SERMON: Unbelief and the Miraculous, Part 2 (John 9:18–34)
Unbelief and the Miraculous, Part 2
(John 9:18–34)
Series: “John: Life in Christ’s Name” Text: John 9:18–34
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: October
15, 2023
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: AM Service
I.
Introduction
People love to be viewed as intellectual, curious, and open minded. However, when we place the claims of Jesus Christ in front of them, they often reject the truth of God. They might ask questions that seem to probe the possibilities, but sadly, they seem to want to find error rather than truth. They want to avoid coming to Christ.
That’s what we’ve been considering in this chapter. You’ll remember last time that there was much
confusion over how a man born blind could receive his sight. So drastic was this man’s transformation that
his neighbors couldn’t agree on whether he was the same man (vv. 8–9). Because he testified that it was Jesus who
healed him, they decided to take him to the Pharisees (vv. 11–13).
Unfortunately, the Pharisees, the supposed religious
leaders, refused to acknowledge that Jesus could work such a miracle. They focused on the fact that Jesus made a
clay or a mud pack for this man’s eyes on the Sabbath, which they viewed as a
violation of the Law. However, even on
that point, there was confusion, as v. 16 notes, as it seems incredible that
God would allow a sinner to perform such a work.
We also noted underlying this text is great irony. The man who was born blind (which John
repeats throughout this chapter) can see more clearly that everyone else! He doesn’t know everything about Jesus yet,
but he went from calling Jesus a “man” in v. 11 to calling Him a prophet in v.
17. As we complete this chapter, this
man will turn to full faith in Christ. It’s
interesting how the unbelief of others will sometimes have a sharpening effect
on your own faith!
Those who don’t believe here face an undeniable miracle, but
they do everything they can to deny it. That’s
what we see: Those refusing to believe explain away the truth. So, note first that those who don’t believe
look for any excuse to continue unbelief (vv. 18–26). Second, those who don’t believe revile those
who continue in belief (vv. 27–34).
II.
Those who don’t believe look for any excuse to
continue unbelief (vv. 18–26).
The Jews then did
not believe it of him, that he had been blind and had received sight, until
they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight, and
questioned them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? Then
how does he now see?”
His parents
answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born
blind; but how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not
know. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid
of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be
Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. For this reason his parents said, “He is of
age; ask him.”
So a second time
they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, “Give glory to God; we
know that this man is a sinner.” He then
answered, “Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that
though I was blind, now I see.” So they
said to him, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?”
The Pharisees refuse to believe that Jesus healed this
man. They certainly are not going to
accept the man’s viewpoint that Jesus is a prophet. They’ve already declared Jesus isn’t from God
and a sinner (v. 16), which they repeat in v. 24. So, they begin looking for any excuse to
continue in their unbelief.
The first option they set in on seems to be that the man may
be pulling a fast one, perhaps colluding with Jesus. So, they call the man’s parents. They may have thought that this was
reasonable from their perspective, withholding judgment until they had more
information, but the truth is that they already decided what they want to
believe about this man’s account.
So, they ask the parents in v. 19, “Is this your son, who
you say was born blind?” They say this
with an emphatic pronoun in the original language: “Who you, you
say was born blind?” They do this
perhaps to suggest deception as they ask how he now sees.
The parents, however, do not want to say too much, carefully
answering their line of questioning. “We
know that this is our son,” they begin, continuing, “and that he was born blind.” As one commentator puts it, they “are
uncomfortable with the Jews’ line of attack.”[1]
Yet, they state in the next verse that they don’t know how
he sees or who opened his eyes. They say
they don’t know twice, even say it the second time with emphasis — “we, we
do not know.” They place it back on
their son, saying that he’s an adult and can speak for himself. They may have heard what their son had said,
but they were probably not present (the text doesn’t say they were), so they
point the Pharisees back to their son’s testimony; that’s all they have, as
well.
Of course, because they knew their son, they likely believed
him. That would explain why we read what
we do next in the text: “His parents said this because they were afraid of the
Jews” (v. 22). These parents cared for
their son and must have been overjoyed to hear that Jesus had healed him, only
to now fear the wrath of their own leaders.
Already, back in John 7:13, the people were afraid of the Jewish
leadership, and now we see that intensified.
The Apostle John explains here that the leaders had already
agreed or “decided” (NIV) to put people out of the synagogue who confessed
Christ. Now, we want to be clear as to
what the problem is. We would call this
excommunication today, where someone is placed under discipline and disinvited
from the fellowship. This is something
that Jesus commanded in Matthew 18, and His apostles discuss it in other places
like 1 Corinthians 5.
So, the concept of excommunication isn’t the problem. Interestingly, the most extreme Jewish
synagogue excommunication resulted in the person being “cut off from all its
blessings, hopes, and promises, like a pagan or Gentile,”[2] and Jesus said that the
person refusing to submit to church discipline is to “be to you as a Gentile
and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17), evidencing the link between the
concepts. Many Christians think that
it’s wrong to put people out of the church; while it can be done in an
incorrect and abusive manner, it’s just as dangerous to the health of the body
never to practice any discipline (which is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5).
Some might accept the concept of excommunication, but they
say that the issue here is that the leaders are deciding this. However, that is nowhere forbidden in the New
Testament. Moreover, as one Bible
dictionary notes here, “The office of elder in the New Testament church cannot
be fully understood without the background of the Old Testament local elder,”
going on to note, “The first Christians were Jewish and the office was familiar
to them.”[3] In other words, the elders of the church in
the New Testament are modeled after the Jewish synagogue authorities, which is
why both the apostles and the elders they established make decisions for the
church in places like Acts 15. So, the
issue here isn’t that the leaders of the synagogue are rolling up their sleeves
and debating whether someone confessing Jesus to be the Christ is in keeping
with sound doctrine and the general fellowship — they have the right and the
duty to do so.
So, what is the issue? The problem is that Jesus is the Christ, the
Messiah, and they decide against Him. This
is evidence that they had already considered Jesus’s messianic claims and
rejected them. They decide to lead the
people astray simply because they don’t want Jesus to be the Christ. So, they determined that excommunication was
the proper course of action for all confessors of Jesus. As one commentator notes of being put out of
the synagogue:
The Jews had three types of
excommunication: one lasting 30 days, during which the person could not come
within six feet of anybody else; one for an indefinite time, during which the
person was excluded from all fellowship and worship; and one that meant
absolute expulsion forever. These judgments were very serious because no one
could conduct business with a person who was excommunicated.[4]
This is something that true followers of Jesus had to
consider. Jesus later warns His
disciples that they would be ejected from the synagogues (John 16:2). Even today, if someone comes to Christ in a
Jewish, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or a Muslim community, it may mean that this
person will face the hatred and scorn of their parents, their neighbors, and
may suffer reduced employment and living opportunities as a result. That’s why Jesus calls any potential disciple
to first count the cost — life may be harder for some, but He also pronounced
those blessed who are ostracized for His sake (Luke 6:22).
Now, the Pharisees are not quite there yet with this
situation, because so far, no one has confessed Jesus to be the Messiah. They are still trying to poke holes in this
healing testimony, though. So, in v. 24,
they call “the man who had been blind” a second time. Note the irony there — they’ve confirmed that
this man was born blind, and that he obviously sees now, and therefore, the
miracle. However, they will not accept
that explanation.
So, they say, “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a
sinner.” The expression, “give glory to
God,” isn’t a command so much for praise but of oath-making. In Joshua 7:19, when Achan had sinned, Joshua
says, “My son, I implore you, give glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and
give praise to Him; and tell me now what you have done. Do not hide it from me.” Here, this is a case where they were suggesting
that the man was being dishonest with them and needed to glorify God by telling
them the truth.
Ironically, he has been glorifying God by announcing it was
Jesus who healed him. However, they
again refer to Jesus with contempt, calling Him a sinner. They base this assessment on Jesus’s refusal
to submit to their Sabbath traditions (v. 16).
Of course, they didn’t really know; Jesus had said to their faces in
John 8:46, “Which one of you convicts Me of sin?” As one commentary notes, they are pressuring
this man with their statement.[5]
However, this man answers with pure, refreshing honesty in
the next verse. He says, “Whether He is
a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I
see.” We could note here that Scripture
clearly identifies Jesus as sinless, but there’s no way for this man to know at
this point. He does know that he spent
his own life in darkness, however, and that Jesus was the one who turned on the
lights! For this man, this fact speaks
volumes about Jesus.
This approach is nothing less than reasonable. However, the Pharisees still won’t have
it. They continue to press the man with
questions in v. 26 — “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” This evidences not curiosity on their parts
but a continued probe for the sake of accusation.
Even this man with his brand-new eyes can see it. So, his response will have more of a serrated
edge. Yet, nothing he says will compare
to the response they give, as we see next.
III.
Those who don’t believe revile those who continue
in belief (vv. 27–34).
He answered them,
“I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again?
You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?” They reviled him and said, “You are His
disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. “We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as
for this man, we do not know where He is from.”
The man answered
and said to them, “Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where
He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. We
know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His
will, He hears him. Since the beginning
of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born
blind. If this man were not from God, He
could do nothing.”
They answered him,
“You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?” So they put him out.
He isn’t interested in going around in circles with
them. It’s obvious to him at this point
that they are just looking for problems with his story out of their hatred for
Jesus. That’s why he asks, “You do not
want to become His disciples too, do you?”
His question expects a negative response, but he asks it anyway to put
an end to all pretenses. In fact, his
words here imply that he’s ready to be Jesus’s disciple, which he purposefully
states in the midst of this hostile audience.
So, we read first that they reviled him. They don’t like his sass and give it back to
him! As one commentator notes, “The idea
of this illiterate beggar sarcastically suggesting they were interested in
Jesus was more than their pride could take.”[6] Because of pride, people turn away from
Christ and seek to tear down those who follow Him. Those who face it for the sake of Christ must
remember that their blessed, though, for Jesus said, “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me” (Matt. 5:11).
Reviling is a trait of worldliness, by the way. We might expect this behavior from lost
Pharisees, but no Christian should engage in gossip and revile others. We see this in 1 Corinthians 5:11, which
says, “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother
if he is an immoral person,” like “a reviler … not even to eat with such a one.” So, if anyone engages in reviling someone
else here, that person should pass on communion and take time to repent, or
risk putting themselves under church discipline.
These men revile, and as one commentator notes, “At this
point, the meeting degenerated into a shouting match of insults.”[7] The first insult, at least in their minds,
was to say, “You are His disciple.” They
want to make a clear separation — saying, by implication, that this man is now
a disciple of the wrong man.
They continue to incorrectly state that they are the disciples
of Moses. This is what they claim, but
Jesus said that Moses wrote of Him and accuses them (John 5:45), noting that Scripture
condemns those in opposition to Him (vv. 45–47). Nonetheless, they double down in this claim
to support their pride and self-righteousness.
Now, note that those who are wrong can say right
things. They say in v. 29, “We know
that God has spoken to Moses.” They
affirm a proper understanding in this moment of revelation, that God gave Moses
the Law, something the Apostle John affirmed in John 1:17. Just because a person, like a Pharisee, has
something fundamentally wrong in his theology doesn’t mean we reject the true
theology they believed.
What was fundamentally wrong in their theology? They rejected the Christ Moses
predicted. They say they don’t know
where Jesus is coming from, a denial of His divine revelation and
authority. That’s no surprise; Jesus previously
said He knows, but they don’t (John 8:14).
This man continues to press them, holding them accountable
to what they just said. He calls it
amazing or marvelous that they don’t know where Jesus gets His authority. They should know, and they do, though they’ve
rejected it. This man, however, has
proof positive of a miracle literally on his face! He showed a more honest assessment than the
spiritual leaders did.
He then gives a fascinating argument, which we could spend
much time examining. Yet, as one summary
notes of these verses, “He uses a form of deductive reasoning used in logic. Major
premise—God does not listen to sinners. Minor
premise—this man healed a man of blindness. Conclusion—God
must have listened to him and he must be from God.”[8] In other words, God won’t give His attention
to someone like the Pharisees describe, and yet, only God could allow someone
to heal his congenital condition.
Therefore, Jesus is from God.
This is where the debate lies. We saw this back in John 9:16 — “Therefore
some of the Pharisees were saying, ‘This man is not from God, because He does
not keep the Sabbath.’ But others were
saying, ‘How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?’ And there was a
division among them.” It is possible, of
course, for there to be lying signs and wonders. However, they assume Jesus broke the Sabbath
because He didn’t keep their traditions, not because He dishonored the heart of
the commandment. The man’s argument
isn’t iron-clad, but it’s honest, and true spiritual leaders would reconsider
their false assessment that Jesus is a sinner, especially considering the
obvious miracle.
The Pharisees were not interested in debate, however. They had already decided against Jesus, and
all they see before them is an uneducated beggar telling them what to
think. They’re the spiritual elite;
everyone else is just (as the rabbinic literature records) the am ha-eretz, the
people of the land.[9] He’s part of the unwashed masses.
Moreover, he was born blind.
So, they say, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?”
To be clear, they aren’t referring to the doctrine of original sin, considering
that they are creating a division between him and them. This may be a reference back to the belief
that the disciples voiced in v. 2, that this man was born blind because he
somehow sinned while in the womb.
This amounts to an ad hominen attack; and argument
“against the man.” When someone runs out
of substantial arguments, he often resorts to name calling and shaming. This is what the Pharisees do to try to shut
this man down.
They do so with the full force of their authority. We read it in one, simple statement: “So they
put him out.” They excommunicated him
from the synagogue. Usually, a formal
meeting of the Sanhedrin would be required for excommunication, but they make
their decision right there, in the moment.
IV.
Conclusion
This seems like a dark moment to end on, but Jesus will find
this man in the next verses. He doesn’t
leave this man comfortless or as an orphan, as we discussed last week. He ensures that this man comes to a full
understanding of who He is, making him a true disciple.
A lot of skeptics ask questions, like these Pharisees
did. In some cases, those questions lead
to honest reflection and a desire for the truth. In others, though, the questions are meant to
push away the truth.
If you don’t believe in Jesus, I hope that you will come to
honestly investigate His claims. Don’t
just look for excuses to keep disbelieving, and don’t simply sit and mock those
who believe in Jesus. Look at all the
evidence as an impartial judge would, and I’m sure you will come to believe in
the Lord. I hope that you’re not
avoiding starting such an investigation because you fear that outcome!
For those who believe, take heart. People will revile and persecute. However, our Lord calls us blessed when this
happens. Pray for unbelievers, blessing
those who say mean and untrue things about you, and continue to follow the Lord
who opened your eyes.
[1] D. A. Carson, The
Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Leicester,
England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 368.
[2] R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1961), 691.
[3] Cornelis Van Dam, Evangelical
dictionary of Biblical Theology, 1996, 198.
[4] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne
House, The Nelson Study Bible: New King
James Version, (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Jn 9:22.
[5] Edwin A. Blum, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 308.
[6] Blum, 308.
[7] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word
Pub., 1997), 1602.
[8] Ronald Trail, An
Exegetical Summary of John 1–9, Exegetical Summaries, (Dallas, TX: SIL
International, 2013), 502.
[9] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1996), 25A:323.
