John 9 Blind man healing
Forum category
I am not a pastor, but I received the opportunity to preach recently. In preparation, I was thinking about the theme of dying to this world and living for Christ and the passage of the blind man being healed by Christ at the beginning of John 9 came to mind. I would appreciate thoughts as is if it would be too much of a stretch to draw this from the passage: (1) the earth that Christ mixed with His saliva is a picture of being earthly minded and Christ’s disapproval of earthly mindedness, (2) Christ putting it in the man’s eyes is Christ showing the man the truth about the folly of being earthly minded, (3) the man obeying Christ’s commandment to go wash the earth away and the result of him seeing Christ for the first time and experiencing the world in a new light is a picture of conversion.
I love analogies, but I believe that it is important to avoid preaching things that the Bible didn’t intend to say and am wondering if any portion of these points would be acceptable to preach. None of the commentaries that I’ve looked at seem to delve much into any of those points, which makes me wary of my thoughts. Commentary has made points such as: saliva to those people would have been believed to have medicinal qualities and putting clay on a man’s eyes emphasizes the miraculous nature of it because that would normally hurt rather than help vision.
I ended up avoiding that passage altogether in my sermon to avoid error.
Thanks for your advice.
I love analogies, but I believe that it is important to avoid preaching things that the Bible didn’t intend to say and am wondering if any portion of these points would be acceptable to preach. None of the commentaries that I’ve looked at seem to delve much into any of those points, which makes me wary of my thoughts. Commentary has made points such as: saliva to those people would have been believed to have medicinal qualities and putting clay on a man’s eyes emphasizes the miraculous nature of it because that would normally hurt rather than help vision.
I ended up avoiding that passage altogether in my sermon to avoid error.
Thanks for your advice.
i think one way to say basically what you want and still avoid problems is to use the phrase “this reminds me of”. for example, you could say: “Christ mixed the earth with his saliva. This reminds me of Christ’s disapproval of earthly mindedness.” by using the phrase “this reminds me…”, you are not insisting that it was either Jesus’ intent or the gospel writer’s intent to communicate this connection – only that it’s something you imagined as you read the passage.
In preaching, it is important to focus on the authority of the text which can only be based on what the text actually says.
In the text, the saliva is just saliva, and the dirt is just the dirt. There is no hidden meaning in it. The point of the story is not about earthly mindedness, but about Jesus’ identity and the opposition to him from those who didn’t like him. So the message preached from the passage must be about Jesus’ identity and the opposition to him from those who didn’t like him.
In the text, the saliva is just saliva, and the dirt is just the dirt. There is no hidden meaning in it. The point of the story is not about earthly mindedness, but about Jesus’ identity and the opposition to him from those who didn’t like him. So the message preached from the passage must be about Jesus’ identity and the opposition to him from those who didn’t like him.
[Larry]…what the text actually saysYou sound just like my pastor, who always says “what does the text say!” It is enough to say what the text says and to not say what it does not say.
Furthermore, in verse 3 Jesus responds to the question from the disciples about whose sin had caused the blindness.
[v.3] Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.He informs them that the sole purpose for the man’s condition was for God’s glory to be revealed. This man had lived his entire life to this point, just so that he could be in this place, on this day, at this time, for Jesus to give him sight. God’s revealed glory in giving sight was of greater import than the man’s lifetime struggle with blindness.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Larry] In the text, the saliva is just saliva, and the dirt is just the dirt.plenty of past christian leaders have looked at this and other stories and seen deeper meaning. for example, augustine saw references to incarnation, creation and baptism.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xlv.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xxxv.html (#9)
Thank you for your responses. I think there are times when we we can find deeper meanings as ChrisC asserts. I also believe that it is important to not preach something as Bible that the Bible didn’t intend to, as Larry emphasizes, and overall that it is much better to be cautious and to not preach non-obvious deeper meanings, because that practice can lead to error. I am wondering if anyone else has insight into this passage and to why or why not I could say this. Thanks for JohnBrian’s addition as well.
I think there are times when we we can find deeper meanings as ChrisC asserts.How would one find this deeper meaning?
John 9 can be preached from several different standpoints, but must be grounded in the text. I cannot recommend enough first doing a study of the plight of the blind in Jesus’ day (including the supposed cause of a child born blind). Both Carson and Kostenberger have a bunch of insight into this chapter.
You could preach the passage from the view of the blind man’s parents. At the end of the chapter, what Jesus did for their son drove them from their son because of their religion. The plot of that story is just jaw-dropping as we watch the parents, who should be rejoicing over their son’s new-found vision. factor into that the issue of WHY their son was born blind, and this is even more stunning. We might think that a normal response of the parents would be, “This is our son. He was born blind. Now he can see. We thank God for Jesus and for Jesus giving our son his sight! We support Jesus and thank Him for healing our son.” But they don’t. They dont’ rejoice. in fact, we are told that they are in fear. they won’t answer the third question: “How is it now that he can see.” They don’t stand by their son, and they don’t thank Jesus. That’s just plain stunning.
You could preach the passage from the standpoint of the religious leaders, who’s interogation of the man and his parents displays their false impartiality about Jesus. This newly-sighted man, without their theological training, refuses to drop the truth — I was blind, now I see. He even has the audacity to ask them, “Do you want to become His follower, too?” In light of the obvious power of Jesus, these religious leaders turn to insulting both the man and Jesus. Their religion is too powerful. They claim to be Moses’ followers, but they are blinded as to what Moses wrote. At the end of the encounter, they are powerless, sightless, blinded, and hopeless. But that is what they want. they would rather have that than risk everything to admit who Jesus is. They can have religion, or they can have Jesus. But they cannot have both. The choose their religion.
I recommend preaching it from the standpoint of the man. The “you were born in sin (which was the cause of your blindness!)” remark was cutting, insulting. The resolve of the plot is ironic. At the end of the day, he has received his sight, and lost everything else. His parents have rejected him for fear of being kicked out of the synagogue (and society). He sided with Jesus, so he would be cut off from society. At the beginning of the chapter, we expect a happy ending — something along the lines of, “and they all rejoiced at the power of Jesus and and praised Him for healing the blind man.” But we don’t get that. At the end of the chapter, we’ve got one man who is willing to lose everything because he alone understands who Jesus is. Not exactly how the guy had his day planned out. Jesus did not come to a world of sinners aware of their need… and eager to be rid of their sins. The brilliant shining light turned more away from it… blinded by it… and the blinding light blinded them all the more.
You might bring in to this Jesus’ promise of Matthew 10, of a man’s family being his enemy because of Jesus (vv. 34-39). You may want to touch on the truth that when we come to Christ, we lose our old “drinking buddies.” But what hurts a whole lot worse is losing our own flesh and blood families, who consider us “Jesus freaks” and “Bible thumpers” and “religious zealots” now. One of the most hurtful aspects of Christianity is not that our old friends have dropped us, it is that our own families have dropped us. Psalm 27:10 comes into play here.
At the end of the account, the now-sighted man has Jesus. He knows who Jesus is. he knows what Jesus has done for him. Jesus, in healing the man, complicated his life, made people choose sides. And the end of the chapter, the man has Jesus. And that is enough.
You could preach the passage from the view of the blind man’s parents. At the end of the chapter, what Jesus did for their son drove them from their son because of their religion. The plot of that story is just jaw-dropping as we watch the parents, who should be rejoicing over their son’s new-found vision. factor into that the issue of WHY their son was born blind, and this is even more stunning. We might think that a normal response of the parents would be, “This is our son. He was born blind. Now he can see. We thank God for Jesus and for Jesus giving our son his sight! We support Jesus and thank Him for healing our son.” But they don’t. They dont’ rejoice. in fact, we are told that they are in fear. they won’t answer the third question: “How is it now that he can see.” They don’t stand by their son, and they don’t thank Jesus. That’s just plain stunning.
You could preach the passage from the standpoint of the religious leaders, who’s interogation of the man and his parents displays their false impartiality about Jesus. This newly-sighted man, without their theological training, refuses to drop the truth — I was blind, now I see. He even has the audacity to ask them, “Do you want to become His follower, too?” In light of the obvious power of Jesus, these religious leaders turn to insulting both the man and Jesus. Their religion is too powerful. They claim to be Moses’ followers, but they are blinded as to what Moses wrote. At the end of the encounter, they are powerless, sightless, blinded, and hopeless. But that is what they want. they would rather have that than risk everything to admit who Jesus is. They can have religion, or they can have Jesus. But they cannot have both. The choose their religion.
I recommend preaching it from the standpoint of the man. The “you were born in sin (which was the cause of your blindness!)” remark was cutting, insulting. The resolve of the plot is ironic. At the end of the day, he has received his sight, and lost everything else. His parents have rejected him for fear of being kicked out of the synagogue (and society). He sided with Jesus, so he would be cut off from society. At the beginning of the chapter, we expect a happy ending — something along the lines of, “and they all rejoiced at the power of Jesus and and praised Him for healing the blind man.” But we don’t get that. At the end of the chapter, we’ve got one man who is willing to lose everything because he alone understands who Jesus is. Not exactly how the guy had his day planned out. Jesus did not come to a world of sinners aware of their need… and eager to be rid of their sins. The brilliant shining light turned more away from it… blinded by it… and the blinding light blinded them all the more.
You might bring in to this Jesus’ promise of Matthew 10, of a man’s family being his enemy because of Jesus (vv. 34-39). You may want to touch on the truth that when we come to Christ, we lose our old “drinking buddies.” But what hurts a whole lot worse is losing our own flesh and blood families, who consider us “Jesus freaks” and “Bible thumpers” and “religious zealots” now. One of the most hurtful aspects of Christianity is not that our old friends have dropped us, it is that our own families have dropped us. Psalm 27:10 comes into play here.
At the end of the account, the now-sighted man has Jesus. He knows who Jesus is. he knows what Jesus has done for him. Jesus, in healing the man, complicated his life, made people choose sides. And the end of the chapter, the man has Jesus. And that is enough.
[Joe Whalen] And the end of the chapter, the man has Jesus. And that is enough.Excellent, but if you had put this in outline form I could have borrowed it and had a sermon all ready to go :)
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
I was thinking that someone was going to ‘borrow’ Bro. Whalen’s post and preach it! I just might borrow it myself…. for a homeschool lesson, of course. ;)
Wish I could take credit for this… but I can’t. Dr. Gordon Lovik and Dr. Doug Finkbeiner at Calvary opened my eyes to John 9 one day. I am in their debt.
[Larry]Oh, that’s easy. You just put in whatever you want to and tell people that it’s in the greek :rolleyes:I think there are times when we we can find deeper meanings as ChrisC asserts.How would one find this deeper meaning?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Thanks Joe; you brought out some great points. Again, I think “deeper meanings” should be approached very cautiously overall (which is why I haven’t preached from the John 9 passage in that way, but instead have solicited other people and commentaries for advice) but I don’t think that they have to be altogether avoided. Take the Acts 3 account of the healing of the lame man for example.
Discussion