John 9

Introduction

John 9 is a passage, which I refer to often while in the ministry of healing. I have often used it with the polemic that not all illness is rooted in sin. Sometimes, people are simply ill and God is waiting for us to be obedient so that He may get the glory for healing though us. This does not account for all illness and suffering, but it means we are to discern the reason for illness but not get held up if we cannot discern specific sin as the cause. I have also used this passage to illustrate that sometimes the Lord gives specific instructions to be obeyed to the one through whom God heals and to those who are to be healed. At times, we are called to participate in the healing process, which requires discernment to determine if and how the Lord is directing us to participate when we are seeking healing.

While doing a close reading of the text, I also found that this passage may also be an excellent example of how God works “outside the box” of traditional religious conventional wisdom. This paper seeks to explore and show how this healing was outside the norm of first century religious conventional wisdom. The ramifications of such findings will provide us with a warning that we must be careful in our own century not to allow some of our prejudices, traditions, and conventional wisdom to prevent us from seeing how God may be still at work.

Discussion on the historical accuracy, redaction, and authorship of the event is beyond the scope of this paper. We will attempt to look at this event “as written”, and attempt to glean information as if we were hearing it for the first time as a new convert about 100 A.D. We will also accept the assumption that the Pharisees in verses 18-21 are the same as “the Jews” of vv 13, 15, and 16.[1] I have determined that arguments against this assumption add little to the results of this paper.

Who Sinned?

The first issue at hand is the disciple’s question of the source if the blindness in verse 2. In the disciple’s (and Pharisee’s) eyes, there were only two possibilities, “who sinned this man or his parents?” Beasley notes that this was typical of the outlook of the ancient world.[2] . Though they should have been familiar with the whole story of Job, they fell into the same category as Job’s friends, believing that illness and suffering are all due to sin.

Perhaps the thought had not crossed their mind to consider the man was born blind as a testing, such as Job was tested. Other scholars seem quiet on why the disciples would not have considered this possibility.

In exploring the first of the two reasons the disciples considered, the primary text supports the possibility that if this man was born blind, it might be because of prenatal sin. A supporting argument for this position is that the concept that there is life in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5.) One could suppose that if God could know Jeremiah in the womb, one could possibly sin in the womb. Beasley-Murray cites rabbinic Midrash pointing to the twins Esau and Jacob struggling in the womb.[3] Barnabas Lindars cites Ca. Rabba i.4I that this may be an issue if a woman is pregnant while engaged in idol worship.[4] I would also add, “If a woman becomes pregnant” in the course of temple prostitution.

The second reason clearly outlined in the story was that it may be the sins of the parents. This is a quite possibility based on the Decalogue, specifically Exodus 20:5 and other passages. J. Ramsey Michaels notes that this is discussed and countered in Ezekiel 18.[5] Despite the counter in Ezekiel 18:20, the conventional wisdom of the day supported the possibility of sin being brought on by one’s parents.

Given the two proposed reasons for this mans blindness, Jesus clearly offers a third alternative that was not overtly considered; a reason which was most likely outside of the conventional wisdom of the day. Jesus states that the man was blind from birth so that “the works of God might be manifest.” Lindars clarifies this even further saying, “it is the works of God [his creative power] might be made manifest [come to light in Jesus’ act] in him. Seen this way, the healing will lead to faith in Jesus as the one who is sent by God.”[6]

Other than J.H. Bernard, the scholars I researched were quiet about questioning the cruelty of God for the suffering of this man up until this point, and I am not sure there is an adequate answer to this charge with the exception that there is the hope (confident expectation) that in an eschatological sense, God will redeem suffering. J. H. Bernard offers that “The doctrine of predestination is apparent at every point in the Fourth Gospel, every incident being viewed sub specie alternitatis, as predetermined in the mind of God.”[7] I am not convinced this is an argument that bears good fruit.

All of this of course cannot be used to explain the cause or reason for all suffering in the world, and discussing this philosophical and theological question is beyond the scope of this paper. However it is clear in other passages such as Mark 2:1-12, the healing of a paralytic, that some illness is clearly sin related.

The Method of Healing

All of the scholars I researched noted that spittle was thought to have curative properties in ancient Palestine. Beasley-Murray notes however, that the frequent connection of saliva with magical practices caused it to be forbidden by later rabbis.[8] Spittle is used in two of Jesus’ other healings, Mark 7:33 and Mark 8:22, 25. What makes the use of spittle in this healing unique is the kneading of clay to put on this man’s eyes. J. H. Bernard brings to this discussion a citation from Irenaeus about the curious use of the clay. “He says (Haer. v.xv.2) that the true work of God is the creation of man, ‘plasmatio hominis,’ and he quotes Genesis 2:7 of God making man out of the dust of the earth. He concludes that the use of the clay for the cure of the blind man was similar to this; being blind from his birth, he had virtually no eyes, and Jesus created them out of clay.”[9] The creative God images that might come to mind could make this healing seem out of the norm, but J. H Bernard also offers this research that, “Severus Sammonicus, a second century physician, quoted by Wetstein, prescribes the use of clay for smearing bad eyes.”[10]

The sending the blind man to the pool at Siloam brings to mind the instructions Naaman was given by Elisha to wash in the Jordan. In some cases, the one who is being healed has tasks to perform such as in Luke 17:14 where the ten lepers were to go show themselves to the priest. I conclude that the method of healing was not outside what might be considered “normal.”

Sabbath Problems

Reading right to left, we see in John 5:1-18 a case where Jesus was persecuted by the Jews for healing on the Sabbath and calling God his own father. What makes this method and healing problematic for the Jews was that again Jesus was healing on the Sabbath (verse 14). According to strict Pharisaic Sabbath laws, healing was permitted on the Sabbath only in cases of urgent need, not in cases of chronic illness such as this. Linder also cites that Jesus’ offenses may include: “making clay would fall under the prohibition of kneading (Shabbath, vii.2), and the carrying of ‘water enough to rub off an eye plaster’ was forbidden (ibid. 8.1); but so was anointing an eye (B. Abodah Zarah, 28b), and the use of spittle for the purpose by a man who was fasting (Y. Shabbath, 14, 14d, 17f).”[11]

The Pharisee’s understand themselves as disciples of Moses, law keepers. In an effort to insure that they did not violate Torah, they put a hedge of additional law around it called Talmud. The problem comes when they treat breaking Talmud as if it were breaking Torah. From this perspective, for God to work outside of Talmud was impossible. They simply would not allow themselves to believe that God would send someone to “work” and heal on the Sabbath. Since Jesus worked and healed on the Sabbath, logically to them he must be a sinner.

Crisis

This issue of healing on the Sabbath brings this healing event to a crisis. The question must be answered, where does this healing power come from? Where is Jesus from?

But before we begin to deal with this issue, we need to look at the role of signs in John’s gospel. Paul J. Achtemeier notes that if Jesus’ miracles are only works of power for power’s sake, they are misunderstood. They are best understood as a manifestation of Jesus’ identity, the one who works by God’s authority.[12] In this case, we look to Jesus’ revelation in verse 4, “we must work the works of him who sent me”, a theme which is frequent in John’s gospel (5:19, 8:38, 12:49, 50).

I have often noted that people will believe what they want to believe despite the evidence pro or con to their position. Here we are presented such a case. Our passage lays out the evidence and the logic before us. In the narrow understanding of the Talmudic law, Jesus is a sinner because he heals on the Sabbath, and yet other Jews wonder how a sinner could do such signs. Division comes. The question can be raised, in whose eyes is Jesus a sinner - God’s? - Man’s? Faced with the evidence of a miraculous healing (light in the world) and with what they considered a violation of the law, they have to choose what reality they want to live under. The scriptures show that they choose the law, and the division, apparent at first, quickly seems to fade to a position of arrogance and frustration towards those who would choose to believe that Jesus is from God.

In contrast, the inner vision of the blind man moves him to grow in his understanding of Jesus as: the man Jesus (v. 11), a prophet (v. 17), a man from God (v. 33), and eventually as Son of Man (v.35-38). It seems the blindness of conventional wisdom and darkness begin to be removed as one encounters Jesus in healing (even if the person knows very little about Jesus at first) and then tells testimony of what God is doing.

The counter argument is strongest in verses 30 and 31 when it comes to light that miracles from God can only come to those who worship God and do his will. In this case, the signs clearly point to Jesus’ identity and where his authority comes from.

Summary

My research has shown that this is a good example of how Jesus was operating outside the religious conventional wisdom of first century Judaism. The prejudice was that all illness and suffering are based on sin. When a person is suffering, they are judged as reaping the consequences of their own sin or the sin of their parents. I have offered a position that sometimes illness may be a test, as in the story of Job. But in this case Jesus states that there was blindness in this man so that the works of God may be manifest. This understanding is clearly outside what the disciples or other people of the community would expect.

I found that the method of healing could be considered normative for first century “medicine.” Spittle was considered a healing agent, and use of mud was not unheard of as a healing agent as well. Having people be obedient to the physician’s directions could be normative for both secular and religious healing practices.

The problems arise with the healing taking place on the Sabbath, which was clearly outside accepted healing practices within the Jewish community, as it broke Talmudic Sabbath law. Healing on the Sabbath engendered crisis, for one had to decide which was more important, healing or what is perceived as law breaking.

None of this research has broken any new ground; it has only served to illuminate what I believe the text makes clear. Putting restrictions on what God may do, and is doing, may lead us to miss the blessing of walking in the light of Christ in the world.

Application

In our century, the connection of sin and illness has been generally ignored. In many circles, the concept of Christian healing has been dismissed as wishful thinking, relegated to the power of positive thinking. Healing comes through surgery, medicines and therapy. In these cases, to pray for wholeness is “outside the box” of modern conventional wisdom. I am not convinced that God is through bringing his healing power to us through the risen Christ. I have seen enough healing that could be attributed to “miracle” that it seems never too far fetched to pray for wholeness for people, with the expectation that God will heal some part (mind, body or spirit) of the person in need.

Jesus listened to and only did as his father directed. How did Jesus know which techniques to use to heal each case of blindness? In Mark 10:36+ it was “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” In Mark 8:23+ it was “spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him”, twice. It is my understanding that Jesus asked the Father and did as directed. It is my understanding that if we were to learn to listen to the Father as well as Jesus did, we might see more healings which are “outside the box”.

When it does come to those who believe in Christian healing prayer, the relationship of sin to illness might not raise our eyebrows, and healing on the Sabbath has no impact on our understanding of healing. But to heal with prayer, mud, and spit seems gross and “outside the box” for our understanding of how God heals. If one was asking God how to pray for someone and discerned that the Lord was directing you to “spit on the ground, make mud pies and anoint someone’s eyes”, we would most likely dismiss the directions and perhaps miss a miracle. I am not sure God would ask us to do such a thing, but I believe the lesson is clear: we must be careful not to let our prejudice limit Gods creative work in restoring the world unto him.

This does not only apply to the ministry of Christian healing. Our prejudices can prevent us from seeing God working in many lives because we will not allow ourselves to believe God can work in some people’s lives due to “sins” we know they have or because they do not hold the same doctrines we hold. We are to be careful we do not put God in a box, for we may miss His work, just as many of the Pharisees did.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. Introducing the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Beasley-Murray, George R., Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 36, 2nd edition. Waco Texas: Wordbooks Publisher, 1999.

Bernard, J. H. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928.

Lindars, Barnabas New Century Bible. London: Marshal, Morgan & Scott., 1972.

Michaels, J. Ramsey, New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publisher, Inc., 1989.

[1] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 36, 2nd edition (Waco Texas: Wordbooks Publisher, 1999), pp. 157.

[4] Barnabas Lindars, New Century Bible (London: Marshal, Morgan & Scott., 1972), pp. 342.

[5] J. Ramsey Michaels, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publisher, Inc., 1989), pp. 163.

[7] J. H. Bernard, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1928), p. 325.

[12] Paul J. Achtemeier, Introducing the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), pp. 191.