I Once Was Blind But Now I See - John 9:13-34

This morning, we find ourselves in the aftermath of Jesus healing the man born blind. His name is never revealed so throughout the course of this sermon, I’m going to be referring to him as the healed man.

I’m sure you probably noticed this morning’s passage doesn’t include Jesus or his disciples. Jesus is obviously central to the passage, but he’s not present. He’s off-camera or backstage if you will.

What we just read in verses 13-34 was what you and I might think of as a formal church discipline trial. The Jews and Pharisees are wielding the disciplinary powers in an irresponsible manner. They’re using church discipline as a means to silence those that say things they don’t like, regardless of whether it’s true or not.

The Jews and Pharisees have this healed man on trial. What was his crime? After all, he just shared his personal experience of being healed. He never challenged the Pharisees' authority. But his crime was recognizing his miraculous healing as a demonstration of Jesus Christ’s spiritual authority. On an even more basic level than that, he was on trial for telling the truth about Jesus.

And John 9:13-34 poses a very simple question to each of us this morning: are you willing to testify of Jesus Christ’s work in your life even in the face of adversity?

Over the course of the trial, the Jews and Pharisees conduct three interrogations. And that’s really how I’ve broken this passage up. We read of interrogation one in verses 13-17, interrogation two is in verses 18-23, and interrogation three is in verses 24-34.

The healed man is interrogated first, then his parents are interrogated, and then he is interrogated again.

Interrogation One (vv. 13-17)

The first interrogation involves the initial questioning of the healed man. If you were here last week, you remember Jesus spitting in the mud and putting it on his eyes, which ultimately healed him.

We’re told in verse 13 that some folks bring the healed man to the Pharisees and it’s in verse 13 that the formal church discipline case begins.

It’s likely that this group of Pharisees are acting on behalf of the Sandhedrin. The big powerful Jewish council. It’s similar to what we might refer to in the Presbyterian world as ‘commission’ acting on their behalf of the presbytery.

But nevertheless, what’s taking place seems to be a formal process. And it would seem that some time has passed between Jesus healing the man born blind and this church discipline case.

But we quickly learn what the issue is over in verse 14. “Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.”

We’ve encountered this problem before in John’s gospel haven’t we? Remember John 5, where Jesus heals the lame man at the pool of Bethesda? It was basically the exact same controversy. Jesus healed the crippled man on the Sabbath.

In verse 14, we learn that Jesus has committed this “grievous sin,” once again, healed someone on the Sabbath - this time it was the man born blind. But we learn additional information in verse 16: Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” While others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?”

The broad controversy was over Jesus healing the man on the Sabbath, but the real controversy was among the Pharisees and whether or not Jesus was “from God.” I’m trying to help set the stage here.

Some thought that healing on the Sabbath was a clear demonstration that he was not from God, while others thought that his healing demonstrated that he was from God.

They put the healed man through this formal process in order to help settle their own internal debate.

On the surface, both actually seem like convincing arguments.

The group of Pharisees that thought Jesus was not ‘from God’ believed he violated the Sabbath by healing on it. Because in order for someone to truly be from God they needed to obey God’s commands!

It’s step one in the process, if you’re truly from God then you’ll obey God. Who would disagree with that?

But the problem was the Pharisees believed that you had to follow all of their rules in order to keep the Sabbath. You had to keep the Sabbath the way they wanted you to in order to be obedient to God. The Pharisees were notorious for adding to what it meant to keep the Sabbath.

It’s like if someone had a personal rule that they always drove five miles an hour under the speed limit. And they began to rigidly enforce that rule upon their friends and family and eventually in their minds, that rule was so important, so significant that, if you went four miles an hour under the speed limit, well, according to them and their made up rules, you just broke the law.

But that’s not the way laws work! If you go four under you might violate their man-made rule but you haven’t actually violated the law!

That’s similar to what was going on with the Pharisees, they had all these additional rules that were set up to “help” people avoid breaking the Sabbath. But at some point, their rules were synonymous with Sabbath keeping.

Their made up laws were anything but helpful. They were burdensome.

Their rules were so out of control that they actually believed healing someone was a violation of the Sabbath. They believed showing mercy was dishonoring to God and breaking the Sabbath! So, group one of the Pharisees are clearly wrong.

But the other side of the debate is just as wrong even though they actually come to the correct conclusion. Their thinking is overly simplistic. The Pharisees on the other side of the debate concluded that Jesus was from God for no other reason than that he performed a miracle.

That’s wrong as well! In Exodus, Egyptian magicians mimic the miraculous signs of Moses through their secret arts. You see, they were able to do things that seemed miraculous, although they were not from God.

But both sides of the internal debate among the Pharisees were wrong!

I think this is incredibly helpful for all of us. If someone tells you that they are seeking after God. That their desire is to do His will, we should rejoice in that! We should encourage that!

And at the same time, we shouldn’t thoughtlessly celebrate everything that has Christianity stamped on it.

What’s happened on the campus of Asbury University is a great example. On the one hand, I think it’s wrong to rush to condemn it simply because it doesn’t look exactly the way we would want it to. And on the other hand, I don’t think we should thoughtlessly celebrate it either.

We must, as Jesus tells us, “judge with right judgment.” That is, Christians should evaluate things not simply based upon outward appearance. The Christian should judge and interpret everything with eyes of faith through the lens of God’s Word.

And this is precisely where the Pharisees failed! They judged Jesus strictly on outward appearances. They were simplistically judging his actions in order to force him into one of their preconceived boxes. They just wanted to know which box to put him in.

It really appears that the two groups are at an impasse and so they look at the healed man and ask, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?”

And he says, “He is a prophet.”

This is by no means, a full-throated profession of faith, but you might say it’s a small step in the right direction. By the end of chapter 9, the healed man does make a dramatic confession of faith.

And so, it’s with that simple statement, “he is a prophet,” that I think we’re seeing the seed of faith being planted.

Interrogation Two (vv. 18-23)

In case you’re wondering, giving the Pharisees even a small minimalistic answer like, “Jesus is a prophet,” is still the wrong answer.

John tells us in verse 18, that despite the healed man’s testimony, they still don’t believe that he was born blind.

The Pharisees and Jews want to verify that, yes, this man was born blind, and that they’re not falling for some sort of elaborate hoax. They want to know if he was healed, and if so, exactly how was he healed? So they call his parents in to be interrogated.

We’re now looking at interrogation two.

It’s important to remember as I said earlier that there was a passage of time between the actual healing and this church discipline case. And I think it’s important to know that because, in all likelihood, who do you think would be the first people to find out about this man’s healing? His parents, right?

So there’s little doubt in my mind that they knew the answers to the questions posed to them in verse 19. “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?”

They know the answers to those questions. But notice their response in verses 20-21:

“We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21 But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.”

They pass the buck off to their healed son. Talk to him. He knows. They’re not willing to say what they certainly know.

They basically plead the fifth. We’ve all seen those moments whether in a courtroom or perhaps in a congressional hearing, a witness invokes their fifth amendment right. Which means they simply refuse to answer any questions.

How does that normally fair for the person invoking their fifth amendment right? Do we all assume, ‘they have no idea.’ ‘They don’t know any additional information.’

No, normally when it seems that someone is refusing to answer a question we all automatically assume that they’re hiding something! Or they know if they explain everything they’re culpable and something bad will happen to them if they tell the truth!

That’s what’s really going on with the healed man’s parents. They’re just refusing to answer the questions and the parenthetical in verse 22 tells us why: “His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.”

In other words, the healed man’s parents were so afraid, so intimidated by the Jews and Pharisees' threat of excommunication, they refused to tell the truth.

Isn’t this true even for today? That so many people, including professing Christians, are more committed to the status quo than to the truth?

It happens in every sphere doesn’t it? It’s true in many personal relationships, it’s true in church relationships, work relationships, and the list certainly goes on. So many refuse to speak out because they are intimidated by the thought of what might happen if they tell the truth.

Even though, I’m sure the Pharisees would say they’re simply protecting their religious convictions, really, they’re abusing their power.

They’re using fear in order to silence people from mentioning the name of Jesus Christ. This isn’t edifying people, this is tyranny.

Unfortunately, it works. Why else would they take up this sort of practice if it didn't work? The parents are intimidated into silence. That’s why they pass the buck off to their son. He’s of age, he can deal with it. What’s on the table here, it’s not just a little slap on the wrist. The Jews and Pharisees aren’t going to politely ask people to stop, they’re going to excommunicate them.

That’s what it means to be, “be put out of the synagogue.” It means excommunication. If you follow Jesus you’re a heathen! For the healed man’s parents this was too high a cost. They didn’t want to face this.

So they throw their son to the wolves and make him deal with it on his own. It’s quite sad isn’t it?

Interrogation Three (vv. 24-34)

It seems that the second interrogation produced the desired result. The Jews and the Pharisees are dividing a family. And at some point along the way, the Jews and Pharisees officially concluded that Jesus is a sinner and not from God.

It’s why they say in verse 25, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.”

They’re talking about Jesus in verse 25. And it may sound like they’re saying, “Give glory to God” in a positive way. But really what they’re saying is something like, “Before God, tell us the truth about your healing and admit that Jesus is a sinner.”

They want to intimidate him into silence like they did with his parents, or they want him to admit that Jesus is a sinner. ‘Admit that Jesus is not from God.’ ‘Tell us how you were really healed.’ ‘It’s time to come clean.’

But notice how the healed man responded: “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” At this point, he doesn’t weigh in on whether or not Jesus is a sinner. He simply gives him credit for his miraculous healing. “I was blind, now I see.”

Over the course of this trial, the healed man’s testimony of Christ strengthens. He’s getting stronger.

You can almost see the healed man’s frustration when they ask again how he recovered his sight.

“I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?”

He’s already told them everything! There is nothing left to say. So he sarcastically asks them if they want to become [Jesus’] disciples?

Of course the Jews and Pharisees deny the charge and tell the man that he is a disciple of Jesus but they are disciples of Moses. And in verse 29, they said, “We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man [Jesus], we do not know where he comes from.”

The Jews and Pharisees have been nothing short of obsessed with Jesus. They’ve followed him around, they’ve openly challenged him, they’ve listened to his teaching and now they sit there and say “we don’t know where he comes from?”

They knew where Jesus came from. They knew his background, and they understood his claims - they just rejected him.

But what I think is important to notice is that from the first interrogation to his second one, the healed man becomes increasingly bold. He really makes his case in verse 30.

“Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.”

His logic is better than the Pharisees. He’s not blindly (no pun intended) stating that Jesus is from God because he performed a miracle. Rather, he makes a theological case for Jesus being from God.

Jesus can’t be a sinful heathen because he performs the works of God. God wouldn’t display incredible spiritual signs through an unregenerate sinful man. Matthew Henry said that the healed man’s argument reflects what David says in Psalm 66:18-20. David wrote in Psalm 66,

“If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. 19 But truly God has listened; he has attended to the voice of my prayer. 20 Blessed be God, because he has not rejected my prayer or removed his steadfast love from me!”

The idea from Psalm 66 is quite simple: God doesn’t hear those that are walking in unbelief harboring grievous sin in their heart. But on the other hand, God blesses and hears those that seek to do his will.

John Calvin made a similar point when he said, “It is the uniform doctrine of Scripture, that God does not listen to any but those who call upon him with truth and sincerity.”

And there’s no doubt which of these two categories Jesus fell into. Never has a man so righteous ever walked on the earth!

The healed man’s point is crystal clear: the miracles confirm his spiritual authority. Miraculous signs affirm his teaching and that he is, indeed from God.

But again, the Pharisees and Jews dismiss him and insult him by telling him that he was born in utter sin. They display the same level of ignorance that the disciples demonstrated at the beginning of chapter 9: “who sinned him or his parents?” The assumption being that he was born in sin.

There are a few times in my life where I’ve looked at myself in the mirror and I’ve asked myself, “Am I arrogant?” But then I think to myself, “There’s no way. I’m too good for that.”

Isn’t that the level of hypocrisy on display? There’s something unbelievably arrogant for sinners like the Pharisees to look at the healed man and condemn him as a sinner! Hi pot, meet kettle, right?

Because notice they don’t engage with the healed man’s argument for Jesus. What do they do? They just excommunicate him.

It’s common knowledge that every branch of the military’s boot camp employs some form of the “break you down to build you up” model for training.

From the moment you arrive on the scene for basic training, someone is yelling at you. And slowly, over time the yelling decreases, and then you graduate and move on. At least, that’s how I think it’s supposed to work!

But the idea is simple: the military wants to strip a recruit of his individuality in order to build him into a productive soldier, sailor, marine, airmen, etc. They want them to be competent so they can better do their job and fulfill the mission, whatever the mission may be.

But nevertheless, when you’re in the “break you down” phase of things, I’m sure it makes you question why you are there. Every recruit at some point wonders to themselves, why did I sign up for this?” ‘Is this really worth it?’ And for most folks who have served that I have spoken to, it takes a few years often with their military service behind them to see how it really benefited them.

And then at some point, usually, you realize that all the adversity you faced along the way has made you stronger.

I think we see something very similar in our passage. The healed man is put on trial to silence or intimidate him into not talking about Jesus. Isn’t that really what the Pharisees were after? Not only do we see the healed man face the opposition of an illegitimate church discipline trial, and through the course of the trial his conviction over Jesus receiving the credit for his healing got stronger.

The healed man’s church discipline trial had the opposite effect of its intended purpose. It was supposed to tear him down, but it seems to have strengthened his resolve. His seedling of faith seems to have sprouted over the course of his trial.

And here’s what I think is our broad application for today.

Too often, we assume that God allows suffering, trials, or challenges to crop up in our life in order to weaken or tear down our faith. But more often than not, God uses the challenges, hardships and trials of life, not to weaken our faith, but to build it up. Our faith is often strengthened through difficult times even though we rarely can see that in the midst of a trial.

By the end of the trial, he’s not intimidated, he’s emboldened! Over the course of John 9, you read about a faithless man becoming a great man of faith.