Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” “Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.” Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.” Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. (John 9:35-38)
When I first read through the Gospel of John as a child, John 9 became one of the most memorable biblical passages to me. With its culmination in the man’s faith and worship of Christ, I thought it was one of the most beautiful and moving texts in Scripture. Today the passage still comes to my mind regularly and with great force, in a measure that I still lack the skill to express.
I suppose it would have produced something of this effect in me even if I had read the chapter on its own, but the significance of what happened with this man in John 9 was brought into acute focus, even to the mind of this child, when I perceived a natural contrast with the man in John 5. It was not until some years later that I found confirmation of this in commentaries. Thank God, then, for the perspicuity of Scripture, so that the truth and power of Jesus Christ are clear to those whom he chooses to instruct, even if they are little children.
The man in John 5 had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. Jesus healed him, and told him to pick up his mat and walk. It was the Sabbath, so the Jews complained that he was carrying his mat. The man replied that someone told him to do it, but he did not know who it was that healed him. Later Jesus found him and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” This suggests that the man became an invalid because of his sin. Even if we cannot be certain of this on the basis of what Jesus said, without doubt his statement establishes the principle that it is possible for sin to lead to sicknesses and infirmities.
What happened next struck me as remarkable, even when I read it as a child. The Jews obviously had hostile intentions against the one who healed him. And now that the man realized that it was Jesus who did it, instead of shielding him from the Jews, he reported him. As a result, the Jews persecuted the Lord. Although the man was healed, it seems that he did not attain any significant spiritual or moral improvement, nor did he become protective of the one who helped him.
Then, 5:17 overturns an assumption held by some preachers and theologians, who assert that God would never create again, especially ex nihilo, because he rested on the seventh day. On the contrary, in this context of a controversy about the Sabbath, Jesus said, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” God’s rest in Genesis was relative to those six days of creation. It does not mean that God would no longer create (whether he does or not is another issue). Therefore, the assumption that God no longer creates, or that he no longer creates out of nothing, should have no place in Christian theology. For example, we cannot follow those who speculate that Jesus did not perform creative miracles in his ministry – that is, create out of nothing. He could have done hundreds of thousands of them. Also, the Genesis rest cannot be cited to favor traducianism over creationism regarding the generation of human souls.
The man in John 9 had been blind from birth. Whereas 5:14 shows that one’s sins may lead to sicknesses and infirmities, 9:3 shows that not all sicknesses and infirmities are the results of sins. Sickness, of course, came about because of the sin of Adam, and we have inherited his guilt and corruption. Here we refer to more direct consequences. When the context is so defined, both the teaching that says no sickness comes from sin, and the one that says all sickness comes from sin, are false. Unless there is some definite indication, there is no way to know whether a particular instance of sickness, or tragedy, or some such thing, is a direct result of one’s sins, or a particular sin. Thus when the reason is unclear, it is best to avoid speculation, but it is always helpful to consider the relationship of the fall and depravity of mankind in general to our ailments and distresses.
Jesus spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva. He put it on the man’s eyes and told him to go wash. Lacking a definitive explanation within the text, it is disappointing that some interpreters so readily gravitate toward a naturalistic and psychological direction. For example, Merrill Tenney writes, “To make known his intention to the blind man, Jesus made clay from dust and spittle and placed it on the sightless eyes.” But the man was blind, not deaf. Jesus could have told him what he wanted to do. A blind man who suddenly feels gobs of mud smashed into his face might more probably think that he is being hazed, not healed. He continues, “The touch of a friendly hand would be reassuring.” This psychological interpretation is possible, but in the context of healing, the touch of Jesus is more often associated with the transfer and operation of miraculous power. This power can move and can be sensed (Mark 5:30).
Tenney adds, “The weight of the clay would indicate to the blind man that something had been done to him, and it would induce obedience to Jesus’ command. Certainly he would not want to continue sitting by the roadside with mud smeared over his eyes. Though his lifelong affliction may have made him apathetic, he now had at least one motive for obeying.” So instead of telling the man that he would be healed, Jesus used the weight of mud to suggest this, and hoped that he would not mistake the Lord for a heartless bully. And instead of compelling obedience by his authority, Jesus depended on the man’s sense of pride and cleanliness. The naturalistic and psychological interpretation is not only speculative, but somewhat depressing coming from a New Testament scholar.
Many of those who immerse themselves in the Scripture, even on an academic and professional level, never managed to absorb the biblical worldview. They become familiar with the cultures and languages of the people, but contrary to those delusional souls who advocate a “return to Jewish roots,” the culture of the Jews was not identical to the culture of Scripture; otherwise, it would have been natural for the Jews to believe in Christ. But they rejected him, precisely because they had another culture, another worldview or way of thinking, than the one revealed in their own Scripture. Jesus said that they did not believe Moses, and some knew neither the Scripture nor the power of God. The Jews who believed had another culture, one that was different from the Jews who disbelieved. There is no need for Christians to adopt Jewish peculiarities, but only faith in Jesus Christ. Faith is the root, and has always been the root of our religion since the time of Adam, Noah, and Abraham. The role of Jewish culture is insignificant. To disagree with this is tantamount to a denial of the gospel.
Whether dressed in Jewish culture, Greek culture, Chinese culture, or American culture, those who are of faith possess their own culture and their own worldview. The Christian should be one who can think in terms of raw power. John the Baptist told the Jews not to depend on their natural relation to Abraham, as if that was what made them special, since God could raise up children for Abraham out of rocks. Jesus told his disciples that if they had faith, they could command a mountain to throw itself into the sea. Commentators who regard this as hyperbole expose themselves as foreigners to the biblical worldview, or the worldview of faith. How could it be hyperbole, when before he said this, Jesus cursed a physical tree so that it dried up from the roots?
More natural to the text and to the biblical worldview is the interpretation that the man was blind from birth because he was born without eyeballs, and as God made Adam’s body from the earth, Jesus took mud from the ground and made eyeballs for the man. Since the text does not state this directly, this remains only a possible interpretation of what happened, and of why Jesus made mud and put it on the man’s face. Nevertheless, a reluctance to accept this as at least possible is an indication that one is still looking at Scripture as an outsider, even if he is thoroughly versed in the natural shell of Jewish culture.
Jesus was irritated with the disciples who could not think on this level. When he used a metaphor to warn them against the doctrines of the Pharisees, they thought he said it because they did not bring any bread with them – they imposed a naturalistic interpretation on this teaching. He replied, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread?” (Matthew 16:8-11). Jesus could make bread by miraculous power – in fact, he always made much more than they needed, so bread was never a problem. Thus to think that he was complaining about a lack of bread suggested a lack of faith. We can say the same thing about a habitual naturalizing and psychologizing of biblical passages and of the Christian life.
This is relevant not only to biblical interpretation and theological formulations, but also debates about ethics and current events. For example, it is claimed that homosexuality is a genetic disposition, so that a person is a homosexual not by choice, and thus it cannot be immoral, nor is it possible for him to change. Christians often fail to answer as Christians, but they answer as foreigners to the kingdom of heaven speaking to other foreigners, and attempt to refute their claims about choice and genetics.
The Christian who has truly embraced his intellectual inheritance would answer differently, and much more forcefully. From the perspective of theology and ethical philosophy, he responds that moral responsibility has reference only to God’s law and judgment, and not to human choice or freedom. On the matter of sexual disposition, even if he accepts the non-Christian claim that homosexuality is set in the genes, it makes no strain on his faith to say that God can either change the genes, or change a person’s disposition regardless of his genes. Bread is never the problem. And DNA is never the problem.
This healing also happened on a Sabbath, and so the Pharisees came to investigate (9:13-34). When I first read this – and I always refer to Scripture with reverence – I found it a little comical (see 9:27). Little did I know that similar scenarios occur regularly in Christian churches and denominations of all traditions, where religious leaders continue to oppose the doctrine and the power of Jesus Christ, and to persecute those who have received from him.
However, whereas persecutors of Christ in the church are common, it is rare to find a Christian who possesses a backbone like this man in John 9. At first he knew very little about who healed him. He knew that the man was called Jesus (v. 11), and thought that he was a prophet (v. 17), and then concluded that he must have been a godly man and not a sinner (v. 31). Although he had so little knowledge, he defied the educated and powerful religious establishment with these truths about Jesus Christ, even when his own parents were too fearful to stand up for the healer or to stand with their son (v. 22).
Blind from birth, and without superior education and backing, he gave sharp and effective replies to the leaders, and lectured them about their bias and about the ways of God. For this, he was excommunicated, and expelled from the synagogue (v. 22, 34). While he was blind, he was an outcast of society. And now that he was healed, he became an enemy of society and of the religious authorities.
If we think that there is no analogy between the Pharisees and Christian leaders whose hearts have hardened against Christ, it is because we have overestimated the difference between the revelation possessed by the Jews and the Christians. As I have demonstrated in a number of places, it is not an anachronism to say that all those who have been saved since Adam could be called Christians, since they all believed in Jesus Christ. Even if they did not know his name, they believed in the promise about him, and some definite propositions about his person and his works. He was first announced in Genesis 3:15, and the revelation about him grew from there. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul writes that God preached the gospel to Abraham. Peter says that the prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ. And Hebrews 11 states, without anachronism, that Moses preferred to identify with Christ than to enjoy the pleasures of Egypt. Thus all who believed in the true God, and believed him rightly unto salvation, also believed in Christ to the extent that he had been revealed.
Therefore, it is not farfetched to regard the Pharisees as the leaders of what would be our Christian churches and denominations. Just as many of them claimed to be true worshipers and experts in biblical doctrines, they did not in fact believe. Likewise, many of the leaders in our churches and denominations claim positions of religious authority, but they do not in fact believe.
The Bible is God’s revelation, and is infallible and inerrant. God is sovereign, all-wise and all-powerful. Christ is fully divine and fully human, one person with two natures, and suffered the punishments we deserved in order to save us from sin and from hell. He was killed and buried, but he rose from the dead. The only way to salvation is association with Jesus Christ through faith without regard to our works and merits. He is the sole and sufficient mediator between God and mankind, and between God and each individual believer. The church, no matter how beneficial, can in no sense assume the place of Christ.
Any person who disagrees with the above does not truly affirm God’s revelation in the Christian faith. If he is in a position of ecclesiastical power, and if he pressures the individual believer to conform, then he is a modern Pharisee.
Even the children of the Reformation often attribute an importance to church membership and church attendance that cannot be derived from Scripture. In our own day, this is perhaps aggravated by the loss of interest in corporate worship and religious activities that has affected many cultures in many regions, resulting in a seemingly unstoppable hemorrhage of people from our congregations.
However, it only makes things worse when leaders begin to make unbiblical threats in their sermons and doctrinal pronouncements. Rather than holding forth the same message of simple faith in Christ alone, the emphasis turns desperate, sinister, and demonic, so that even in Reformed churches, sometimes it is said that “there is no salvation outside of the church.” This is wrong even if it means that it is always the church that contributes to the spread of the gospel.
For example, if someone finds a Bible on the street and comes to faith by reading it, we might assume that the Bible was translated, printed, and distributed through the church’s effort. Now, it seems when it is said that “there is no salvation outside of the church,” even by someone of the Reformed tradition, much more than this is meant. But even this minimal meaning is wrong, because if God wishes, he can preach the gospel by direct revelation to a person, or he can drop a Bible – one that was translated and printed without any human involvement – into his lap straight from the sky. If anyone denies this, then let him also say that John the Baptist was wrong when he said that God could produce children for Abraham out of rocks, and since he rejects the truth of Scripture, let him immediately excommunicate himself and leave us.
There is salvation when an individual believes in Jesus Christ, even if this means defiance against all churches and denominations, and it may indeed appear this way during those times when the church is in a state of apostasy. Let us have proper regard for both the individual and corporate aspects of the life of faith. There is no need to denigrate either.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to acknowledge that the corporate is based on the individual, and not the other way around. There is no such thing as a forest without trees, because the forest itself is nothing. It is not a thing in itself, but a term for many individual trees, and many individual objects that are not trees cannot congregate to become a forest. Likewise, the “church” itself is not a thing – it does not exist as an independent entity – but it is only a term for many individuals. These individuals believe in Christ as individuals, not as a group. The Bible says that Christ is the good shepherd, and he calls his sheep by name. The Book of Life records the names of individuals, not names of churches and denominations. Without individual faith, there can be no church, and no corporate worship and ministry. And an individual’s faith is not falsified even if it is not associated with corporate worship and ministry. Any doctrine that suggests otherwise preaches rebellion against Jesus Christ, and seeks to subvert his role as the sole and sufficient savior and mediator.
The desire to strengthen the church as a whole, as a corporate entity, is admirable, but it can be achieved only when we pay attention to the faith of individuals. To claim a necessity, prominence, or authority for the church that is greater than what is warranted by Scripture harms the faith of individuals, and ultimately damages the church.
The individual, all by himself, has every right to defy the religious leaders and entities that have become too full of themselves, and that have become hardened against the doctrine of Christ. He may not accomplish much, and he may be expelled from the congregations. But when he is thrown out, Christ is there to receive him. And thus we return to our text:
Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” “Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.” Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.” Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
The best commentary on this is the one offered by Christ himself in the next verse: “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Christ revealed himself to the man, and he cast his lot with Christ. It is ironic, but when Christ works in you and reveals himself to you, it may make you an outcast of society and an enemy of the religious teachers and authorities, even those who claim to serve him. If this is the life that God has arranged for you, then so be it. Defy those who oppose, mock their claims and threats, and resist to the death if necessary. Cast your lot with Christ. He is the only one who matters.