August 2nd, 2020
“Power Source”
John 9:13-34
Call to Worship: Psalm 1
Aux. text: Hebrews 10:23-25
Service Orientation: We may pay a horrible price for holding to the truth (reality). Don’t ever let others’ false presuppositions and threats keep you from the truth.
Bible Memory Verse for the Week: Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. — Hebrews 10:23
Background Information:
- From last week’s sermon we saw that Jesus heals a man born blind. From a couple weeks before that Jesus taught that there are only two Kingdoms from which power to heal could have come: The Kingdom of Darkness (Satan) or the Kingdom of Light (from God). The religious leaders are going to do all they can to show that Jesus’ power to heal came from the Kingdom of Darkness.
- (v. 16)“Surely He must be from God.” –These must have been Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Gamaliel, and others. Their line of argument is precisely that of Nicodemus in the famous visit to our Lord by night, when he said, “No man can do these miracles except God be with him” (Jn 3:2). (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 172)
- (v. 17) We should carefully note that the first idea about our lord which the Jewish mind seemed ready to embrace, was that He was a “Prophet.” Thus the multitude which escorted Him into Jerusalem said, “this is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth” (Mt 21:11); and again, “The multitude took Him for a Prophet” (Mt 21:46); and again, “Others said it is a Prophet” (Mk 6:15); and again, “A great Prophet is risen up among us.” (Lk 7:16). Even the two disciples going to Emmaus were only positive on one point: that Jesus had been “a Prophet mighty in word and deed” (Lk 24:19). But it was a higher step of faith to say that Jesus was “the Prophet” promised by Moses,–the Messiah. This the healed man did not yet say. As yet he only got so far as “a Prophet,” not “the Prophet.” (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 174)
- (v. 22) A lower court could levy 30 days excommunication, which meant they would be treated as lepers. No one was allowed to eat or drink with them or conduct any kind of business. People had to keep their distance. Under such threat the poor parents are easily intimidated. They guard their words. They face the prospect of 30 days excommunication. (C.S. Lovett, Lovett’s Lights on John, 167)
- (v. 22) The Greek expression for be put out of the synagogue (aposynagogos genetai) literally means “become de-synagogued”–similar to the idea of excommunication. The expression is unique to John’s Gospel (used here and in 12:42; 16:2). (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 198)
- (v. 22) To an Israelite the dread of excommunication was second only to the fear of death: it cut him off from all the outward privileges of the commonwealth of Israel, and made him an object of scorn and derision. But all through the ages some of the faithful witnesses of Christ have met with similar or even worse treatment. Excommunication, persecution, imprisonment, torture, death, are the favorite weapons of ecclesiastical tyrants. Thus were the Waldenses treated; so Luther, Bunyan, Ridly, and Huguenots; and so, in great probability, will it be again in the near future. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 503)
- (v. 24) “Give the glory to God,” was a phrase used in cross-examination which really meant: “Speak the truth in the presence and the name of God.” When Joshua was cross-examining Achan about the sin which had brought disaster to Israel, he said to him: “Give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and render praise to him; and tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me” (Josh 7:19). (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible Series: John, Vol. 2, 48)
- (v. 24) “Therefore” (which NIV omits) is significant. (Leon Morris, The New Int’l Commentary on the NT: John, 436)
- (v. 24) Those who think that the man spoke this, in accordance with the opinion of the people, are mistaken; for the word sinner, in this passage, as in another which lately occurred, means an ungodly and immoral person. It is the uniform doctrine of Scripture, that God does not listen to any but those who call upon him with truth and sincerity. (Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, 385)
- (v. 31) This verse like many another must not be divorced from its setting. Taken absolutely, these words “God heareth not sinners,” are not true. God “heard” the cry of Ishmael (Gn 21:17); He “heard” the groanings of the children of Israel in Egypt, long before He redeemed them (Ex 2:24); He “heard” and answered the prayer of the wicked Manasseh (2 Chr 33:10-13). But reading this verse in the light of its context its meaning is apparent. The Pharisees had said of Christ, “We know that this man is a sinner (v. 24). Now says the beggar, “We know that God heareth not sinners,” which was one of their pet doctrines. Thus, once more, did the one on trial turn the word of his judges against themselves. If Christ were an impostor as they avowed, then how came it that God has assisted Him to work this miracle? (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 501)
- (v. 31) It is hardly necessary to say that it did not mean that God is unwilling to hear the prayers of sinners who feel their sins, and cry to Him for pardon. It applies to sinners who do not feel their sins, and are living in sin, and are impenitent. Such persons God does not look on with favor, and will not enable to do miracles. That God will not hear impenitent sinners, is taught in such texts as Job 37:9; 25:12; Ps 18:41; 34:15: 66:18; Prv 1:28; 15:29; 28:9: Isa 1:15; Jer 9:11; 14:12; Ez 8:18; Micah 3:4; Zech 7:13. The Pharisees knew this, and could not possibly deny it. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 185)
- (v. 34) Trench observes that the Pharisees in their rage forgot “that the two charges,–one, that the man had not been born blind and was an imposter; the other, that he bore the mark of God’s anger in blindness reaching back to his birth,–will not agree together.” (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 188)
- One cannot but notice how constantly the phrase “We know” occurs. (Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: John, IX to XIV, 20)
The question to be answered is . . . How do we handle that which conflicts with our perception of reality (the Truth) . What may happen to us who hold convictions conflicting with the world?
Answer: God gave us a mind and we are to use it. Don’t let pride, prejudice, and small-mindedness keep you from the truth you concluded from reason and evidence. Every day someone suffers because they held to the truth.
It is also possible that they were trying by means of this procedure to weary the man, so that by forcing boredom upon him they might cause him, in an unguarded moment, to make an inconsistent statement. How often the man had heard those questions: from the lips, first, of the neighbors, and that repeatedly; then, of the Pharisees; and now once more, of the Pharisees! It was the same thing over and over again: “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” (William Hendriksen, NT Commentary: John 7-21, 89)
Stanley Hauerwas (Resident Aliens) loves it when his students say nobody can tell me what’s right or wrong. We need to think for ourselves. Hauerwas says “Every culture before our culture, believed that right or wrong was determined outside ourselves; by God, tradition, natural law, community, family . .. And every religion and culture was different.
But, every culture before our culture said right and wrong was determined outside of ourself and it is the job of the self to harmonize with it.
But, we are the first culture to be marked by expressive individualism. And expressive individualism is the view that right or wrong is not determined outside the self but right or wrong is determined by our own conscience inside the SELF. It is determined by what you find in your own consciousness.
When Americans say, “You’ve got to determine truth for yourself, you are NOT thinking for yourself at all. You are adopting a particular way of thinking. A particular way of determining truth and spiritual reality. It is a Western, tribal, white European way of thinking based on an Enlightenment, Romanticism, European movement, and you are thinking NOT Because you are thinking for yourself. But, because your culture has told you to do it. (Tim Keller referencing Stanley Hauerwas, “The Necessity of Belief”)
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. — Winston Churchill
People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. — Blaise Pascal
In the twentieth century the point of science is not some abstract “truth” but power, control of the forces of nature. Our time doesn’t think about “truth” anymore. (Peter Kreeft, The Best Things in Life, 29)
For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life was how to conform the soul to objective reality; and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline and virtue. For the modern man, the cardinal problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of man, and the solution is a technique. (C. S. Lewis; The Abolition of Man, as quoted by Tim Keller in a sermon entitled, “Power for Facing Trouble”)
The Word for the Day is . . . Hold
A belief is what you hold, but a conviction is what holds you. You may live contrary to what you believe, but you cannot live contrary to your convictions. (Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace, p. 163)
What do people do with the Truth (reality)?:
- Small-mindedness Denies the Truth (Reality) (John 9:18, 27, 31-33; see also: Rom 1:18-25)
Here, as elsewhere, we should mark the extraordinary unbelief of the Jewish people, and their obstinate determination to shut their eyes against light. It teaches the folly of supposing that mere evidence alone will ever make men Christians. It is the want of will to believe, and not the want of reasons for believing, that makes men infidels. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 174)
“We follow Moses,” they say. Yet John wants us to see that Moses spoke of Jesus himself (5:45-47). God did indeed speak through Moses. John wouldn’t have denied that for a moment. But when you understand Moses aright, you will see that his law points forward to the “grace and truth” which comes through Jesus the Messiah (1:17). Moses, after all, did far more than merely issue a code of law. (N. T. Wright, John for Everyone, Part One, 141-2)
Who are those who are most likely to be taken in by authority? We answer: the foolish. But who are the foolish? The answer to that question is not necessarily “those who are uneducated” and most certainly not “those who are aware of their own lack of knowledge.” The answer is those who are overly sure of what they think they know. Thus, you will find professors being swept up into foolish theories by other professors, and ministers being led into nonsense concerning Christ by doctors of theology. (James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 3, 715)
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy. (William Shakespeare; Hamlet, Act 1., Scene v., Line 66)
These would-be wise men completely mistook the intention of the Sabbath. They did not see that it was “made for men,” and meant for the good of man’s body, mind, and soul. It was a day to be set apart from others, no doubt, and to be carefully sanctified and kept holy. But its sanctification was never intended to prevent works of necessity and acts of mercy. To heal a sick man was no breech of the Sabbath day. In finding fault with our Lord for so doing, the Jews only exposed their ignorance of their own law. They had forgotten that it is as great a sin to add to a commandment, as to take it away. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 167)
The Jewish religious leaders wanted Jesus out of their way, so they had spread the word that anyone who confessed him as Christ would be thrown out of the synagogue. They couldn’t prevail against Jesus with reason or with God’s Word, so they resorted to scare tactics and force. (Gary P. Baumler, The People’s Bible: John, 143)
While the Pharisees questioned the man, they persistently defended their adherence to Moses (they were confident that God had spoken to Moses). But Jesus had already told them that if they really knew Moses and understood his writings, they would know the Messiah, for Moses wrote of him (5:45-47). (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 200)
The Pharisees had made a long list of specific do’s and don’ts regarding the Sabbath in an attempt to explain and put into practice what the Scriptures meant when they prohibited work on the Sabbath. Kneading the clay, anointing his eyes, and healing the man (whose life was not in danger) were all considered work and therefore were forbidden. Jesus may have purposely made the clay in order to emphasize his teaching about the Sabbath–that it is right to care for others’ needs even if it involves working on a day of rest. But because Jesus broke their petty rules, they immediately decided he was not from God. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 196)
It was, indeed, astonishing to hear these dignified men say, “We do not know.” They were so used to saying, “We know (9:24, 29; and cf. 6:42; 7:27), that it came as a shock that here for once they actually admitted ignorance with respect to a certain matter; and such an important matter! It concerned the One who had bestowed the blessing of vision upon a man born blind! (William Hendriksen, NT Commentary: John 7-21, 90)
Let us note that this resort to personal abuse and violent language is often a sure mark of a failing cause in religion. Inability to reply to argument is often the true cause of ill-temper and personalities. Truth can afford to be patient; error cannot. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 187)
The Pharisees were cautious men who would consider themselves conservatives, when in reality they were “preservatives.” A true conservative takes the best of the past and uses it, but he is also aware of the new things that God is doing. The new grows out of the old (Mt 13:52). A “preservative” simply embalms the past and preserves it. He is against change and resists the new things that God is doing. Had the Pharisees really understood Moses, they would have known who Jesus was and what He was doing. (Warren W. Wiersby, Be Alive, 145)
Narrow-mindedness is not always a bad thing. In fact, at times it is wisdom in action. — Buddy Briggs
In their eyes, Jesus had broken the Sabbath, not because He had violated any of the divine Sabbath regulations revealed in Scripture, but because He had ignored the restrictions and extrabiblical applications of the rabbis. For example, the Lord had made mud from His saliva and some dust, which supposedly violated the prohibition against kneading on the Sabbath. The rabbinic regulations also forbade giving medical treatment on the Sabbath unless a person’s life was in immediate danger, which was obviously not the case with the blind man. Additionally, some rabbis taught that it was not permitted to anoint the eyes with medicine (saliva was thought to have medicinal qualities) on the Sabbath, though opinion was divided on that issue.
This was not the first time Jesus had deliberately violated traditional Sabbath regulations. In Mt 12:1-8 He defended His disciples for picking grain on the Sabbath, in violation of rabbinic law. Then shortly afterward He healed a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath (Mt 12:9-13; cf. Lk 13:10-16; 14:1-6). Earlier in John’s gospel, Jesus had healed a man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath, so enraging the Jewish authorities that they sought to kill Him (5:9-18).
Why did He deliberately provoke the leaders by violating their Sabbath regulations? First and foremost, because it displayed His divine authority as Lord of the Sabbath (Lk 6:5). But He also did it to demonstrate that such extrabiblical standards were an unnecessary and oppressive burden on the people. By making the seventh day a wearisome one governed by dozens of trivial, hairsplitting rules, the Jewish leaders had perverted God’s design for this weekly day of rest and thanks to God; after all, as Jesus pointed out, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27). The religious leaders prided themselves on keeping the minutiae of the legalistic Sabbath rules, while at the same time ignoring far more important issues such as showing mercy (cf. Mt 12:11-12; Mk 3:4; Lk 13:15-16). (John MacArthur, The MacArthur NT Commentary: John, 402)
- Pride Reorders the Truth (Reality) (John 9:16, 24; see also: 2 Thess 2:1-15)
The Pharisees are typical of the people in every generation who condemn anyone whose idea of religion is not theirs. They thought that theirs was the only way of serving God. (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible Series: John, Vol. 2, 45)
Nothing shuts out Divine illumination so effectively as prejudice and pride: nothing tends to blind the heart more than egotism. “If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise” (1 Cor 3:18); “Proud, knowing nothing” (1 Tm 6:4). (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 500-01)
We humans have a fatal tendency to try to adjust the truth to fit our desires rather than adjusting our desires to fit the truth. (Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 32)
Augustine was right when he said that we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us. Maybe we can’t handle the truth. (Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 36)
They were not the kind of people who would admit defeat. Moreoever, they feel deeply insulted and humiliated. A mere beggar has defied their authority. He has made sport of their dignity and superior position. What, they about to become disciples of Jesus? His very name is poison to them, so that they refuse to take it upon their lips. They prefer to call him “that one” or “that fellow.” (William Hendriksen, NT Commentary: John 7-21, 90)
He had eyes, and the Pharisees were blind.
The same thing may be seen in other places of Scripture. The servants of Pharaoh saw “the finger of God” in the plagues of Egypt, when their master’s heart was hardened. The servants of Naaman saw the wisdom of Elisha’s advice, when their master was turning away in a rage. The high, the great, and the noble are often the last to learn spiritual lessons. Their possessions and their position often blind the eyes of their understanding, and keep them back from the kingdom of God. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 179)
Now, since we ought always to hear God, by whomsoever he may talk to us, let us learn not to despise any man, that God may find us always mild and submissive, even though he employ a person altogether mean and despicable to instruct us. For there is not a more dangerous plague than when pride stops our ears, so that we do not deign to hear those who warn us for our profit; and it frequently happens that God purposely selects vile and worthless persons to instruct and warn us, in order to subdue our pride. (Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, 387)
In reviewing the facts of the case, the Pharisees had no intention of believing or following the one who had performed the healing. They wanted to disqualify Jesus. They avoided the truth in their quest for a loophole. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 199)
9:18-21 The Pharisees still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, so they called in the man’s parents in the hope that they would refute their own son’s testimony. Failure to reach quick agreement on the case meant they needed to review the “facts.” (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 197)
“Give glory to God” has the same force here as in the story of Achan: when the lot pointed to Achan as the man who had brought disaster on Israel, Joshua said to him, “Give glory to the LORD God of Israel”–i.e. “Own up; tell the truth” (Josh 7:19). (It may well be that John plays characteristically on the double meaning of the words–the healing of the blind man did indeed reveal the glory of God–but our present concern is with what the interrogators meant.) “Own up,” they meant; “whatever you say, we know that this man Jesus is a sinner, and therefore cannot have performed such a miracle of healing as you pretend. Tell the truth; what are you hiding?” (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 216)
If you want the real truth, talk to someone who is intoxicated…or to a child. –Michael Schneider 03/13/19
But what about relativism? It poses as humble by saying: “We mere mortals cannot know what the truth is–or even if there is any universal truth.” This sounds humble. But look carefully at what is happening. It’s like a servant saying: “I am not smart enough to know which person here is my master–or if I even have a master.” The result is that he doesn’t have to submit to any master and can be his own master. His vaunted weakness is a ruse to cover his rebellion against is master.
That is in reality what happens to relativists: in claiming to be too lowly to know the truth, they exalt themselves as supreme arbiter of what they can think and do. This is not humility. This is rooted in deep desire not to be subordinate to the claims of truth. The name for this is pride. The only way pride can be conquered in us is for us to believe in Truth and be conquered by it so that it rules us and we don’t rule it. (John Piper, Think, 112-3)
A person who wields power cannot see truth; that is the privilege of the powerless. (Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, 125)
Major Premise: All people who are from God keep the sabbath.
Minor Premise: This man (Jesus) does not keep the sabbath.
Conclusion: This man is not from God. . . .
. . . . In the present case what these men mean in their major premise is wrong. The Pharisees have identified their own trifling, hair-splitting sabbath-regulations with the law of God. Hence, their real major premise is, “All people who are from God observe our sabbath-regulations.” The minor premise is also wrong, and for the same reason: confusion of concepts. (William Hendriksen, NT Commentary: John 7-21, 81-2)
Almost any education is better than no education at all.
But when knowledge only sticks in a man’s head, and has no influence over his heart and life, it becomes a most perilous possession. And when, in addition to this, its possessor is self-conceited and self-satisfied, and fancies he know everything, the result is one of the worst states of soul into which man can fall. There is far more hope about him who says, “I am a poor blind sinner and want God to teach me,” than about him who is ever saying, “I know it, I know it, I am not ignorant,” and yet cleaves to his sins.–The sin of that men “remaineth.” (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 182)
Forthrightly he reminds them that he has already answered these questions. Therefore the questioners can surely not be seeking information? What then are they trying to do? The question, “Do you want to become his disciples, too?” is asked in such a way as to look for the answer “No,” but the asking of it is the significant thing. (Leon Morris, The New Int’l Commentary on the NT: John, 437)
- Prejudice Dismisses the Truth (Reality) (John 9:22, 29, 34; see also: Jn 15:18-25)
They do not examine the evidence with open minds, but in the light of their firmly held prejudices seek to discover the flaw that they feel must surely be present. They begin by trying to establish that the man who now saw had not been blind. (Leon Morris, The New Int’l Commentary on the NT: John, 432-3)
We must always beware of prejudice. We must never read the Scriptures without praying. We should never approach them without asking the Holy Spirit to lead us and to guide us and to direct us. We should deliberately humble ourselves, we should talk to ourselves and say, Now why am I going to the Scriptures? Am I going there only to find arguments to support my case, or am I going there to be instructed, to be enlightened, to have my eyes opened to the truth of God? We should always try to come as little children and be ready to find that we are wrong. (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, Exposition of Chapter 9, 321)
In their fury, the Pharisees were blind to the OT descriptions that specifically speak of the Messiah bringing sight to the blind (see Isa 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). Indeed, many thought the healing of the blind would be the messianic miracle par excellence because there was never any record of such a healing in the OT. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 201)
Ill-will toward Jesus played its role, of course. To believe that this man had been blind and had been cured of his blindness would have been the first step toward crediting Jesus with a remarkable miracle. This step they did not want to take. Just as one often believes what he wishes to believe, so also one often disbelieves what he wishes to disbelieve. (William Hendriksen, NT Commentary: John 7-21, 85)
Stung by the impertinence of this untrained member of the common herd (cf. Notes on 7:49 arguing with them and besting them at their own game, they opt for personal abuse instead of evenhanded evaluation. In so doing they unwittingly confirm one of the points their interrogation aimed to overthrow: You were steeped in sin at birth is a cruel reference to the man’s congenital blindness, not a theological statement about the universality of original sin. So the man was born blind after all! So Jesus must have opened his eyes! But the irony of their rage quite escapes them, so great is their own blindness (cf. 3:19-21; 9:39-41). (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 375)
They were like men who shut their eyes and tie a bandage over them, and refuse to have it untied. Just as in after times they stopped their ears when Stephen preached, and refused to listen when Paul made his defense, so they behaved at this period of our Lord’s ministry.
Of all states of mind into which unconverted men can fall, this is by far the most dangerous to the soul. So long as a person is candid, fair, and honest-minded, there is hope for him, however ignorant he may be. He may be much in the dark at present. But is he willing to follow the light, if set before him? He may be walking in the broad road with all his might. But is he ready to listen to any one who will show him a more excellent way? In a word, is he teachable, childlike, and unfettered by prejudice? If these questions can be answered satisfactorily, we never need despair about the man’s soul. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 168-9)
It is ironic that the Pharisees claimed not to know where Jesus was from, for that was one item they believed would be true about the Messiah: “No one will know where he is from” (7:27 NIV). They refused to accept Jesus’ words or believe that the signs he did validated his claimes. They chose to reject him. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 200)
They were evidently indignant at the very idea of such wise men as they becoming disciples of Jesus. “Thou, poor ignorant creature, and such as thou, art disciples of Jesus. But we are not such fools. We are disciples of Moses, and want no other teacher.” And yet in their blindness they did not see, and would not understand, that Jesus was the very Savior of whom Moses had written, and that every true disciple of Moses must necessarily be a disciple of Jesus. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 184)
Up to this point, Jesus had been accepted by many as “the Prophet. . . [and] they intended to come and make him king by force” (6:14-15 NIV). He had done miracles that could not be ignored or explained away. Many thought he was “the Christ” (7:26 NIV). The Pharisees were facing a politically dangerous situation. If the crowds were to take Jesus by force and make him king, Rome would respond quickly and forcefully to suppress such a revolt. Roman intervention would cause incredible troubles for the Jews. So the religious leaders decided on the harsh punishment of being put out of the synagogue for anyone who dared believe in Jesus. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 198)
When they were confronted with such an argument, see what they did. First, they resorted to abuse. “They heaped abuse on him.” Second, they resorted to insult. They accused the man of being born in sin. That is to say, they accused him of pre-natal sin. Third, they resorted to threatened force. They ordered him out of their presence.
Often we have our differences with people, and it is well that it should be so. But the moment insult and abuse and threat enter into an argument, it ceases to be an argument and becomes a contest in bitterness. If we become angry and resort to wild words and hot threats, all we prove is that our case is disturbingly weak. (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible Series: John, Vol. 2, 49)
Religious bigots do not want to face either evidence or logic. Their minds are made up. Had the Pharisees honestly considered the facts, they would have seen that Jesus is the Son of God, and they could have trusted Him and been saved. (Warren W. Wiersby, Be Alive, 146)
As this passage illustrates, when unbelieving skeptics investigate the miracles of Christ, or any other supernatural event recorded in the Bible, there can be only one outcome. Unless the Holy Spirit opens their blind eyes, they will deny the veracity of such accounts no matter what the evidence. The Pharisees in this passage were presented with living proof of Jesus’ divine power. And yet, shrouded in unbelief, they attempted both to deny the undeniable and to refute the irrefutable. As a former Pharisee (the apostle Paul) would later explain, “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor 2:14; cf. Jn 6:44). (John MacArthur, The MacArthur NT Commentary: John, 406-7)
“This fellow” is contemptuous. They regard their ignorance of Jesus’ origin as damaging to his cause. But some Jerusalemites have argued that when the Christ comes no one will know where he is from (7:27), so that ignorance of his origin could be urged in favor of his messiahship. Their argument is less convincing and less consistent than they may have thought. Had they considered its implications they might have been led to the truth. (Leon Morris, The New Int’l Commentary on the NT: John, 437)
- A Humble, Thinking Person, through Reason and Evidence, Submits and holds onto Truth (Reality). (John 9:31-33; see also: Psa 119:31; Prov 3:18; 4:13; 11:2; Mt 10:22; Jn 8:31-32; 1 Cor 15:2; Eph 6:13-14; 2 Thess 2:1-15; 1Tim 3:9; 2 Tim 3:14; Heb 3:6, 14; 4:14; 6:18; 10:23-24; 2 Pt 1:10-11; Rev 2:24-25; 3:11)
This humble beggar now proceeded to give a theological lecture to the haughty, insolent religious leaders of his nation. He responded to the Pharisees’ syllogism (cf. The discussion of v. 16 above) with one of his own. His major premise was that God does not hear sinners (Job 27:9; Ps 66:18; Isa 1:15), but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him (Ps 34:15; Prv 15:8, 29; 1 Pt 3:12). His minor premise was that God obviously heard Jesus, since He gave Him the power to do something unheard of since the beginning of time: to open the eyes of a person born blind. His irrefutable conclusion was that “if this man were not from God, He could do nothing” like this. (John MacArthur, The MacArthur NT Commentary: John, 406)
The religious leaders were unable to throttle the healed beggar’s willingness to testify for Jesus. In fact, the more the Pharisees questioned this man who had received his sight, the stronger and clearer he became about Jesus. Their blind obstinacy helped his clarity. See how his vision cleared:
* At first, the man recognized his healer as “the man called Jesus” (9:11).
* Then he knew Jesus was “a prophet” (9:17).
* Then he saw Jesus as one who was “from God” and had performed a miracle never done before (9:32-33).
* Then finally, when confronted by Jesus, he believed that Jesus is the “Son of Man” (the Messiah), worthy of worship (9:35-38). (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 199-200)
Between the lines of his terse saying one can surely read this much: “Over against your mere say-so I place this one great fact of experience: though I was blind, I now see. Facts are more stubborn than unsupportable opinions.” (William Hendriksen, NT Commentary: John 7-21, 88)
Whatever the Jews might think, there were two distinct facts of which he was conscious: “I was blind: now I see.”
There is no kind of evidence so satisfactory as this to the heart of a real Christian. His knowledge may be small. His faith may be feeble. His doctrinal views may be at present confused and indistinct. But if Christ has really wrought a work of grace in his heart by His Spirit, he feels within him something that you cannot overthrow. “I was dark, and now I have light. I was afraid of God, and now I love Him. I was fond of sin, and now I hate it. I was blind, and now I see.” Let us never rest till we know and feel within us some real work of the Holy Ghost. (J. C. Ryle, Expository thoughts on John, Vol. 2, 169-70)
He is also aware of the truth of what he is saying. “If He were not of God, He couldn’t do such a thing!” The force of his argument was compelling. The conclusion should have brought this court to its knees. (C.S. Lovett, Lovett’s Lights on John, 170)
There’s a difference between proving a proposition and accepting a proposition. We might be able to prove Christianity is true beyond reasonable doubt, but only you can choose to accept it. Please consider this question to see if you are open to acceptance: If someone could provide reasonable answers to the most significant questions and objections you have about Christianity–reasonable to the point that Christianity seems true beyond a reasonable doubt–would you then become a Christian? Think about that for a moment. If your honest answer is no, then your resistance to Christianity is emotional or volitional, not merely intellectual. No amount of evidence will convince you because evidence is not what’s in your way–you are. In the end, only you know if you are truly open to the evidence for Christianity. (Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 31)
With sarcasm and scorn, they retaliated with an ad hominem attack, implying that for him to have been blind from birth he (or possibly his parents; cf. v. 2) must have been guilty of gross iniquity. Ironically, through their disparaging words, they admitted the fact that this man who now saw had indeed been born blind–a point they had earlier denied (v. 18). (John MacArthur, The MacArthur NT Commentary: John, 406)
The court tries a different technique. This time they seek to influence his testimony by first saying, “We know,” hoping he will think twice before going against them. He understands they wish him to lie and go along with the hierarchy in discrediting Jesus. Of course it is only by insinuation, but he knows what they want. Yet, how can he ignore something as precious as the gift of sight or denounce Someone as remarkable as his Healer? He is not about to please the court, excommunication or not. He refuses to contradict his own experience of, “I know.” (C.S. Lovett, Lovett’s Lights on John, 168-9)
The idea that God hears the prayers of the righteous but rejects the prayers of the wicked is found everywhere in the Bible: 1 Sm 8:18; Job 27:9; 35:12; Ps 18:41; 66:18; Prv 1:28; 15:29; Isa 1:15; 59:2; Jer 11:11; 14:12; Ezek 8:18; Mic 3:4; Zech 7:13; Jn 8:21; Acts 10:35. Moreover, miracles (especially such miracles; see on 15:24) performed in answer to prayer and in order to display the works of God, do have evidential value (see on 10:37, 38; 11:39-44; 20:30, 31; cf. Acts 2:22; 4:31; 2 Cor 12:12).
The Pharisees have suffered a humiliating defeat. They have been driven into a corner. Meanwhile, the beggar has made definite progress in his confession. He is no longer saying, “Whether he (Jesus) is a sinner, I do not know” (9:25). By this time he knows that Jesus is not a sinner, but the recipient of God’s favor in a very high degree. (William Hendriksen, NT Commentary: John 7-21, 91)
As a result of the conflict the man had grown in faith. He had grown in his perception of Jesus. In his first testimony the man had called Jesus only a man. “The man they call Jesus made some mud,” he said. He was quite a man, but still the beggar knew no more than this. By the time we come to this point in the story, the man had come to see that calling Jesus a mere man was not enough: hence, he called him a prophet; that is, one who speaks and acts for God (v. 17). Later he advances to the thought that Jesus is One who is worthy to be a teacher and to have disciples (v. 27), then to the perception that he is “from God” (v. 33). Finally, he comes to believe on him as “the Son of God” to whom worship should be given (v. 38). (James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 3, 709)
Both of these groups were most interested in what they did know, and as a result were either cowardly or else knew nothing. The man born blind began with an admission of his ignorance but went on to affirm what he did know as the result of God’s revelation.
Here is a great biblical principle. It is that no one can know God by means of the mind of by any other human instrument. The Book of Job asks, “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7). The answer that our hearts must give is no, for “the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). (James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 3, 714-5)
The Pharisees had argued that Jesus was a sinner, and the blind man had declared himself unable to argue with that proposition. He only knew that Christ had healed him. As he thought about it, however, he found that he could say more. First, he knew that God does not hear sinners; that is, that sinners have no claim upon him. This point involves the whole doctrine of man’s spiritual depravity, his hopelessness in sin. Second, he declared that God does hear those who do his will; that is, those who are in a right relationship to him. This is a declaration of the fact that God has revealed his will and that salvation is possible. Finally, the man argued that since God had heard Jesus in the matter of his own healing, Jesus must be in God’s will in a special way and must therefore be “of God.” In other words, Jesus becomes the Savior of man because of who he is and of his origins. (James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 3, 716)
Truth is not “merely subjective,” not something we make up, or choose, or cut to today’s fashions or the morrow’s pragmatism-we obey the truth. We do not “have” the truth, truth owns us, truth possesses us. Truth is far larger and deeper than we are. Truth leads us where it will. It is not ours for mastering.
And yet, even in prison, truth is a master before whom a free man stands erect. In obeying the evidence of truth, no human being is humiliated- rather, he is in that way alone ennobled. In obeying truth, we find the way of liberty marked out “as a lamp unto our feet.” In obeying truth, a man becomes aware of participating in something greater than himself, which measures his inadequacies and weaknesses.
Truth is the light of God within us. For us its humble mode is inquiry, seeking, restlessness. Innermost at the core of us, even as children, is an irrepressible drive to ask questions. That unlimited drive is God’s dynamic presence in us, the seed of our dissatisfaction with everything less than the infinite. (Michael Novak; Essay adapted from an address presented at Westminster Abbey on May 5, 1994 by First Things 45 (August/September 1994)
The truth taught by Jesus Christ is the right way to live. It is not primarily a religion, not even the best religion, but God Himself explaining in terms that men can readily grasp how life is meant to be lived. (J. B. Phillips, Your God is Too Small, 87)
Science can be a great teacher but a lousy leader. Science, when it is truly science can help us understand reality. BUT . . . Science when it is in the hands of business, social architects and politicians will be abused and twisted to corrupt, pervert and destroy. — PK
The prophets were the agents of God, and in some instances they performed miracles; for example, Elisha (2 Kgs 2:19-22; 4:18-44; 5:1-14). If, then, Jesus had performed an indisputable miracle, it was prima facie evidence that he must have a divine commission. As an emissary of God, he could be empowered to heal on the Sabbath, if necessary; and he would be above the jurisdiction of any human tribunal. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, 104)
C.S. Lewis wrote, “the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of [God’s] scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.” (Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 31)
The apostle John writes, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world” (1 Jn 2:16). We fail to understand the force of this passage because of our tendency to relegate it all to sexual sin. The “lust of the flesh” refers to the failure to discipline the natural human passions. C. H. Dodd says that the “lust of the eyes” refers to “the tendency to be captivated by outward show.” He defines the “pride of life” as “pretentious egoism.” In each case the same thing is seen: infatuation with natural human powers and abilities without any dependence upon God. That is the flesh in operation, and the flesh is the deadly enemy of humility.
The strictest daily discipline is necessary to hold these passions in check. The flesh must learn the painful lesson that it has no rights of its own. It is the work of hidden service that will accomplish this self-abasement. (Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline, 130-31)
Occasionally we will meet people who only want to argue and debate the merits and claims of Jesus without ever deciding to follow him. They mask their rejection under a thin cover of inquiry. Perhaps, like the Pharisees, they have too much to lose. Prestige, power, and personal independence are hard to give up. It is easier to keep the argument on intellectual grounds than to face our spiritual and moral shortcomings. Sometimes, people have worked hard to get to their comfortable place in life and are unwilling to consider change. We must help them see that Christ gives both the power and the desire to change. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 199)
In the Synoptic Gospels the restoring of sight to the blind is a token that the new age has dawned, with such signs as the prophets foretold (Isa 35:5; 42:7); here the emphasis is rather on the authority and character of the one who performs the cure. (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 218)
“Give God the glory!” they say to the man born blind–meaning, it seems, “if you have indeed been healed, it must have been God’s doing alone, and nothing to do with Jesus.” But John wants us to see that the man is giving God the glory, precisely by sticking to his story and insisting that Jesus had healed him. God must have been working through Jesus, he insists. No other explanation seems possible. (N. T. Wright, John for Everyone, Part One, 141)
A Man appears, obviously from God and a Prophet, and they find His origin a mystery. The healed man now seems well convinced. His spiritual eyes are opening. Every Jew knew that Messiah would arrive as a Healer, with the giving of sight to the blind as a specific credential. So he begins to present a case for the Lord, basing his argument on a common creed. (C.S. Lovett, Lovett’s Lights on John, 170)
The truth is like surgery. It hurts, but it heals.
Worship Point: Our worship will be in Spirit and in Truth in proportion to how much we hold onto the Truth and don’t yield to a pagan culture.
We cannot worship in the spirit alone, for the spirit without truth is helpless. We cannot worship in truth alone, for that would be theology without fire.
Worship must be in spirit and in truth! (A. W. Tozer, Whatever Happened to Worship?, p. 46)
Gospel Application: Jesus (the embodiment of truth) shows us what may happen (crucified) to those who hold to the truth. He also shows us what will happen (glorification) to those who hold to the truth of the Gospel. More importantly, Jesus will never lose hold of you.
Truth starts with a cross-shaped letter. Truth starts, at the cross. — Buddy Briggs
If the Cross is the place where the reality of human nature is unmasked, then the idea of a perfect earthly society is an illusion. (Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, 126)
Spiritual Challenge: Hold fast to the Truth as God reveals it to you in His Word. (Psa 119:31; Prov 3:18; 4:13; 11:2; Mt 10:22; Jn 8:31-32; 1 Cor 15:2; Eph 6:13-14; 2 Thess 2:1-15; 1Tim 3:9; 2 Tim 3:14; Heb 3:6, 14; 4:14; 6:18; 10:23-24; 2 Pt 1:10-11; Rev 2:24-25; 3:11) No matter what happens, know that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life (Jn 14:6) and if you know the Truth the Truth will set you free (Jn 8:31-32). And if Jesus makes you free you are free indeed (Jn 8:36).
That Jesus had performed the miracle was incontestable; it was literally staring the Pharisees in the face in the person of the seeing man. Obstinately unwilling to accept the evidence, however, they remained willfully unconvinced of the truth. They were like those whom God Himself described as “a perverse generation, children in whom is no faith” (Dt 32:20 NKJV). (John MacArthur, The MacArthur NT Commentary: John, 403)
The formula is simple: when relativism holds sway long enough, everyone begins to do what is right in his own eyes without any regard for submission to truth. In this atmosphere, a society begins to break down. Virtually every structure in a free society depends on a measure of integrity–that is, submission to the truth. When the chaos of relativism reaches a certain point, the people will welcome any ruler who can bring some semblance of order and security. So a dictator steps forward and crushes the chaos with absolute control. Ironically relativism–the great lover of unfettered freedom–destroys freedom in the end. (John Piper, Think, 114)
Fail to confess Christ, go along with the world and its values, compromise the standards of Christian conduct, and the world will welcome you. But confess Christ boldly, live as a Christian, and you will soon find yourself unwelcome in the world’s assemblies. (James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 3, 720)
. . . tolerance becomes the cardinal virtue. Under the postmodernist way of thinking, the principle of cultural diversity means that every like-minded group constitutes a culture that must be considered as good as any other culture. The postmodernist sins are “being judgmental,” “being narrow-minded,” “thinking that you have the only truth,” and “trying to enforce your values on anyone else.” Those who question the postmodernist dogma that “there are no absolutes” are excluded from the canons of tolerance. The only wrong idea is to believe in truth; the only sin is to believe in sin. (Gene Edward Veith; Postmodern Times, pgs 195-196)
If you are a Christian, it is not good to be spoken well of by everyone (Lk 6:26). All will not believe. And yet, you are to bear a testimony so that by the grace of God you might win some. (James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 3, 721)
Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 123-24)
It is the simple fact of Christian experience that many a man may not be able to put into theologically correct language what he believes Jesus to be, but in spite of that he can witness to what Jesus has done for his soul. Even when a man cannot understand with his intellect, he can still feel with his heart. It is better to love Jesus than to love theories about him. (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible Series: John, Vol. 2, 47)
The Bible commands Christians to question religious beliefs (e.g., Dt 13:1-5; 1 Jn 4:1; Gal 1:8; 2 Cor 11:13; etc.). since Christians have a religious belief that they ought to question religious beliefs, then pluralists–according to their own standard–should accept this Christian belief as well. . . . Pluralists–advocates of the new tolerance–are not really tolerant at all. They only “tolerate” those who already agree with them, which by anyone’s definition is not tolerance. (Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 47)
Spiritual Challenge Questions:
- Why do you think the man born blind was so unrelenting when it came to speaking the truth about his being healed?
- What threats did the religious leaders make to the man born blind? What position did his parents take in supporting him?
- It appears that 21st Century Christians living in Western civilization are going to be threatened as well. What forces are at work to try and convince us to let go of our faith in Jesus and the values He promotes?
- Rather than absolute, immutable, unerring, transcendent truth; what is the fundamental value that much of 21st Century Western civilization has adopted upon which they desire for us to base our culture? What will be the telos (or end result) of this trend if it continues?
So What?: Your eternal destiny is determined by your response to the Truth. Do all you can to hold onto the truth. Hold onto Jesus (truth embodied) for eternal life. (Mk 10:29-30; Lk 18:28-30; Jn 3:15-16, 36; 4:14; 5:24; 6:27-68; 10:28; 12:25; 17:2-3; Acts 13:48; Rom 5:21; 6:22-23; 2 Cor 4:17-18; 5:1; Gal 6:8; 1 Tim 1:16-17; 6:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Heb 5:8-9; 9:12-15; 1 Jn 2:25; 5:11-13; Jude 1:21)
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. — George Orwell
During these times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. — George Orwell
Truth: The New Hate Speech
American society is awash in relativism.
What is the basis for law if there is no absolute truth? The basis is whoever has the majority–rule by the 51 percent. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that “law is the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others.” Pure pragmatism.
The inevitable result is tyranny, drawn into the vacuum of moral chaos. If authority cannot be established among people by their shared assumptions, by their agreement about the meaning of life, then it will be imposed on them from the top. As William Penn said, “If we are not governed by God, we will be governed by tyrants.”
When truth retreats, tyranny advances. . (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, p. 292)
George Bernard Shaw once said that the biggest compliment you can pay an author is to burn his books. Someone else has said, “A wolf will never attack a painted sheep.” Counterfeit Christianity is always safe; real Christianity is always in peril. To suffer persecution is to be paid the greatest of compliments because it is the certain proof that men think we really matter. (William Barclay; The Acts of the Apostles, p. 75).
When the church isn’t being persecuted, it is being corrupted. (Charles Colson, A Dangerous Grace, p. 116)
Although we believe the evidence we’re about to present shows that the Bible is true beyond reasonable doubt, no amount of evidence can compel anyone to believe it. Belief requires assent not only of the mind but also of the will. While many non-Christians have honest intellectual questions, we have found that many more seem to have a volitional evidence to believe, it’s that they don’t want to believe. (Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 30)
If the Bible is true, then God has provided each of us with the opportunity to make an eternal choice to either accept him or reject him. And in order to ensure that our choice is truly free, he puts us in an environment that is filled with evidence of his existence, but without his direct presence–a presence so powerful that it could overwhelm our freedom and thus negate our ability to reject him. In other words, God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling. (Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 31)
When the student takes the test, the teacher remains silent. (Father in God Is Not Dead 2) trials, persecution, heavens are like brass,
The free society is moral, or not at all.
No one ever promised us that free societies will endure forever. Indeed, a cold view of history shows that submission to tyranny is the more frequent condition of the human race, and that free societies have been few in number and not often long-lived. Free societies such as our own, which have arisen rather late in the long evolution of the human race, may pass across the darkness of time like splendid little comets, burn into ashes, disappear.
Yet nothing in the entire universe, vast as it is, is as beautiful as the human person. The human person alone is shaped to the image of God. This God loves humans with a love most powerful. It is this God who draws us, erect and free, toward Himself, this God Who, in Dante’s words, is “the Love that moves the sun and all the stars.” (Michael Novak; Essay adapted from an address presented at Westminster Abbey on May 5, 1994 by First Things 45; August/September 1994)
The world will have you think the only choices you have are between despair and extinction (Woody Allen). Jesus says your choice is between life and death. Choose carefully. — PK
JESUS:
THE TRUTH
EMBODIED
