Blind at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)

Ever wonder why the Gospel are in the order that they are in your Bible? The Gospels come in the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because that’s the order the Early Church Fathers believed that the Gospels were written. Of course, John makes the most sense as the last Gospel. About 85% of the Gospel of John in unique, and the 15% that is not unique John takes a different direction. So much uniqueness in the Gospel of John demonstrates that the accounts in the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have been well established, hence why John felt the need to add new material. Therefore, John must come last. Luke also makes much sense as the penultimate Gospel. In the Gospel of Luke’s introduction, Luke acknowledges that several reports of Jesus exist, which probably consists of both the oral tradition and written tradition, which possibly includes both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Luke’s goal simply consists of creating the most organized report. Thus, Luke makes sense as the penultimate Gospel. That leaves Matthew and Mark.

Back in the days of the Early Church, the Early Church Fathers honestly believed the Gospel of Matthew proceeded the Gospel of Mark (called Matthean priority), but their logic and reasoning did have its flaws. Some argued that Matthew, as an upper-class tax collector, could afford the paper and ink for the gospel sooner than lower-class fisherman Mark, so Matthew must have come first. Others believed that Matthew, as a Jew writing to Jews, must have written the Gospel of Matthew first in Hebrew before Greek (no original Hebrew manuscripts has ever appeared, by the way), and since the Hebrew language is older than the Greek language, the Hebrew text of Matthew must have happened before the Greek text of Mark. As stated above, the Early Church Fathers did not have the soundest logic. During the modern church age, however, modern Bible scholars have concluded that the Gospel of Mark came first, called Markan priority. Modern scholars have a top 3 proofs, which do have studier logic and reasoning. The first proof comes from the length of each book. It makes little sense for Matthew to write his Gospel first and then have Mark write his Gospel second because then Mark’s Gospel would look like a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of Matthew’s Gospel (the famous bishop of Hippo Aurelius Augustine actually knows and understands this argument, yet he still holds fast to Matthean priority, even calling the Gospel of Mark the “inferior Gospel”). It makes a lot of sense that Mark’s Gospel came first, and upon reading it, Matthew decides to explain and expound on it. The second evidence comes in light of the Gospel’s setting. Mark mentions the temple as a present reality, while Matthews talks about the temple as a past reality. Since the Romans destroy the temple in 70  A.D. Mark must written before 70 A.D. and Matthew after 70 A.D. Third, and most important to transition from introduction to the main body, if the last Gospel has the most unique passages, then the first Gospel must have the least unique passages. Indeed, the Gospel of Mark has the fewest amount of unique passages in comparison to the other 3 Gospels. Now when the Gospel of Mark has unique passages, it is typically words or phrases, maybe a sentence, but rarely whole stories. Nevertheless, Mark does have 2 unique pericopes: 1 miracle and 1 parable. This exegesis will look at the miracle.

 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. ~Mark 8:22

In this section of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tours the cities, towns and villages along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which all had a bigger Gentile population and a smaller Jewish population. So far in this tour, Jesus has visited Gennesaret (Mark 6:53), Tyre (Mark 7:24), Sidon and the Decapolis (Mark 7:31) to Dalmanutha (Mark 8:10). Connecting the dots on a map, it becomes evident Jesus sailed across the Sea of Galilee to get to each town or region, which also probably provided relief from the crowds. From Mark 8:13, the reader learns that Jesus and his disciples cross over the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida in the district of Gaulanitis. Gaulanatis’s capital, Bethsaida, sat right on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Bethsaida had started out as a village, but in recent history, under Herod’s brother Philip, it had upgraded it to a city. Philip grew its population to that of a city, and he also had built some of the important buildings that mark a city. Thus, it becomes confusing when Mark labels Bethsaida a village in the next verse. Some have argued Mark may have called Bethsaida a village simply because he always knew Bethsaida as a village, like a force of habit, as evident in a lot of Mark’s contemporaries’ writings, who did the same (Josephus acknowledges Bethsaida has all the buildings of a city, but he still calls Bethsaida a village). Others believe that the setting of this account takes places not in the city of Bethsaida, but in a village outside of Bethsaida (like a suburb of Bethsaida), similar to how Jesus stops at village of Caesarea Philippi in Mark 10:27. The other Gospels teach more about Bethsaida. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke teach that Jesus cursed Bethsaida for not reacting appropriately to the mighty works performed in it. From the Gospel of John, the reader learns that three disciples, Peter, Andrew and Philip came from Bethsaida. These three disciples all had the occupation of fisherman, which makes sense. Indeed, Bethsaida had become known for its fishing industry. In fact, Bethsaida means “house of fishers.”

 At Bethsaida, the people intercede for the blind man, bringing him to Jesus, asking Jesus to touch the blind man in order to heal the man. Up to this point in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus has yet to go to Bethsaida (Mark 6:45 says that Jesus had the disciples embark towards Bethsaida, but Mark, but Mark 6:53 tells of Jesus and the disciples reaching Gennesaret) but Mark makes it clear that the word about the miracles Jesus has performed has gotten around, so no surprise that Bethsaida heard this news, probably from nearby Capernaum. Throughout the Gospel of Mark, Mark has made generic statements about Jesus healing the sick and diseased (see Mark 1:34, 3:10 & 6:56), which, with the help of the other Gospels, could assumedly include blind people. Altogether, the 4 Gospels record at least 7 blind men healed. This blind man in Bethsaida is the first detailed account of healing a blind man, although it will not be his first it will not be his last (see Mark 10:46-52). Therefore, the reader must consider what this blind man healing teaches differently than all the other ones. The people specifically ask Jesus touch the blind man because that’s what Jesus normally did in the past (see Mark 1:31&41, 5:23, 6:5, 7:33), to the point that people themselves sought to touch Jesus (see Mark 3:10; 5:27&28; 6:56). Thus, naturally, when the people ask for a healing, they expecting healing through touching.

And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” ~Mark 8:23

The text clearly states Jesus leads the blind man out of the village, as opposed to merely taking him aside, which may be due to the fact that the man cannot see. The text does not explain, however, why Jesus led the blind man out of the village. It does seem necessary for the miracle, as Jesus has performed many miracles in the middle of a crowd (see Mark 1:23-28, 3:1-5, 9:14-27). As a matter of fact, in the next blind man healed, Jesus does so in the presence of other people (see Mark 10:46-52). Even the generic statements about Jesus’s miracles insinuate large crowds witnessing the healing (see Mark 1:32-34, 3:7-12). This does not mean, however, Jesus has never performed a miracle in private. For example, Jesus raises synagogue ruler Jairus’s daughter only in the presence of the father, the mother, Peter James and John (Mark 5:35-43). As another example, when Jesus heals a deaf man, Jesus takes the deaf man out of the crowd to heal him (Mark 7:33). Jesus may have pulled the blind man out of crowd for the benefit of the blind man. Crowds can become loud and chaotic, especially to a man down a sense. By removing the blind man out of the crowd, Jesus created an intimate connection with the man. The blind man could concentrate on Jesus, and Jesus can concentrate on the blind man. Based off this built relationship, the man would trust in the certainty of Christ’s healing power. Jesus might have also removed the blind man from the people in order to avoid people from getting the wrong idea or message from him. The crowd could focus more what Jesus did instead of who Jesus was, which would lead them into copycatting in order to heal, instead of having faith in Jesus. The people could end up following Jesus simply out of awe and inspiration from the miracle, just bringing more sick and disabled for a miraculous healing, hoping to see another miracle, instead of becoming a true disciple.

This healing miracle has three actions attached to it. First, Jesus spits on the blind man’s eyes. Second, Jesus lays his hands on the blind man. Third, Jesus asks the blind man if he says anything. These actions adds the details that Jesus not merely speak healing into this man’s life, nor did Jesus simply touch the man, as the locals requested. The laying on of hands could go together spitting in his eyes. Quite possibly, Jesus put spit on his fingers and put his fingers into the blind man’s eyes, thus putting spit in the man’s eyes. Similar methods occur in both Jewish and Gentile healing procedures of Jesus’s day, especially the spitting part, but Jesus does not attempt anything magical or mystical here. By doing so, Jesus alerts the blind man that he intends to heal him, and it puts the blind man at ease. Obviously, the blind man cannot see what Jesus is doing, but he can feel what Jesus is doing, so Jesus includes lots of sensory touching making the blind man aware of the working power of Jesus. Also, give credit to the man for allowing Jesus to do something that someone might consider disgusting. Of course, just as obvious, Jesus’s laying on of hands involves touching the body part needing healing. How Jesus proceeds, however, will draw the difference from Jewish and Gentile practices. Jesus follows his actions with the question of “Do you see anything?” This is the first and only time Jesus questions the recipient about the progress of a miracle. Do not mistake this question as Jesus’s uncertainty of the healing. This question already hints Jesus intended a two-part healing miracle.

And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.”  ~Mark 8:24

The blind man’s response begins with the action ἀναβλέψας (anablepsas). The root βλεπω (blepo) simply means “to look,” but the prefix ἀνα (ana) can mean “up” or “again.” The wordplay here involves the blind man looking up to look again. Interesting enough, ἀναβλέψας (anablepsas) commonly refers to a person looking up to the heavens to consult God. Here, the bland man looks up to consult the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The blind man’s answer to Jesus’s question if the blind man sees anything is that he sees people, but they look like trees walking. This statement clues the reader into a couple details about this account. For starters, this answer reveals Jesus did not pull the blind man too far outside of the village, as the blind man can see the people in the distance. More importantly, this reply demonstrates to the reader the fact that the man was not born a blind, for a man born blind could not identify a person or a tree. At the same time, however, such a description also displays that the man is still somewhat blind. He knows what a human looks like, he knows what a tree looks like, and he knows humans walk, but trees do not walk. What he sees must be people, although they look like trees walking. This part may be the puzzling piece of this account. At first glance, it looks like the miracle did not work. At first glance, it seems like Jesus made a mistake, which would throw in doubts about the perfection of Jesus, especially as the perfect God. To the contrary, what Jesus does here makes sense, as those who wear glasses might know from going to the ophthalmologist-

 

Jesus did not do something incorrect or wrong. Rather, it was just incomplete. The healing Jesus had in mind had two parts; Jesus merely checked in halfway to make sure the miracle worked as intended, the first time he ever did that in a miracle. It also does not mean the blind man did anything incorrect or wrong, like lack faith.

Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly ~Mark 8:25

Here, Jesus’s healing of the blind man diverts from the common procedures of Jesus’s time. Jesus does not do anything differently. Jesus simply lays his hands on the man’s eyes a second time, unheard of for Jesus’s day. The rest of the verse goes on to confirm that this action brought the man from partial healing to full healing. The three-fold synonymous parallelism (the same idea repeated with different words, in this case, three times) assures the reader of the certainty of the healing. The man can see plainly and his eyes have returned to their normal function. Together, it may prove that while worldly ways may bring partial healing, but only true, full healing comes from Jesus. Interesting enough, thought, the best way to describe Jesus’s action would be healing over miracle. Jesus acts more like a doctor than a miracle worker. He asks questions, he has a procedure, and he follows up accordingly. This does not de-emphasize the miracle. Rather, it emphasizes Jesus the great physician, who can provide the perfect healing for any disease or disability. And sometimes, that healing can be a process, even for divine healing. Healing as a process should comfort the Christian, as it assures the Christian that God will never leave the Christian partially healed. As Pail said in Philippians 1:6, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.” ~Mark 8:26

Jesus’s last words to the man are the instructions to go home and not tell anybody in the village. Such wording may hint that the man did not live in the village of Bethsaida. With this concluding verse of the pericope, now for the third time in Mark, Jesus requests that the healed person goes home instead of returning to the crowd (see Mark 2:11 & 5:19), and for the fourth time, Jesus requires the healed person to tell no one about the miracle (see Mark 1:44, 5:43 & 7:36). Most Old Testament prophets publicly displayed the results of the miracle for the testimony (e.g. 1 Kings 17:23 & 2 Kings 4:36). Surely Jesus would want the man to testify in excitement about what God has done for him, right? Again, Jesus may have made these requests in order to avoid crowds following him just to see miracles. While this man needed the healing, the deeper meaning behind it would not become clear until the death and resurrection of Jesus, when Jesus’s ministry on earth came to full completion. Then everybody could know what Jesus did because it would make sense in the light of his whole ministry. Jesus might have also made these requirements because Jesus did not the people begging for miracles to throw him off of his true ministry. For the rest of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus will not travel by boat, but rather, he will travel by foot. Escaping the people by foot will become harder than escaping by sea. Because the man went home instead of back into the village, it allows Jesus to escape without a crowd following him, even though a miracle just happened. Also, Jesus might have denied the man to go back to Bethsaida because in the other Gospels Jesus cursed Bethsaida, and so Bethsaida did not deserve the success story of this man.  Although an argument from the silence, some have claimed that Jesus preferred the blind man to go home, where family could verify the success of the miracle.

On top of exegeting Mark 8:22-26, a study of the near context, or the pericopes surrounding Mark 8:22-26, will aid in revealing the intended purpose and message of Mark including this story in his Gospel. Furthermore, a study of the far context, or how this account attributes to the Bible as a whole, will help reveal the importance of this narrative to theology.

In regard to the near context, this account of Jesus in Mark 8:22-26 has a parallel narrative in Mark 7:31-36. While the two pericopes differ in the disability healed, the two stories share several similarities. Both have the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee as the setting. Both have the crowd bringing forward the disabled man. Both disabled men are missing one of the senses. Both have the people asking Jesus to lay hands or touch the disabled person. Both have Jesus pull the disabled man out of the local population to perform the miraculous healing. Both involve spitting and touching, more specifically, touching the disabled body part. Both have a tricolon of synonymous parallelisms to emphasize the completeness of the miraculous healing. Both end with Jesus asking not to disclose the event that just happened. With so many parallels, these stores must serve as “book ends” to a section. Thus requires a closer look at the narratives in between the two pericopes.

After the account of Jesus healing the deaf man (Mark 7:31-36), Jesus feeds the four thousand in the following account (8:1-10). The account of feeding the four thousand happens similar to the feeding of the five thousand. Simply replace five thousand men with four thousand people, five loaves of bread with seven loaves, two fish with a few fish, and twelve baskets with seven baskets. Next comes the narrative which the ESV calls “The Pharisees Demand a Sign” (8:11-13). As the title hints, the Pharisees want Jesus to provide a sign from heaven, and Jesus refuses. The comes the pericope which the ESV names “The Leaven of the Pharisees and Herod.” In this pericope, Jesus accuses the disciples in Mark 8:18 of “Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” Does that sound familiar? This pericope transitions smoothly into the story of Jesus healing the blind man. As an added bonus, observe how the chapter ends. Mark 8 ends with Peter calling Jesus the Christ. While more famous for Peter’s confession, just as important, do not forget the passage contains 2 rebukes. Peter rebukes Jesus for claiming the Messiah must die, and Jesus rebukes Peter for not understanding the role of the Messiah. While Peter successfully gives Jesus the title Christ, he fails to comprehend what that means.

Regarding the far context, turn to the book of Isaiah. Throughout the book of Isaiah, Isaiah makes it clear to the reader that the real, true Messiah can work miracles. If somebody claims to be the Messiah, but he cannot perform miracles, he is not the Messiah, but a really naughty boy, making him an anti-messiah, or an antichrist. This idea most explicitly appears in Isaiah 35:5&6, in which Isaiah says, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. For waters break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.” Isaiah 35:5b&6 has already been fulfilled in Mark 7:32-37. Mark 8:22-26 fulfills Isaiah 35:5a, thus bringing Isaiah 35:5&6 to full completion. Now that Isaiah 35:5&6 completely fulfilled, no wonder Peter can confess Jesus as the Christ in Mark 8:27-30! Peter, and the rest of the disciples, have now seen Jesus fulfill all the obligations of the Messiah, as recorded in Isaiah. As a response, they have to call Jesus Christ and Lord!

Put the near context and far context together. Between the account of Jesus healing the deaf man in Mark 7:32-37 and the narrative about Jesus healing the blind man in Mark 8:22-26, Mark includes a couple pericopes in between the two stories. One account, in Mark 8:10-13, the Pharisees ask for a sign. The Pharisees should have known of Isaiah 35:5&6. They had the miracles performed in front of them, yet they ignored them, demanding a sign. No wonder Jesus denied them the sign they wanted! In another narrative, in Mark 8:14-21, Jesus exposes the disciples of behaving like those Pharisees. In that passage, although not literally speaking, figuratively speaking, these disciples are as blind and deaf as the people that crowds bring to Jesus for healing. To go back to the specific story at hand, the disciples resemble the blindman halfway through the healing. They can see in part what Jesus is doing, yet at the same time, they are blind to why Jesus does what he does. If Jesus can make the blind man see and the deaf man hear, then Jesus can make the disciples, who are figuratively blind and deaf, perceive and understand who he is. It also gives hope to all Christians, who are unsure of what God has planned for them.

In closing, a few applications come from this account of the life of Jesus. First, the narrative reminds the believer that Jesus is the great physician, able to heal all disabilities and diseases completely. Second, the pericope proves Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God because he fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah as found in Isaiah. Third, this pericope teaches that Jesus can heal spiritual blindness just as much as physical blindness. In both the Jewish and Gentile writings of the first century, a common theme links blindness and seeing to knowledge, wisdom and understanding the world.

First, this account serves as a helpful reminder that Jesus is the great physician, able to heal all disabilities and diseases completely. Remember this account of Jesus both emphasizes Jesus the natural healer and the supernatural. Jesus has the power to heal both ways. Since Jesus created nature, he can choose to heal through the nature he created. This can include doctors, medication and therapy. Since Jesus reigns over his creation, he can also act supernaturally. Do not limit Jesus to either one or the other. Furthermore, the two-step healing reminds the reader that prayers for healing, both physically and spiritually, does not always come instantly complete. God can choose to heal over time, but again, the good work that the Lord starts he will bring to completion (Philippians 1:6).

Second, this narrative proves Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God because he fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah as found in Isaiah. For someone who has called Jesus Lord and Savior, this might sound like common knowledge. For those living during the 1^st century AD, however, that common knowledge did not come so easily. Mark 1:1 begins the Gospel of Mark with “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” This introductory verse communicates the message and purpose of the Gospel: to prove Jesus is Messiah and the Son of God. Mark knows Isaiah. Mark knows that Isaiah defines the Messiah as the Suffering Servant. Mark knows Isaiah describes the Suffering Servant as a miracle worker, most explicitly seen in Isaiah 35:5&6. Thus, Mark stuffs his Gospel full of miraculous healings to prove Jesus is the Suffering Servant, the Messiah and the Son of God. He successfully does so.

Third, this pericope teaches that Jesus can heal spiritual blindness just as much as physical blindness. In both the Jewish and Gentile writings of the first century, a common theme links blindness and seeing to knowledge, wisdom and understanding the world. The blind in first century literature represent those who do not have knowledge, wisdom or understanding of the world. Those who see represent those who have obtained knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the working world. Even rabbis of the first century commenting on the Old Testament commonly describe Old Testament Israel’s sinful state as spiritual blindness, even to the point of claiming Isaiah’s prophesies about the blind seeing simply refer to the spiritually blind people becoming spiritually aware. With that in mind, the Messiah Jesus can not only heal physical blindness, but he can also hear spiritual blindness. Even Paul catches on to this in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12, where he writes, “⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. ¹¹ When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. ¹² For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” The Pharisees at best can only “half see.” The disciples only “half see.” Even Peter’s confession of faith is a “half seeing.” In turn, Christians must humble themselves to understand they have reduced comprehension in comparison to God’s, so Christian must seek understanding through Jesus.

Bibliography

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press, 2006.

Bratcher, Robert G., and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Brooks, James A. Mark. Vol. 23. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991.

Church, Christopher L. “Mark.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Cole, R. Alan. “Mark.” Pages 946–77 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002.

Grassmick, John D. “Mark.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. Vol. 34A. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989.

Hughes, Robert B., and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. The Tyndale reference library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Knowles, Andrew. The Bible Guide. 1st Augsburg books ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001.

Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Leavell, Landrum P. “Mark.” The Teacher’s Bible Commentary. Edited by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1972.

Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 27A. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009.

McLaren, Ross H. “Mark.” Pages 1555–93 in CSB Study Bible: Notes. Edited by Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017.

Mills, M. S. The Life of Christ: A Study Guide to the Gospel Record. Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1999.

Oden, Thomas C., and Christopher A. Hall, eds. Mark (Revised). Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Richards, Lawrence O. The Bible Reader’s Companion. Electronic ed. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991.

Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. St. Mark. Vol. 1. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

Utley, Robert James Dr. The Gospel according to Peter: Mark and I & II Peter. Vol. Volume 2. Study Guide Commentary Series. Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 2000.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992.

Wuest, Kenneth S. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Was Jesus A Magician?

Introduction

Was Jesus a magician? I know this sounds like a crazy question to us. To us, it’s an obvious “no,” maybe followed by an obvious “duh.” But that’s because we are 21^st century Christians, in the 21^st century Christian mindset. Put your mind in the 1^st century context. Magicians were everywhere. There was probably at least two in every village and town, and maybe even more in the cities. They could commonly be seen walking down the streets and in the marketplaces. All of them claimed to have power (from gods or demons), and all of them could perform magic. From the view of a 1^st century person Jesus could have easily looked like just another magician. This post will look how made sure he never seemed like just another magician when he performed a miracle. In fact, he made sure to portray himself as quite the opposite.

The Cultural Account

First, let me carefully define a 1^st century magician. A 1^st century magician is nothing like a 21^st century magician. A 1^st century magician does not perform magic for entertainment, as a 21^st century magician would. He’s not pulling rabbits out of hats, he’s not sawing women in half, he’s not escaping from straitjackets. A better term to describe a 1^st century magician would be a witch or a witch doctor. A better 21^st equivalent would be a psychic. Like I said above, there’s usually two in a village or two: one a witch, and the other one a witch doctor. You went to the witch if you to put a curse on someone or something. You went to the witch doctor if you wanted the curse taken off of yourself, or you wanted a blessing placed on yourself.

For what specific reasons would a person go to a witch or witch doctor to harness magical powers? Ancient writings provide about 7 main reasons. They are as follows:

1.      Protection, from both the natural and the supernatural

2.      Healing, both physical and mental
3.      To have someone fall in love with you
4.      Harming someone or something
5.      Knowing the future
6.      Changing the future
7.      Victory in sport or battle

Let’s take a deeper look at these ancient writings to see how magicians performed their magic arts, looking carefully at the words spoken and the actions performed.

To have someone fall in love with you

I adjure you, demon of death, cause to pine away Sarapion out of love for Dioskorus, whom

Tikoi bore: burn his heart, let it melt and let his blood dry up through love, longing, and pain
over me until Sarapion, whom Pasametra bore, comes to Dioskours, whom Tikoi bore, and
fulfills all my wishes and loves me ceaselessly until he descends into Hades. I adjure you,
demon of death, by Adonai, by Sabaoth. (magical papyri 16)

I adjure all ghosts [demonas] in this place to come to the assistance of this ghost. Raise yourself

up for me from the repose that keeps you and go out into every district and every quarter and
every house and every shop, and drive, spellbind Matrona…that she may not (have intercourse
vaginal, anal, or oral with anyone else, nor) be able to go with any other man than Theodorus…and never let Matrona…be able to endure or be healthy or find sleep night or day without Theodorus. (“A Love Charm with Verses,”)

The irony with these spells is that while the end goal is for a certain person to fall in love with the user of the spell, these spells relay the feeling that the magic user really doesn’t love that person. After all, what loving person would pray that the person they hold closest in their heart would not be able to sleep or be healthy until they admit their love? These spells do not show the interest of the other person, but rather, only the interest of the user, even at the cost of the wellbeing of the other person.

Protection, from both the natural and the supernatural

Onto lime wood write with vermilion this name “[50 Greek letters] Guard me from every

demon of the air on the earth and under the earth, and from every angel and phantom and ghostly visitation and enchantment, me [enter name].” Enclose it in a purple skin, hang it around your neck and wear it. (magical papyri)

Knowing the Future

To Sokonnokonneus, the twice-great god. Reveal to me whether I should remain in Bachias.

Should I make a request? Reveal this to me! To the most great, powerful god, Soknopaias,
by Asklepiades, son of Aneios, Is it not prohibited to me to marry Tapetheus, daughter of Marre
and will she not marry another? Show me this and complete [the answer] to this written
[question]. To Soknopaios and Sokanpeios, great, great gods: from Statoetis, son of Apynchis,
son of Tesenuphis. Will I be saved from illness? Give me information about this! To the
great gods Soknopaias and Sokonupis. Is it granted to me to start a business for gladiators?
Give me information about this! (magical papyri 30)

I call upon you, inhabitants of Chaos and Erebos [the underworld], of the depth, of earth, watchers of heaven, of darkness, masters of things not to be seen, guardians of secrets, leaders of those beneath the earth, administrators of things which are infinite, those who wield power over earth, servants in the chasm, shudderful fighters, fearful ministers, inhabitants of dark Erebos,

coercive watchers, rulers of cliffs, grievers of the heart, adverse daimons, iron-hearted ones
[seven magical names are given]…Reveal concerning the matter which I am considering.
(magical papyri 7.348–58)

Victory in sport or battle

I conjure you up, holy beings and holy names; join in aiding this spell, and bind, enchant, thwart,strike, overturn, conspire against, destroy, kill, break Eucherius the charioteer, and all his horses tomorrow in the circus at Rome. May he not leave the barriers well; may he not be quick in the contest; may he not outstrip anyone; may he not make the turns well; may he not win any prizes…may he be broken; may he be dragged along by your power, in the morning and afternoon races. Now! Now! Quickly! Quickly!

Listen to how harsh this incantation is! The person praying is wants to win so bad, he prays that his rival will be hurt or killed! Once again, this incantation has no intention of showing love to the other. I think it rather shows hate in order to get his selfish desires.

Harming someone or something

WHAT TO DO: “Take a lead lamella [thin, metal plate] and inscribe with a bronze stylus the following names and the figure [depicted in the papyrus text], and after smearing it with blood from a bat, roll up the lamella in the ususal fashion. Cut open a frog and put it into its stomach. After stitching it up with Anubian thread and a bronze needle, hang it up on a reed from your property by means of hairs from the tip of the tail of a black ox, at the east of the property near the rising of the sun.”

WHAT TO SAY: “Supreme angels, just as the frog drips with blood and dries up, so also will

the body of him [a space to insert the name of the victim] whom [a space to insert the name
of the victim’s mother] bore, because I conjure you, who are in command of fire…” (magical
papyri 36.231–55)

Other Magical Objects and Actions

“A woman is guaranteed never to miscarry if, tied round her neck in gazelle leather, she wears

white flesh from a hyaena’s breast, seven hyaena’s hairs, and the genital organ of a stag.”
(Pliny, Natural History, 28.27.98–99)

 This would have been in a 1^st century fertility book! Aren’t you glad it didn’t make it to a 21^st century fertility book?

“It acts as a charm for a man to spit on the urine he has [discharged]; similarly to spit into

the right shoe before putting it on.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.7.38)

So if you want good luck, men, either spit in your right shoe or spit in your urine every time you pee. This seems like a lose-lose or choosing the less of two evils.

“Hailstorms and whirlwinds are driven away if menstrual fluid is exposed to the very flashes

of lightning.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.23.77)

Thunders and lightning fear a woman having her period just as much as men do :-P haha

“The extreme end of the [hyaena’s] intestine prevails against the injustices of leaders and

potentates, bringing success to petitions and a happy issue to trials and lawsuits if it is merely
kept on the person;…the anus [of a hyaena], worn as an amulet on the left arm, is so powerful
a love-charm that, if a man but [sees] a woman, she at once follows him.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.27.106)

Men, how many times have you seen an ugly woman, but once you see her put on a hyaena butt, she becomes instantly beautiful?

“If door-posts are merely touched by the menstrual discharge, the tricks are rendered vain of

the Magi, a lying crowd, as is easily ascertained.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.23.88)

And all other magical problems can be negated by spreading your menstrual blood on the doorposts likes it’s Passover.

I know all these magical words and performances sound crazy, but put it in a more recent context. Think about all the crazy superstitions people practice in modern times that have little to no scientific backing. Kids in the 1990s wore placed a rabbit’s foot or two on their backpacks and key chains. Before then, people had horseshoes, and some still do. I go could on mentioning throwing salt over the shoulder, knocking on wood and avoiding stepping on cracks. Now to be fair, maybe some of these superstitions arose from safety precautions. For example, people learned not to walk under ladders because walking under ladders was unsafe. Eventually, it became unlucky. Also to be fair, remember that 1^st century people did not know of a distinction between magic and science. Sometimes they 1^st century people were doing science, but they did not know it, so they called it magic. Most cases, however, as the cases seen above, did not come from safety precautions or early attempts at science. They were merely superstitions that arose from the pagan polytheism.

Let’s also review some of the discussion about demon exorcism, since demon exorcisms are miracles, and since demon exorcisms have commonalities with miracles. Already, we have seen that magic depends on some amulet, talisman or device, just like in exorcisms. Also, notice the necessity to call on gods or higher powers. The people of the 1^st century believed that even the gods had to submit to the powers of magic. So in theory, a human well versed in magic could overcome the will of a god. So just like in exorcisms, magicians, witches and witch doctors sought to call out a god by name in order to control his power. These gods had very little sovereignty; their will constantly fought the will of man.

The Biblical Account

The Bible records Jesus performing 37 miracles, but John 20:30,31 hints that Jesus probably performed more. As a case study, let’s look at when Jesus cured the blind. The New Testament records Jesus healing the blind 4 times. They are as follows:

1.      Jesus heals 2 blind men (Matthew 9:27-31)
2.      Jesus heals Bartimaeus (Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, Luke 18:35-43)
3.      Jesus heals the blind man at Bethesda (Mark 8:22-26)
4.      Jesus heals the man born blind (John 9:1-41)

Pause here. Open up your Bible and read all 4 stories. Yes, this includes reading all 3 accounts of healing blind Bartimaeus. As you read each story, take notice of how Jesus heals them. Write it down if you have to. When you are done, come back here and compare answers with me. This is what I got:

1.      Jesus healing 2 blind men – Touching the eyes
2.      Jesus healing blind Bartimaeus – speaking and touching
3.      Jesus healing the blind man at Bethesda – spitting, then touching
4.      Jesus healing the man born blind – made mud with spit, placed mud on eyes, wash in the pool of Siloam

Compare it to how the culture would say a witch doctor would cure blindness. Jesus never calls upon a god or a higher power. What a testimony to his own deity! Jesus never prays a prayer or speaks a special incantation. In fact, Jesus never addresses the blindness directly. He just states the healing has happened. Jesus never needs any kind amulet, talisman or device. In fact, the four blindness healings really don’t have anything in common; they are all different. The closest commonality is that Jesus touches them, but this touching is most likely to be intimate or personal in the healing.

This is very important that Jesus does not have a formula or procedure to curing the blind. Suppose Jesus healed every blind person that same way he healed the man born blind: making mud from spit, spreading the mud on the eyes, and washing the eyes in water. Then pastors would hold blindness healing services in their churches, which the whole service would consist of spitting, making mud, spreading the mud on blind people’s eyes, and then washing them off. Problems would really occur if a blind person still couldn’t see after undergoing the spit, mud and washing ceremony. Talk about having doubts!

From the start, Jesus de-emphasizes any kind of method. If the method is de-emphasized, then what is emphasized? Jesus is. Every miracle points back to Jesus. At the most, someone could say that faith is a commonality with every miracle, and therefore faith is emphasized, but even there, the faith points back to Jesus, emphasizing him.

Conclusion

So was Jesus a magician? Some of the Sanhedrin of the 1^st century claimed Jesus was a magician, in hope that a truly religious Jew would not follow someone like a witch doctor. But if anyone living in the 1^st century knew their culture, they would know how far from the truth that claim is. Jesus did not perform his miracles like magicians or witches performed magic. He did not call upon gods for higher power, he did not speak any prayer or incantations, and did use any use any object, like the magicians and witches. Jesus also never performed his miracles to get the upper hand on his personal life or other people. Rather, Jesus performed miracles to help lift up people in unfortunate circumstances. So Jesus was not a magician, he was much better than that. He was the Messiah, saving people from unfortunate situations. He was God, depending on his own power instead of manipulating a higher up power. Therefore, the miracles of Jesus should encourage us to not seek other supernatural solutions, like psychics, but instead to seek Jesus for the solution to all our problems.


Acknowledgements
I am eternally grateful to Dr. Doug Buckwalter, New Testament professor at Evangelical Seminary, for the original texts and the original resources.

John 9: I Was Blind, But Now I See

Did you get the reference of the title? No, did you get the real reference of the title? If I were to survey people on what the title was referencing, most of the people surveyed would say it’s the last line of the first verse of the famous hymn “Amazing Grace.” This is true, but it’s not the original reference, as hymn writer borrowed this line for another source. From where did he get it? He got it right here in John 9. What’s so amazing (yes, pun intended) about his use of the line from John 9 is that he used it in the right context, comparing going from blind to seeing as the same is going from lost to found. John 9 explains how they are the same, too. Let’s check it out.

Before we dive right into the story, let’s talk about the structure a little bit. The chapter will start off with a miracle. The miracle is the 6th and second-to-last miracle. Do you remember how John 5 used the healing of the invalid as an introduction to Christ’s teaching? Do you also remember how John 6 used the feeding of the 5,000 to introduce Christ’s preaching on the bread of life? John 9 will follow in the same pattern. In the beginning of chapter 9, Jesus will perform a miracle. This miracle will be the “attention-getter” for the teaching that will take up the rest of the chapter. Another piece I would like to note is that this teaching also has a thesis line. As I said in the conclusion of the chapter before, the thesis is one of the “I AM” statements in John 8. More specifically, it’s John 8:12. I’ll put up John 8:12 again in case you forget, but Jesus does use another form of the statement in John 9:5.

John 8:12-
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

John 9:5-
“While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Now let’s dive into the chapter. Along their journeys, Jesus and His disciples pass a man blind from birth. So this man has never seen in all His life. When the disciples see the blind man, they do not have pity or mercy on him, but rather, they turn it into a theological debate. Indeed, this topic was hot topic, just as much as it is today: why do people suffer? The Jews in the 1st century had got it down two possibilities: either the person sinned or the person’s parents sinned. Both views are supported by Old Testament Scripture (Ezekiel 18:4 and Exodus 20:5, 34:7 respectively). The Jews of the 1st century, however, were trying to take it a step further. They were trying to create a methodology to determine whether a person’s suffering resulted in the person’s sin or the person’s parents’ sin. Some rabbis were even declaring that a disability from birth was caused by the person sinning in the mother’s womb. This was a heavily weighted debate, and so the Twelve Disciples asked their rabbi for His view.

What really strikes me here is what I said early on the paragraph above. When the disciples see the blind man, there’s no compassion, no mercy, no pity not even a “Poor guy.” They break out in a theological debate, and right in front him. The man is blind, not deaf. How hurtful that must have been to hear people standing in front of you, arguing whether you are a sinner or your mom and dad are sinners. The blind man might be crying out for help, but they don’t hear because they are too involved in their debate. Sometimes I fear Christians have fallen into the same rut. Christians can get so caught up in being right in their theological debates that they miss the people who are hurting. I remember one time I was in Washington, D.C., walking by the steps on the Supreme Court. On one end of the steps was a Christian man, holding a big, wooden cross that had a poster board nailed to it, which read, “Bring back prayer to school.” He was also handing out persuasive pamphlets. A worthy cause, I will admit. On the other side was a beggar, holding a big, tin coffee can, begging for money. Once again, I will say that bringing back prayer to schools is a worthy cause, but this Christian man was caught up in trying to make a political change that he totally ignored the beggar in need not too far from him. I wanted to yell at him, “Help him!” This Christian man probably would not have a made difference in this nation’s decision on prayer in school, but he probably would have had made a difference to man the begging if he had simply helped the man. Christians, let make sure we don’t get caught up in trying to be right or trying to make a political change that we ignore the people who are truly hurting and in need. When we help them, then we show we are right and making a change.

Jesus understood that. He did not see a theological debate in front on him, but rather a person, a human being, that needed help. Jesus, being the good rabbi he was, did answer the disciples’ question, but he was quick and to the point so He could move on to healing this man. Jesus revealed to His disciples that suffering doesn’t always have to be a result of sin (although it could be). Suffering doesn’t always have to be a negative consequence. Suffering can lead to a positive consequence, like glorying God or healing. Jesus does not deny this blind is a sinner, and the same is true for the blind man’s parents, but He’s simply clearing up that it’s not sin that led to suffering, but the suffering will lead to the works of God being seen. (On the note of “Why do people suffer, on top of our sin, our parents sin, and to give glory to God, I want to note that Romans 3 will tell us people suffer because we’re naturally in a corrupt, depraved, fallen, sinful world. So there’s 4 reasons why people suffer, but that’s another blog for another time.)

How does Jesus perform the miracle? Jesus spits on the dirt, makes mud with it and puts it in the blind man’s eyes. Now I’ve heard some people say Jesus used spit because spit does have healing properties. After all, that’s why people suck on their skin when they get a cut, bruise or burn. But I don’t think that just anyone today could spit in someone’s eyes and heal them, so there definitely still is a great miracle happening here. Then Jesus commands the man to go wash in the Pool of Siloam. The Pool of Siloam is located at the mouth of Hezekiah’s tunnel, which was the waterway that led fresh water from the Gihon Springs outside the city of Jerusalem insider the city of Jerusalem. When I was in Israel, I went to Pool of Siloam, and to this day, it still has water in it. Israeli children take the word “pool” very literally, as they play in it on a hot summer day. The blind man follows the instructions of Jesus, and by the time the blind man gets home, he has 20/20 vision!



Now all the Jews living in the city knew this man as the blind beggar. And now all of a sudden, they see their blind beggar seeing. They cannot comprehend this. Some ever going as far as to say it’s just the man’s doppelganger (“look alike”) or maybe a twin, but it cannot be the man, since he’s been blind from birth. But the man who was blind just keeps insisting “I am the man!” When they ask him how he can see, he tells the story word for word, even giving Jesus the credit. The only thing he cannot tell them is the whereabouts of Jesus.

The befuddled Jews of Jerusalem bring the man who was blind to the Pharisees. There’s a lot of reasons to do this. The Pharisees were greatly valued when it came to spiritual affairs. If the Jewish people needed answers, the Pharisees were the ones to go to. In John 9, the people bring the formerly blind man to the Pharisees to get them to verify he was once blind, he is indeed seeing, and this was a legitimate miracle. This practice is somewhat backed up by Scripture, as the Law of Moses did say a cured person had to go to a priest to be declared fully healed. Now in verse 14, John brings to light a very important key aspect, probably because it is on the Pharisees’ minds as well as all the other people’s minds. According the Pharisees, Jesus broke the law twice. First, Jesus made mud on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees thought that making mud or clay on the Sabbath was doing work, thus breaking the 4th commandment. Second, Jesus healed a person on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees believed that healing on the Sabbath was work, and therefore a sin (unless the person healed was dying). So when the formerly blind man tells his story for a second time, the Pharisees simply dismiss Jesus as a sinner because he broke the Sabbath laws twice. But this further baffles the people who brought in the blind man. They know healing can only come from God, and they also know God only works with the righteous, not the sinners. A sinner cannot work with God, so the miracle must mean Jesus is righteous. In verse 16, John once again describes the Jewish people as “divided.” So for the tie-breaker, the Pharisees act the man who was blind directly. The man simply answers, “I think he’s a prophet.”

Well, this still isn’t good enough for the Jews. So they drag his parents in, just to make sure this is their son, the son blind from birth. But then the Pharisees turn on them the question of how he was healed. The parents do verify that the man is indeed their son, but on how he got healed, they simply reply, “We don’t know. Ask him. He is of age.” John explains the parents’ motif. It almost seems as if the parents do believe this is miraculous healing from Jesus. Yet they are afraid to admit it because the Jewish leaders have declared that anyone who called Jesus the Messiah would be “put out of the synagogue.” We think of “synagogue” as building, and indeed it was a building for public meetings. But the Greek word that “synagogue” comes from could literally be translated as “gathered together.” The term synagogue, to the Jewish people, is not only a building, but can also mean the general assembly of Jews as whole. So to be “put out of the synagogue” would mean being excommunicated or shunned from the general assembly of Jews. The Jews saw this as no longer being a Jew, no longer being God’s chosen people, so they did not want to say or do anything that would shun themselves, including saying that Jesus is the Messiah.

Still not satisfied, the Pharisees drag the man who was blind back and make him swear an oath proclaiming God healed him, and not Jesus, for Jesus is a sinner. The man does not accept and agree with the Pharisees’ decision, nor does he disagree by defending Jesus. He does not know who caused the healing (God or Jesus), nor does he know if Jesus is a sinner. So he simply states the facts he knows are true: “I was blind but now I see.” It’s like the man is crying out, “Who freakin’ cares who made see or how I can see, all that matters is I was freakin’ blind and now I can freakin’ see!” Still, the Pharisees are not satisfied, so they start questioning the formerly blind man as to what had happened, hoping to find some kind of contradiction in his story. They still don’t believe he is telling the truth, even after he’s sworn a solemn oath.

Now the man who was blind is going to start to become bold in front of the religious leaders. When the Pharisees ask the formerly blind man to re-tell the story, the formerly blind man says, “Why bother? I already told you everything over and over, and you did not listen. I could tell you again, but still won’t listen,” and then at the end he adds, and I do quote, “Do you want to become His disciples, too?” I can really sense sarcasm in the formerly blind man’s last sentence. It’s like he’s saying, “Apparently you love hearing me talk about Jesus so much. I bet you secretly want to become his disciples.” I’m almost sure this is sarcasm, and my proof is the Pharisees’ reaction to it. But I think the man born blind is on to something. He knows that the Pharisees are out to get Jesus. He even proves it, in the boldest fashion, in John 9:30-33. In a way, the man who was blind shows he has greater spiritual wisdom than the religious leaders. The man who was blind from birth simply states what everyone in the crowd is thinking. God only works with the godly who do His will, not sinners. Thus, a sinner cannot make a blind man see, but only a godly man. Therefore, Jesus has to be a godly man, not a sinner, because he can make the blind man see. Well, the Pharisees won’t take this. Since the man was blind from birth, they take their belief he was in sin since he was in the womb. Seeing themselves as righteous and the man as a sinner, they throw him out and shun him.

Before we move on, let’s take a moment to really feel bad for this poor man. He was born blind, which means he wasn’t able to see all his childhood, and a lot of his adulthood. As the disciples demonstrated, he was probably the topic of many theological talks. Then Jesus comes along and heals him. To be healed after being blind for so long would be a reason for praise, rejoicing and celebration…wouldn’t it? I think it is, but that’s not what the blind received. First, his neighbors do not believe it was him, even claiming it was a doppelganger that just looked like him because the blind man could never see. Next, he is dragged before the Pharisees, where he has to explain again and again what happened. Does it cause the Pharisees to rejoice or praise God? No. The Pharisees just keep asking him questions, which turn into accusations. Then the conversation goes from the blind man to Jesus, and they almost forget that a seeing blind man is standing before them. Soon, even the blind man’s parents are brought forward. Do they rejoice and celebrate their son can see? No, because they are afraid, since the Jewish leaders have struck them with fear. By the time, they get to the end, the blind man is insulted and excommunicated. To sum it all up, the Pharisees did to seeing man what the disciples did to the blind. Instead of recognizing and rejoicing, they instead turned it into a theological debate. Once again, I cry out to Christians: Never get so caught up in the theological “why” and “how” that we forget to just praise and worship God for what He has done.

The story concludes quickly after the man is shunned, but it really hits back to the “I AM” statement used in John 8:12 and John 9:5. When Jesus receives news that the man who was blind has been kicked out, He reaches out to the potential believer. Jesus simply asks him in John 9:35, “Do you believe the Son of Man?” Jesus carefully chooses His words. The term “Son of Man” was a title the prophet Daniel gave the Messiah. The man who was born blind shows willingness and unawareness at the same time. Yes, he does want to believe in the Messiah, but he does not know who the Messiah is. Once again, I see Jesus carefully picking his words, and I love how He does it. I love how Jesus says, “You have now seen him.” Jesus is not merely saying, “It’s the man standing before you,” but He’s also saying, “It’s the one who opened your eyes and made you see.” And it brings the formerly blind man to belief and worship. Jesus explains to the man (and possibly everyone around him), “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind” (John 9:39). The Pharisees who overhear Jesus become indignant at Jesus. Whether they know Jesus is being figurative, or even if they take it literally, they know Jesus is calling them blind. In John 9:41, Jesus makes that connection of blindness to sin, or, in the words of the hymn “Amazing Grace,” Jesus makes the connection of “I was blind, but now I see” to “I once was lost, but now am found.”

I was a summer missionary for Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) for 4 years, and one of those years, the curriculum we used taught children 5 of the “I AM” statements of Jesus. Even the memory verses were those 5 “I AM” statements. On Day 4 (typically Thursdays), the “I AM” statement and memory verse was John 8:12. The Bible story was not about this blind man in John 9, however, but the story of blind Bartimeaus, as found in all 3 synoptic Gospels. They did it because, for the sake of the children, blind Bartimaeus is an easier story to tell because there’s more action and less talking. Let me be clear that the blind man in John 9 is not Bartimeaus. There are many differences in the story, but the biggest difference is the blind man in John 9 lives in Jerusalem, while the blind Bartimeaus in the synoptic Gospels lives in Jericho. But as CEF revealed, theologically speaking, there are commonalities, and those

In other ancient writings, blindness was seen as a blessing. In ancient writings, most blind people were sages who had a deeper understanding of the world, and some could even use it to “see” in the future (yes, the pun was intended, but so was the irony in ancient writings). Not true with the Bible. Blindness was seen as a curse. As the Jews well understood by the 1st century AD, they knew that blindness, a disability, might have been the result of a sin, and there’s some truth to that. But I think the bigger picture God was trying to get across was that blindness was a literal, physical ailment that was to be a symbolic metaphor for being lost in sin. A blind person could be described as “walking in darkness” because darkness is all they could “see.” In the same way, someone who is in sin could also be described as “walking in darkness.” A blind man needs to be led, for if he wasn’t led, he would get lost. In the same way, someone in sin in lost in sin. Blind people represented the fallen human race, lost in their sin, whether could literally see or not. Then Jesus came along, and he made the blind see. In the same way Jesus helped the blind to see, or helped those who “walked in darkness” to “walk into the light,” Jesus brought salvation to sinners so they would no longer have to walk in the darkness of their sins, but walk into the light of salvation. If Jesus can heal the blind of their blindness, Jesus can heal sinners of their sin. This is how Jesus demonstrated He was the Light of the World. Those who believe in Jesus, as the blind man did, are no longer walking in the darkness of their sin, but are now walking in the light of life. On that day, the blind man just didn’t go from blind to seeing, but also from being lost in his sin to being found.

On that same day, the Pharisees took a step back. They went from seeing to being blind (in a spiritual sense). They went from being found to being lost (once again, in a spiritual sense). Their pride would not allow them to trust in Jesus for salvation. So they lied to themselves, believing themselves to be righteous. Jesus said to them that by doing so, they have not becoming innocent, but have made themselves guilty. Jesus also says, as found in verse 39, just as much as he’ll make the blind see, he’ll make the seeing blind. Christians, may we never make the same mistake as the Pharisees and be blind to see the sin in us and around us. May we always walk in the light of Jesus Christ.

So after 9 chapters of John, we have 1 miracle left and 4 “I AM” statements left. 3 times we saw Jesus use a miracle as the “attention-getting” introduction to the teaching, 2 of which were “I AM statements.” To follow the pattern, the last miracle will be used in accordance with an “I AM statement.” But first, we have another “I AM” statement, and it will be found in the next chapter of John.