotha –
Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33. When darkness covered Golgotha no one worked except
Christ, and He worked by being the recipient of divine judgment. In other
words, Jesus is saying that while He is still on the earth and while people
could still see Him in the flesh on the steps of this temple, “we must work.” The
works that were planned by the Father who knew that this man born blind would
come to the point of God-consciousness and go on +V, and that he
would sit on the outside of the temple. It was outside of the temple that the
works of God would be manifested in a special way, revealing His grace. And
everything that Jesus does from this point the religious people would hate. So
Jesus is going to do this before the cross, before the night comes.
Verse 5 – “As long as
I am in the world,” i.e. the day; “I keep on being the light of the world.” Now
Jesus is going to manifest that He is the light of the world, the manifestation
of God.
Verse 6 – He now
begins the healing activity. Spitting on the ground and making mud was a
ceremony the religious crowd would not approve of.
“When he had thus
spoken” is literally, “Having spoken these things.” Jesus declares the
principle of doctrine before performing the act of healing. What comes first,
the miracle or the doctrine? The doctrine came first, then the miracle, then
more doctrine. He spat, made clay, and then put the clay on the man’s eyes. The
man was blind and with the clay he was now twice as blind! Jesus did not make
an issue out of congenital blindness; He made an issue out of the man’s soul.
Verse 7 – “Go,” present
active imperative. Keep going. The ordinary word for go is a)gw, but this is u(pagw – he is going
under the authority of Jesus Christ. And he is not doing this to get his
eyesight. Jesus didn’t say, ‘You do all this an I will heal you.’ He is going
there to get the mud out of his eyes. This man has +V at the point
of God-consciousness, and Jesus by having him do this brings out something in
the man’s soul. It is the soul that counts.
“wash” – He gave a
very interesting word for wash. There are two words for wash, niptw and leuw. Niptw means just wash part of
you, e.g. wash your hands. Leuw mean wash it
all, your whole body. Niptw is used here is
the aorist tense, which means the man only had to do this once. Middle voice:
he would be benefited. Imperative mood: that is an order.
And when he finished
washing the mud out of his eyes, it says, “he came [from the pool] seeing.” The
word “seeing” is a present active participle of blepw which means he kept on looking. All he wanted to do
was look with his eyes. He wanted to look at everything. Both his artificial
and his congenital blindness were removed. Now he has been healed and the
spotlight is on Jesus Christ who healed him. But although a miracle has been
performed this man is still unsaved. It will be the end of the chapter before
he is saved.
The blind
man has been healed but he is still an unbeliever. He has not returned to the
Lord Jesus Christ and he will not do so until verse 38. In the meantime the
miracle is documented by friends and neighbours.
Verse 8 – the neighbours refer to those who live in
his vicinity or with whom he has contact. They had some problem recognising him
because they had never seen him with his eyes open before.
“which before had seen
him” – they constantly saw him. The present active participle of the verb is qeorew which means to
constantly view someone, to see them daily. They didn’t necessarily know him
personally but they always saw him because he was a creature of habit. He had
to be taken to the temple every day, at which point he begged.
“that was blind” is
not correct. It should be “was before a beggar.” The word blind is not used here but the word beggar—prosaithj, someone who
begs and does so through personal contact.
“Is not this he that
sat and begged?” The word sat means
to sit constantly at the temple and the word for beg means to ask for alms face to face with other people.
Verse 9 – the division
of opinion. A person with his eyes open looks very different from a person who
always has his eyes closed. So we have a division of opinion among those who
saw him daily.
“he said” is imperfect
linear aktionsart, he kept on saying this; “I am” is present linear aktionsart,
he kept on saying, “I keep on being the same one.”
Verse 10 – this leads
to interrogation. Why can you see? The word opened
is an aorist tense – in a point of time. They recognise that this was a
miracle. They also recognised (passive voice) that someone had to do it for
him. The indicative mood is the reality of his change of status. Once he was
blind; now he sees. They accepted the fact that this was the man that they had
always known. So how did it happen?
Verse 11 – he gives
his answer for the first time but not for the last. These people are merely
curious, they are interested, some of them are even friends, therefore he gives
them a straight answer. Later on when he gets before the Pharisees he is going
to give some sarcastic answers and will absolutely turn them upside down.
Remember the Pharisees were highly educated. Their education exceeded that of
anyone in the land and they were generally very smart people – but they were
religious, and as religious people they were blinded. Here is a man who has
never had one ounce of education and he is going to outthink them, he is going
to use logic on them like a club, he is going to use sarcasm, and when he gets
through they have no answer for him except to throw him out. They admit that
they lost the debate with him and they lost the purpose for which they
brought him into the Sanhedrin, into court, so the only thing they could do was
to throw him out. They couldn’t face him in any way. Yet this man is an
unbeliever, but he is an unbeliever on +V.
“He had an answer” –
the words “and said” are not found in the original.
“A man that is called
[present linear aktionsart] made clay, and he anointed mine eyes, and said unto
me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.” Jesus could have touched his eyes and
healed him. But Jesus chose this way because this man was on positive signals, and
positive signals caused him to carry mud in his eyes all of the way down to the
pool. It was a long trip and a doubly long one for a blind man. But he was
motivated to do so and he did so.
“and washed” – niptw, which means to wash one
portion of the anatomy, in this case his eyes.
“and I received sight”
– when he took the mud off his eyes immediately his eyes worked for the first
time. The word is a)nablepw [a)na = again and again; blepw = to look, to glance]. He
looked again and again and again. Everything was new.
Verse 12 – a second
question. “Where is he?” That is, Where is Jesus who healed you?
“I know not” – o)ida, inherent knowledge. Jesus
could have healed the blind man on the spot but He chose to let him demonstrate
+V by taking the long walk to the pool. Now Jesus is gone and the
blind man doesn’t know where He is. And it is just as well because the blind
man is an unbeliever, and from sheer logic and sarcasm he is going to rebuke
the theology, the religiosity, the legalism of the Pharisees. So this gives us
the opportunity to examine something we would otherwise never know. How do
people think who are unbelievers but have +V at the point of
God-consciousness?
Verse 13-34, the blind
man and the Pharisees.
Verse 13 – “aforetime
was blind” means the once-blind man. There is no verb here at all.
Verse 14 – facing the
religious issue. “And it was the Sabbath day.” It was illegal to spit on the
Sabbath but Jesus spat on the ground and made clay. And He did it on the steps
of the temple! In chapter 5 Jesus heals the man that was lame. In chapter 9 He
heals the blind man. He healed both on the Sabbath day, and again the pet taboo
of the Pharisees is violated. Legalism rejects the grace implication: Jesus
healed the man because of who and what Jesus Christ was, not because the man
earned it or deserved it. He healed this man on the Sabbath and at this point
He has alleviated suffering. This has never happened before in the history of
Israel. No one with congenital blindness has ever been healed before in all of
history and now for the first time it has happened. You’d think the Pharisees
would be saying how great it was, but they didn’t. They don’t care about the
man being healed. The Sabbath has been violated and they don’t care about the
alleviation of suffering or the fact that here is the sign of Messiahship and
Messiah is here. All that upsets them is that their pet taboo has been
violated.
Verse 15 – “also asked
him” – the word for ask is e)rotaw which means to
interrogate – by intimidation in this passage. The imperfect tense means they
kept on interrogating him.
“how he had received
his sight” – this is the big thing with them, they want to get everything
straight on this and know exactly what happened. He is going to answer them
once just as he did his friends. Then he begins to realise something is phoney
here and it will change up a little bit.
“He [Jesus] put clay
on mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.” He shortened the story down this time.
Notice:
1.
The Pharisees cannot deny the genuineness of the miracle. It has
occurred so they are going to have to discredit it and they try three ways to
do it. a) Their approach is discredit the miracle; b) discredit the one who
performed the miracle [Jesus]; c) discredit the recipient, the blind man.
2.
They cannot break down by interrogation the once-blind man.
3.
They cannot bully or intimidate the once-blind man to change his story.
They tried.
4.
This was not an honest investigation.
5.
The once-blind man will not be intimidated; he will stick with the
facts to the very end.
6.
The validity of the miracle is therefore established before the court.
7.
The approach was to try to attack him through the Sabbath.
Verse 16 – “is not of God.” The word of is para and it means immediate source. Why did they say it?
“he keepeth not the Sabbath.” The fact that He
performed a miracle never performed before, the fact this miracle was a
sign of Messiaship, the fact that it was so declared in the Old Testament that
the Messiah would perform unique miracles, the fact that the suffering was
alleviated – Jesus Christ is God, was all something they would not look at.
Legalism says it couldn’t be from God; He did it on the Sabbath.
Then there was the
logical crowd: “How can this man be a sinner and do the thing that He did?” So
there is a second view and there is a division.
“there was a division”
– sxisma.
Verse 17 – a new tack.
The word “again” is an adverb, palin which means they
have been doing this over and over again.
“What sayest thou?” –
this is different from the initial interrogation. This is to encourage the
blind man to renounce Christ. But the once-blind man doesn’t fall for this.
This is an idiom which means, Now what are you going to say about your story?
1.
This is a new form of interrogation designed to encourage the blind man
to renounce Christ. They can’t break down his story so they are going to
attack the person of Jesus Christ. They
intimate that there is something wrong with Jesus.
2.
The blind man is still unsaved, so whatever he does he does on natural
resources.
3.
The blind man is an unbeliever with positive volition at the point of
God-consciousness and he is appreciative, thankful, grateful to Jesus Christ
for
what He did.
4.
Because he is a genuine person with a true appreciation he is not going
to do what they want him to do, even though it is going to cost him and he
knows it is going to cost him. We are looking
at a person who has stabilised emotions.
“that
[because] he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.” That is all he
could say because he didn’t know anything more about Jesus Christ at this
moment.
Verse
18 – “But the Jews did not believe concerning him.” They didn’t believe that
this was a genuine miracle.
“that
he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called his parents.” They
have stopped for a moment but thy are going to come back and say Jesus is
immoral. They stop because they can’t budge this man. The word for call here is fwnew which means to shout it out.
Verse
19 – “saying” means they kept on asking; “Is this your son?” If the Pharisees
could get the parents to deny that this is their son they could discredit the
miracle.
“ye
say he was born blind” – the implication of this question is that if the
Pharisees could bully the parents into denying their son was born blind they
could discredit the miracle. The parents would have to lie there, and they
didn’t.
“does
he see now?” – the word now is an
adverb which implies this is a temporary condition; a)rti means a temporary condition. Does he just see temporarily?
In other words, they say this is just a temporary condition. That would
discredit the miracle.
Verse
20 – first answer” “We know that this is our son.” Second answer: “and that he
was born blind.”
Verse
21 – the third answer. The won’t admit it is a miracle or that it is permanent.
They are afraid – “we know not; or who hath opened his eyes.”
They
shift the blame – “he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.” They
back off completely. They are afraid, they are intimidated, and they are not
going to say anything though they know exactly what has happened. So here we
would have to say that religion destroys the natural affection of a home.
Verse
22 – the description of the parents being intimidated.
“they
feared [kept on being frightened] 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.” The word confess here is
important. It means to acknowledge Him as Christ – o(mologew. Being thrown out of the synagogue meant
excommunication and involved social and economic ostracism. It was a slow,
horrible death – execution slowly. Once a person was excommunicated from the
synagogue no one could give them food or sell them food, or help them in any
way. No one could do business with them and they were starved out to die right
where they were. The parents know this policy and it is the reason they are so
frightened. The pressure of religionism and legalism in their case is greater
than their gratitude to Jesus for healing their son.
Verse
24 – “Give God the praise” is not an expression of attitude or gratitude, it is
putting him under oath. It is the equivalent of going into court today and
being asked, ‘Do you sware to tell the truth,” etc. So they are asking this man
to now put himself under oath. The implication is obvious: ‘Before, you have
been lying to us, now we are going to put you under oath so you can’t lie.’ So
they use the law to try to intimidate and to discredit the once-blind man.
Now
they finally come to their gimmick, to discredit Christ – “we know that this
man is a sinner.” The word for sinner
means one who is immoral. They are implying that Jesus is immoral, which is
blasphemy, in order to discredit Him and to get the once-blind man to renounce
Jesus. They are bullying him now; this is intimidation.
Verse
25 – “He answered and said, If he is a sinner [and you contend He is – 1st
class condition of supposition]. This is a debater’s technique – let’s suppose
that you are right. And then that position is rebuked. Notice his testimony: “I
know not.” He is an honest witness. He doesn’t know anything about Jesus up to
this point. And he refuses to discuss something that he doesn’t know
personally; he refuses to get involved in speculation. Therefore he is going to
stick to the facts as he knows them. The Pharisees are trying to put words in
his mouth.
Then
he tells them what he does know: “one thing I know, that, whereas I kept on
being blind, now I keep on seeing.” Here are two cases of present linear aktionsart.
Verse
26 – “Then they said to him again, What did he do to thee? How did he open your
eyes?” They are trying to get him tangled up in his own words.
Verse
27 – “He had an answer for them, “I have told you already” – aorist tense” time
after time I have told you; I have given you the whole story.
“and
ye did not hear” – they did not recognise the implications.
“wherefore”
means why? Why do you want to hear it
again?
“will
ye also be his disciples?” He uses a word here which is not in the English
translation – mh. It is a
negative particle and when you ask a question and put mh in you expect a negative
answer. So he already knew the answer, and that is why we know this is sarcasm.
Verse
28 – “Then they reviled him.” They can’t meet logical argument with logic so
they have to verbally abuse him. The word is loidorew, and it means that they called him everything that
a religious person should not call anyone! They shed their religious dignity
and in their anger and frustration they now show everyone that they are
bullies, that they have no answers, that their theology is absolutely no good,
that they are legalists.
Then
they accuse him: “thou art his disciple.” And here is where they have ruined
their whole case because he isn’t a disciple, he isn’t a believer.
“we
are Moses’ disciples” – that is supposed to be the put-down of all put-downs
but it doesn’t put him down, it puts him up. They use present linear aktionsart
here: “we keep on being Moses’ disciples, we will always be Moses’ disciples.”
Verse
29 – “We know that God spake unto Moses.” Sure, that is the Word of God, the
first five books.
“as
for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.” When you lose your temper you
always expose a weak point. “We know not” – since when did a Pharisee admit he
didn’t know anything? They know everything! But by admitting that they didn’t
know who Jesus was they just stuck their necks right out. It was an expression
of their negative volition. Moses spoke of Christ – John 5:46. When they
studied the scriptures they did not see Christ because of their negative
volition, and therefore they distorted the Mosaic law into something else.
Verse
30 – the insight of this man. “Why this is an amazing thing, that ye know not
from whence he is.” This is even greater sarcasm. What do they not know?
1. The sarcasm
begins to form.
2. The religious
leaders profess to know everything.
3. The once-blind
man recognises the spiritual blindness of the Pharisees—and he is an
unbeliever.
4. He suffered from
physical blindness; they suffered from spiritual blindness.
5. The one who cured
his physical blindness can cure their spiritual blindness.
6. They must be on
positive volition, and they are not. Their negative volition blinds – 2
Corinthians 4:3, 4.
Verse 31 – logical words from an unbeliever
on +V. He takes their own theology (which he had heard bit-by-bit on
the steps of the temple): “Now we know”—
he includes himself and the Pharisees. This beggar had a tremendous
advantage. For years and years he was blind, sitting on the steps of the
temple. These people walked by him every day and he heard their discussions.
“God heareth not
sinners: but if [2nd class condition – if and it is not true] any
man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.” In other
words, he is saying that they are saying that what they have always stated
dogmatically they are now renouncing emphatically. He is saying, “You have
always contended that God doesn’t hear sinners. You call this man a sinner but
obviously God has heard Him.” He doesn’t know that Jesus Christ is God as yet,
but he does use the words ‘worshipper of God,’ indicating that Jesus Christ
cannot be wrong and the Pharisees must be wrong.
Verse 32 – the record
of the logic. As an unbeliever this man can see the failure and inconsistency
of the system. The Pharisees have a system. “Since the world began it was not
heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.”
Verse 33 – the final
triumph of logic. “If this man were not from the immediate source of God, he
could do nothing.” “If” is a 2nd class condition of supposition.
What he is saying is that if Jesus Christ is not of God, then he cannot see; if
I cannot see, then there was no miracle; and if there was no miracle then the
Pharisees must be right, and if the Pharisees are right then there is no
reality in the world.
Verse 34 – “they cast
him out,” e)kbalw. They picked him
up and threw him right down the steps.
“thou art altogether
born in sins” – Why, you are worse than He is!
“and dost thou teach
us?” – they had just had a tremendous lesson. Here is their answer. Did they
refute with logical answers? No. They had no answer so they threw him out. So
religion uses its authority to suppress the truth. That is always the way of
religion.
The blind man and the
Son of God, verses 35-41.
Verse 35 – “Jesus
heard” is literally, ‘Jesus having heard.’ The word heard is an aorist active indicative and it means that it came to
the attention of the Lord Jesus Christ that the blind man had been
excommunicated. They had cast him out – e)kballw [e)k = out; ballw = to throw]. They threw him
out of the temple. When they couldn’t meet his logic, when they couldn’t stand
his sanctified sarcasm, the literally threw him out. It was obvious that the
blind man as an unbeliever had rejected religion. Jesus did not come to this
man until he had exercised his volition and had rejected religion. And not only
had he rejected religion but religion, of course, had rejected him.
Who are the people who
respond to the gospel? Who are the people who orient to the grace of God? Who
are the people who are clear-thinking? The people who are not tainted in any
way by religion.
“and when he had found
him” – the word found [e)uriskw] means to
discover. He made a point to look him up, in other words; “and said unto him” –
notice now that Jesus doesn’t give the man any gospel. But this is not always
the way that Jesus did it, sometimes He gave a lot of gospel. There is no such
thing as one way to witness to people. Here He gives no gospel at all, He starts
right out with the question: “Dost thou believe?” This is a present active
indicative of the word pisteuw. The word believe means non-meritorious thinking.
He knows this man is ready to believe because the man repudiated religion with
non-meritorious thinking. Jesus knows Himself that the man hasn’t believed but
the man has a chance now to face the issue. Jesus begins to challenge this man
with regard to the mechanics – He put the mechanics before the content of the
gospel.
Verse 36 – “He answered and said.” Aorist
passive indicative of a)pokrinomai [krinomai = to judge; a)po = from the ultimate source
of self] and it means discernment, but in the passive voice it should be
translated, “The man had an answer.”
“Who is he, Lord, that” – the word that introduces a purpose clause. His
purpose is to believe in Messiah; “I might believe” – aorist active
subjunctive. The aorist tense is a point of time divorced from time and
perpetuated forever. He knows it will be permanent. Active voice: he realises
he has to believe. Subjunctive mood: he is not going to buy it unless it is
clear.
Verse 37 – clarification. “Thou hast both
seen him (remember, the man was blind).” But what words did the man use when he
said he could see? One word he used was blepw which means to look up, and hello there is a brand
new world. When he described it after he received his sight at the pool of
Siloam he used the word a)nablepw which means he
kept looking at everything, he kept using his eyes all the time. But Jesus used
a word for the eyes of his soul – o(raw. It is used here
for the perceptive ability of the mentality of the soul. “Thou hast seen” –
perfect active indicative of o(raw. Perfect tense:
you have seen Him in the past at the point of the performance of the miracle.
When he was willing to wash he was expressing +V but he was already
seeing with his soul. The eyes of the soul is the mentality of the soul. He has
seen in the past with the result that he is going to be saved. Active voice: he
is going to be saved. Indicative mood: the reality of his salvation.
“it is he that is talking with you” – present
active participle. The word talk
isn’t talk, it is the Greek verb lalew which means to
communicate information/doctrine.
Verse 38 – “And he said, Lord” – kurioj, deity – “I
believe,” present active indicative. The reality of his faith.
“And he worshipped him” – the word for worship is proskunew [proj = face to face
with; kunew = to kiss]. He
didn’t literally kiss Him face to face. He kissed Him with his soul. His
self-consciousness is aware of Christ. In his mentality he has just believed in
Jesus Christ. His emotion appreciates Jesus Christ. It is possible for a new
believer without any Bible doctrine to worship the Lord. It is a soul response,
a love response to who and what the Lord is – a soul response to grace.
Verses 39-41, a
condemnation with regard to religion.
Verse 39 – “For judgment I am come.” The word
for is e)ij which means for
the purpose of judgment. Jesus Christ had two purposes. He came to call His
sheep. He also came to judge, and this refers here to the condemnation of
religion.
“into the world, that” – after the purpose
clause we have a description of the blind man and then a description of the
Pharisees. The blind man: “they which see not might see.” Jesus came to seek
and to save that which was lost. He sought the blind man and He saved the blind
man. The verb for “see not” here is blepw. We are talking
about his physical sight now. Previously we had o(raw which was talking about his spiritual sight. He
couldn’t see, so Jesus came for this man.
“might see” – present active subjunctive of blepw. Blepw is used here
because the man saw an incident, namely the miracle which was the basis of
clarification. When he saw then his soul responded.
“and that” is the second purpose clause,
“they which see” – the Pharisees this time. They have the use of their
eye-sight, they have been studying the Bible for years.
“might be” – now He changes it and uses the
word ginomai which means to
become something you were not before. These Pharisees did not start out as
religious people, they became what they were not before. They could see
Physically but they became – aorist tense, negative volition – blind. This is
spiritual blindness resulting from the negative volition issue. When the vacuum
of the soul opens up to religion it blinds the soul. Principle of doctrine:
Religion blinds the soul.
Verse 40 – the Pharisees “heard these words.”
They knew what He was saying; “and they said unto him, Are we blind also?” When
they ask this question there is one word that is not translated, the negative mh which is a question expects
a negative answer. They are saying. “Are we blind also; we are not.” In other
words, they understood the issue. But they rejected the issue.
Verse 41 – “If ye were blind,” and this is a
2nd class condition of supposition. Since they used the negative mh to say they were not blind
Jesus uses a second class condition to pick up the thread of their remark. It
quotes their supposition. He therefore makes an issue out of that negative mh. To get the corrected
translation we go back to the end of verse 40: “Are we blind also? We are not.
Jesus said unto them, If you are not, and you assume you are not …” Their
statement is accepted in order to rebuke their statement.
“ye should have no sin” is literally translated, “you would keep on
not having sin [singular].” It means they would not be functioning continually
under their sin nature. Religion functions continually under the sin nature –
both sin and human good.
“but now you keep on saying, We see;
therefore your sin nature remains.” The
word sin used here in the singular is
a(martia, and it is used
for the old sin nature. It is:
1.
The principle of sin, the old sin nature.
2.
Proneness to sin – personal sins.
3.
Compensation for sins – human good.
The unpardonable sin – rejection of Christ.