You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘blindness’ tag.
The Fourth Sunday in Lent, Laetare Sunday, is March 19, 2023.
Readings for Year A, including an explanation of Laetare Sunday — the joyful Sunday in Lent — can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
John 9:1-41
9:1 As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth.
9:2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
9:3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.
9:4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work.
9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
9:6 When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man’s eyes,
9:7 saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see.
9:8 The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?”
9:9 Some were saying, “It is he.” Others were saying, “No, but it is someone like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.”
9:10 But they kept asking him, “Then how were your eyes opened?”
9:11 He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud, spread it on my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ Then I went and washed and received my sight.”
9:12 They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I do not know.”
9:13 They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind.
9:14 Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.
9:15 Then the Pharisees also began to ask him how he had received his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see.”
9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not observe the sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And they were divided.
9:17 So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” He said, “He is a prophet.”
9:18 The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight
9:19 and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?”
9:20 His parents answered, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;
9:21 but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.”
9:22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.
9:23 Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”
9:24 So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and they said to him, “Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.”
9:25 He answered, “I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”
9:26 They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”
9:27 He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?”
9:28 Then they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
9:29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.”
9:30 The man answered, “Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.
9:31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will.
9:32 Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind.
9:33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”
9:34 They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?” And they drove him out.
9:35 Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
9:36 He answered, “And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.”
9:37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.”
9:38 He said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him.
9:39 Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.”
9:40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not blind, are we?”
9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
This is the second of a two-part series. You can read Part 1 here. That said, this is also a long post as there is much to cover.
The Pharisees asked the man once more what Jesus did to him and how He opened his eyes (verse 26).
John MacArthur points out the irony here:
Well, this is pretty significant, folks, because now they just admitted what? That he was healed. They’ve just admitted that he was blind, and his eyes were opened. What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes? Maybe they were probing for some trick. Who knows?
The man said that he had already told them once before and that they would not listen; he asked them why they wanted to hear his answer again and if they wanted to become His disciples (verse 27).
MacArthur points out the man’s righteous sarcasm:
This is an outcast talking to the in-crowd. “Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?” Sarcasm. He just nails their sarcasm, their hypocrisy. This is a man who’s feeling the joy, feeling the confidence, feeling the strength of the conviction that he knows he’s dealing with a man who is from God, who is a prophet. And as the story goes, he comes to fully believe in Him for salvation …
Then the Pharisees came out with one of their favourite attacks, saying that he was one of Christ’s disciples, yet they, the notional religious grandees, were disciples of Moses (verse 28).
They added that they knew God had spoken to Moses but, as for ‘this man’ — Jesus — they knew not from whence He came (verse 29).
The Pharisees created the chasm between Judaism and Christianity that still exists today:
There’s that breach again. Moses and Christ, the church and the synagogue, Judaism and Christianity. Still at odds. We know this man is a sinner. We are from Moses … I think they knew He was from Nazareth, Galilee. They should’ve known where He was from in John 6 when He preached the sermon on the bread of life, He said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven. I have come down from heaven to give My life for the world.” He had said again, and again, and again, “I come from heaven.” He even mocked them by saying, “You think you know where I’ve come from.” Chapter 7. “But you really don’t know My heavenly origin.” When they said, “We don’t know where He’s from,” they simply meant, not so much the town, but we don’t know the origin of this man. We’re unwilling to say it’s God. In fact, they were convinced that He was satanic. Satanic.
I mean, this is the character of unbelief.
The man answered back, saying that what they were saying was astonishing; they did not know where He came from, yet He healed him (verse 30).
Henry elaborates on ‘an astonishing thing’:
First, He wonders at their obstinate infidelity (v. 30); not at all daunted by their frowns, nor shaken by their confidence, he bravely answered, “Why, herein is a marvelous thing, the strangest instance of wilful ignorance that ever was heard of among men that pretend to sense, that you know not whence he is, and yet he has opened mine eyes.” Two things he wonders at:—1. That they should be strangers to a man so famous. He that could open the eyes of the blind must certainly be a considerable man, and worth taking notice of. The Pharisees were inquisitive men, had a large correspondence and acquaintance, thought themselves the eyes of the church and its watchmen, and yet that they should talk as if they thought it below them to take cognizance of such a man as this, and have conversation with him, this is a strange thing indeed. There are many who pass for learned and knowing men, who understand business, and can talk sensibly in other things, who yet are ignorant, to a wonder, of the doctrine of Christ, who have no concern, no, not so much as a curiosity, to acquaint themselves with that which the angels desire to look into. 2. That they should question the divine mission of one that had undoubtedly wrought a divine miracle. When they said, We know not whence he is, they meant, “We know not any proof that his doctrine and ministry are from heaven.” “Now this is strange,” saith the poor man, “that the miracle wrought upon me has not convinced you, and put the matter out of doubt,—that you, whose education and studies give you advantages above others of discerning the things of God, should thus shut your eyes against the light.” It is a marvelous work and wonder, when the wisdom of the wise thus perisheth (Isa 29 14), that they deny the truth of that of which they cannot gainsay the evidence. Note, (1.) The unbelief of those who enjoy the means of knowledge and conviction is indeed a marvelous thing, Mark 6 6. (2.) Those who have themselves experienced the power and grace of the Lord Jesus do especially wonder at the wilfulness of those who reject him, and, having such good thoughts of him themselves, are amazed that others have not. Had Christ opened the eyes of the Pharisees, they would not have doubted his being a prophet.
The man continued, in all boldness. He said that God does not listen to sinners, but He does listen to those who obey His will (verse 31).
He went further, saying that, never since the world began had anyone been cured of blindness (verse 32), therefore, if this man were not from God, He would not have been able to do anything (verse 33), meaning effecting a miracle.
This man is a role model in the way he attacks the wilful ignorance of the religious authorities.
MacArthur says:
So, he’s become the preacher. He’s taken over the meeting. He’s talking to the leaders. First, he’s sarcastic, and now he’s specific, and clear-headed, and clear-minded, and faithful to the Old Testament, and even referring to the Old Testament that God doesn’t hear the prayers of sinners. He’s giving them an explanation of reality, a sensible, reasonable, logical explanation.
Henry analyses these verses in full:
a. He argues here, (a.) With great knowledge. Though he could not read a letter of the book, he was well acquainted with the scripture and the things of God; he had wanted the sense of seeing, yet had well improved that of hearing, by which faith cometh; yet this would not have served him if he had not had an extraordinary presence of God with him, and special aids of his Spirit, upon this occasion. (b.) With great zeal for the honour of Christ, whom he could not endure to hear run down, and evil spoken of. (c.) With great boldness, and courage, and undauntedness, not terrified by the proudest of his adversaries. Those that are ambitious of the favours of God must not be afraid of the frowns of men. “See here,” saith Dr. Whitby, “a blind man and unlearned judging more rightly of divine things than the whole learned council of the Pharisees, whence we learn that we are not always to be led by the authority of councils, popes, or bishops; and that it is not absurd for laymen sometimes to vary from their opinions, these overseers being sometimes guilty of great oversights.”
b. His argument may be reduced into form, somewhat like that of David, Ps 66 18-20. The proposition in David’s argument is, If I regard iniquity in my heart, God will not hear me; here it is to the same purport, God heareth not sinners: the assumption there is, But verily God hath heard me; here it is, Verily God hath heard Jesus, he hath been honoured with the doing of that which was never done before: the conclusion there is to the honour, Blessed be God; here to the honour of the Lord Jesus, He is of God.
(a.) He lays it down for an undoubted truth that none but good men are the favourites of heaven (v. 31): Now we know, you know it as well as I, that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and does his will, him he heareth. Here,
[a.] The assertions, rightly understood, are true. First, Be it spoken to the terror of the wicked, God heareth not sinners, that is, such sinners as the Pharisees meant when they said of Christ, He is a sinner, one that, under the shelter of God’s name, advanced the devil’s interest. This bespeaks no discouragement to repenting returning sinners, but to those that go on still in their trespasses, that make their prayers not only consistent with, but subservient to, their sins, as the hypocrites do; God will not hear them, he will not own them, nor give an answer of peace to their prayers. Secondly, Be it spoken to the comfort of the righteous, If any man be a worshipper of God, and does his will, him he heareth. Here is, 1. The complete character of a good man: he is one that worships God, and does his will; he is constant in his devotions at set times, and regular in his conversation at all times. He is one that makes it his business to glorify his Creator by the solemn adoration of his name and a sincere obedience to his will and law; both must go together. 2. The unspeakable comfort of such a man: him God hears; hears his complaints, and relieves him; hears his appeals, and rights him; hears his praises, and accepts them; hears his prayers, and answers them, Ps 34 15.
[b.] The application of these truths is very pertinent to prove that he, at whose word such a divine power was put forth as cured one born blind, was not a bad man, but, having manifestly such an interest in the holy God as that he heard him always (ch. 9 31, 32), was certainly a holy one.
(b.) He magnifies the miracles which Christ had wrought, to strengthen the argument the more (v. 32): Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. This is to show either, [a.] That it was a true miracle, and above the power of nature; it was never heard that any man, by the use of natural means, had cured one that was born blind; no doubt, this man and his parents had been very inquisitive into cases of this nature, whether any such had been helped, and could hear of none, which enabled him to speak this with the more assurance. Or, [b.] That it was an extraordinary miracle, and beyond the precedents of former miracles; neither Moses nor any of the prophets, though they did great things, ever did such things as this, wherein divine power and divine goodness seem to strive which should outshine. Moses wrought miraculous plagues, but Christ wrought miraculous cures. Note, First, The wondrous works of the Lord Jesus were such as the like had never been done before. Secondly, It becomes those who have received mercy from God to magnify the mercies they have received, and to speak honourably of them; not that thereby glory may redound to themselves, and they may seem to be extraordinary favourites of Heaven, but that God may have so much the more glory.
(c.) He therefore concludes, If this man were not of God, he could do nothing, that is, nothing extraordinary, no such thing as this; and therefore, no doubt, he is of God, notwithstanding his nonconformity to your traditions in the business of the sabbath day. Note, What Christ did on earth sufficiently demonstrated what he was in heaven; for, if he had not been sent of God, he could not have wrought such miracles. It is true the man of sin comes with lying wonders, but not with real miracles; it is likewise supposed that a false prophet might, by divine permission, give a sign or a wonder (Deut 13 1, 2), yet the case is so put as that it would carry with it its own confutation, for it is to enforce a temptation to serve other gods, which was to set God against himself. It is true, likewise, that many wicked people have in Christ’s name done many wonderful works, which did not prove those that wrought them to be of God, but him in whose name they were wrought. We may each of us know by this whether we are of God or no: What do we? What do we for God, for our souls, in working out our salvation? What do we more than others?
The Pharisees were offended, saying that a man born entirely in sins, a reference to their belief that disability was a divine curse, was trying to teach them, the notional experts; with that, they threw him out (verse 34).
MacArthur picks up what he said earlier about unbelief often resulting in violence:
That’s the disdain of it all. So, it gets physical. They threw him out. Be prepared to face this when unbelief investigates a miracle. This is how it acts. This will be a disappointment. It has been a disappointment already in your life, I’m sure. Major disappointment through the years to any of us who walked with Christ for a long time. We accumulate this kind of disappointment.
What can we do except to pray for lost souls? MacArthur tells us:
What is there to do about this? How can it change? Well, the only answer is where Jesus went in John 6, three times. He said this: “All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me. No man comes to Me unless the Father draws him.” And then, verse 64 of John 6, He summarized it again. “For this reason I have said to you, no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” The only way an unbeliever can be released and delivered from this kind of bizarre captivity and bondage to what is evil, and irascible, and intolerant, and irrational; the only way an unbeliever can be delivered from this is by the power of God. So, what do we do? We plead with God to be gracious, don’t we? We plead with the sinner to believe, and we plead with God to be gracious. Because the natural man, Paul says, understands not the things of God. To him, they’re foolishness, because they’re spiritually appraised, and he’s spiritually dead.
So, we don’t go out to evangelize with any hope, really, that we have the power in our reason or the power in our facts or the power in our truth to shatter the blindness and the darkness and the bondage of unbelief. We go with the truth, and we cry out to God to draw the sinner out of this bondage of unbelief.
MacArthur points out the transition that takes place at this point:
Verses 1 through 34 are about physical light, physical sight. But also, there are overtones of spiritual blindness and spiritual darkness manifest by the Pharisees. When we come to verses 35 to 41, the subject changes from physical sight and light, completely, to spiritual sight and light, and spiritual blindness and darkness.
Now, as we look at these just brief verses, straightforward and simple, I just want to break them into two sections: spiritual sight, verses 35 to 38, that’s the beggar; spiritual blindness, verses 39 to 41, that’s the Pharisees. You have here a comparison build on this miracle, between spiritual sight, which the beggar receives, and spiritual darkness, in which the Pharisees remain.
Now, let’s look at the spiritual sight and the beggar, the opening verses 35 to 38. Just to give you a little bit of a pattern to follow, four things define this spiritual sight, okay? Four things. He’s going to be an illustration of one who not only sees physically for the first time, but who will see spiritually for the first time. There are four elements. First of all, and this is very important. The first element is: spiritual sight requires divine initiative. Spiritual sight requires divine initiative. This man doesn’t have any capability to make himself see physically, nor does he have any capability to make himself see spiritually. That’s why this transition is made, because it’s such a graphic illustration. He can’t do anything to help himself. There’s no such thing in those ancient times as a surgeon who can fix something in his eye and enable him to see. There’s no way that he can have spiritual sight on his own. It can’t happen. Humanly speaking, it can’t happen on a temporal, physical, natural level. If he is going to see, heaven has to come down and find him, locate him, and that’s exactly what happens.
Jesus heard that the Pharisees had driven the man out of their midst, and when He found him, he asked (verse 35), ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’
In Henry’s translation, the verse reads:
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
Henry calls our attention to the fact that Jesus sought the man who had given Him such a bold defence as the author of the healing miracle:
I. The tender care which our Lord Jesus took of this poor man (v. 35): When Jesus heard that they had cast him out (for it is likely the town rang of it, and everybody cried out shame upon them for it), then he found him, which implies his seeking him and looking after him, that he might encourage and comfort him, 1. Because he had, to the best of his knowledge, spoken so very well, so bravely, so boldly, in defence of the Lord Jesus. Note, Jesus Christ will be sure to stand by his witnesses, and own those that own him and his truth and ways. Earthly princes neither do, nor can, take cognizance of all that vindicate them and their government and administration; but our Lord Jesus knows and observes all the faithful testimonies we bear to him at any time, and a book of remembrance is written, and it shall redound not only to our credit hereafter, but our comfort now. 2. Because the Pharisees had cast him out and abused him. Besides the common regard which the righteous Judge of the world has to those who suffer wrongfully (Ps 103 6), there is a particular notice taken of those that suffer in the cause of Christ and for the testimony of a good conscience. Here was one poor man suffering for Christ, and he took care that as his afflictions abounded his consolations should much more abound. Note, (1.) Though persecutors may exclude good men from their communion, yet they cannot exclude them from communion with Christ, nor put them out of the way of his visits. Happy are they who have a friend from whom men cannot debar them. (2.) Jesus Christ will graciously find and receive those who for his sake are unjustly rejected and cast out by men. He will be a hiding place to his outcasts, and appear, to the joy of those whom their brethren hated and cast out.
II. The comfortable converse Christ had with him, wherein he brings him acquainted with the consolation of Israel. He had well improved the knowledge he had, and now Christ gives him further instruction; for he that is faithful in a little shall be entrusted with more, Matt 13 12.
1. Our Lord Jesus examines his faith: “Dost thou believe on the Son of God? Dost thou give credit to the promises of the Messiah? Dost thou expect his coming, and art thou ready to receive and embrace him when he is manifested to thee?” This was that faith of the Son of God by which the saints lived before his manifestation. Observe, (1.) The Messiah is here called the Son of God, and so the Jews had learned to call him from the prophecies, Ps 2 7; 89 27. See ch. 1 49, Thou art the Son of God, that is, the true Messiah. Those that expected the temporal kingdom of the Messiah delighted rather in calling him the Son of David, which gave more countenance to that expectation, Matt 22 42. But Christ, that he might give us an idea of his kingdom, as purely spiritual and divine, calls himself the Son of God, and rather Son of man in general than of David in particular. (2.) The desires and expectations of the Messiah, which the Old-Testament saints had, guided by and grounded upon the promise, were graciously interpreted and accepted as their believing on the Son of God. This faith Christ here enquires after: Dost thou believe? Note, The great thing which is now required of us (1 John 3 23), and which will shortly be enquired after concerning us, is our believing on the Son of God, and by this we must stand or fall for ever.
MacArthur continues reinforcing the idea that heaven had to find the man:
Verse 35. The buzz around the temple area and wherever it was that this interrogation took place is still going on, so Jesus hears that they had put him out. And I love this. “And finding him.” This is parallel. You remember back in chapter 5, the man at the Pool of Bethesda picked up his bed and walked, ran into the Pharisees, the same kind of interrogation, the same kind of encounter. And it says there in that same chapter, chapter 5, and I think it’s verse 14, “Jesus found him.” Jesus found him. This is how you receive spiritual sight. It all started in a divine initiative. It all started by a sovereign purpose in the mind of God. Luke 19:10. Jesus says the Son of Man is come to seek and save that which was lost. Not just the saving, but the seeking. Romans 3, no man seeks after God. We wouldn’t know where to go, wouldn’t know who to look for. So he’s the seeker. He says to His apostles in John 15:16, “You have not chosen Me. I have chosen you.” Matthew 18, “The Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” That’s why He came. He’s the finder. He’s the one who is seeking us …
And so, Jesus finds the man. This is where spiritual sight begins. This is a powerful illustration of it, a very powerful illustration, because this is a helpless, hopeless man, and so is every sinner. So is every sinner.
So He finds him, and He initiates a conversation. Very short. This, again, is cryptic. These accounts in the New Testament are condensed. We don’t think the conversation was limited to this, but this is the essence that God has revealed to us. He says, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
MacArthur tells us that this Messianic title came from the prophet Daniel:
Listen to what Daniel chapter 7 says. Daniel is given a vision, and it’s in the night. Chapter 7:13. I kept looking in the night visions, and behold with the clouds of heaven, one like a Son of Man was coming. That’s a Messianic title. This introduces the coming of Messiah to establish His kingdom. He came up to the ancient of days, that’s God the Father, was presented before him, to Him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed. And this is not God, because this is one who comes to God. This is one to whom God gives this eternal, everlasting universal kingdom. It is the Messiah, and He is the Son of Man, which is a prophecy that He will be incarnate.
But the Jews all understood the Messianic title, the Son of Man. By the way, it appears 13 times in the gospel of John because it’s familiar in the conversation of the Jews because they know Daniel 7 is referring to the Messiah. So, our Lord says to him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” Do you believe in the Messiah? Do you believe in Messianic theology? Do you believe the Messiah is coming to establish His kingdom? Do you believe that?
The man answered Jesus, asking him (verse 36), ‘And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him’.
Henry’s verse 36 reads as follows:
He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
The man could not see who cured him, so he thought that Jesus was one of the Messiah’s disciples.
MacArthur says:
The second thing that I want you to see here in this case of spiritual sight, is that spiritual sight not only begins in divine initiative, but it requires faith. It requires faith, verse 36. This is just an amazing statement. He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” What an amazing statement. Here is a man who is ready to believe. He just wants to know who to believe in. I wish I had the time to develop that as a theology, because what you’re seeing here is the essence of the doctrine of regeneration at work. This man is ready to believe. He just wants to know what to believe. This is not easily understood. It is not because of what we say that people believe. It is because of what God has done to open them to believing that they respond to what we say. This is an amazing thing. Here is a man who is saying, “I’m ready to believe. Who do I believe in? Show me who to believe in.” That’s a prepared heart. That’s good soil.
MacArthur discusses the title of address in this verse:
See the word Lord there, and it’s lower-case sense, sir? He doesn’t know who He is, so he’s not calling Jesus Lord in the upper-case sense. The word kyrie can be used at “sir,” like you would see it in an Old English, the lords and ladies kind of idea. So, here, I think he is still using it in the common sense. Who is He, sir, that I may believe in Him? Something has been happening in his heart. This divine initiative is not only physical, not only Jesus finding him, but God, by the power of the Holy Spirit is opening his heart to believe, and all he needs. It’s like Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened. Remember in the Book of Acts? The man’s heart is opened. All he wants to knowis: who?
Jesus said to the man (verse 37), ‘You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he’.
MacArthur brings in a third element of spiritual sight:
There’s a third feature in spiritual sight. It starts in divine initiative. It requires faith. Thirdly, spiritual sight confesses Jesus as Lord. Where there is the miracle of spiritual sight, there will be a confession of Jesus as Lord.
Notice verse 37. Jesus said to him, he’s saying, who do I believe in? “You have both seen Him.” You’ve seen Him. You’re looking at Him, “and He’s the one who is talking with you.” Wow. It’s interesting to me that I don’t know how much this man had heard Jesus teach. Certainly, he hadn’t seen any miracles. Something, there were lots of people who saw miracles. The whole population saw miracles. Couldn’t overcome spiritual darkness. But God is overcoming his spiritual darkness by giving him faith. And all he wants to know is who he’s supposed to put that faith in. Jesus says, “You’ve seen Him, and He’s the one talking with you.” It is I. Remember back in chapter 4 when the woman at the well, the Samaritan woman said, well, we know that the Christ is going to come, and Jesus responds by saying, “I who speak to you am He.” I’m the One. And she believed, and the whole village of Sychar believed.
The Samaritan woman’s conversion was last week’s — Year A’s — reading for the Third Sunday in Lent in 2023: John 4:5-42 (parts 1 and 2).
The man replied to Jesus saying, ‘Lord, I believe’, and he worshipped Him (verse 38).
MacArthur looks at the title the man uses here:
And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And now, Lord gets an upper-case. It’s Kyrie in the upper-case. He’s gone from sir, to the Lord of lords.
This is Lord in its fullest and most lofty and elevated sense. Lord, I believe. And even though the word is the same, there’s a huge difference. When he says “Lord” in verse 36, he’s asking a question. Who do I believe in? Now, he believes, and he says “Lord” in a completely different sense because he immediately does what? Worships.
How do you know when spiritual sight comes to someone? Well, it’s initiated by God, the heart is prepared, the heart opens up to accept the truth and confesses Jesus as Lord. It’s just an astounding and marvelous miracle, like the miracle of physical sight.
MacArthur recaps the episodes in Christ’s ministry that John has given us thus far:
We’re starting to accumulate a little roll call here of believers, aren’t we? Back when we began the gospel of John, it was Peter and Andrew, and Philip and Nathaniel. And then, Nicodemus showed up, and maybe not a believer yet, but he’s on the way. And eventually becomes a believer, shows up in the burial of our Lord. But as of now, we’d have to limit it to Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, and then that Samaritan woman in chapter 4, and then the folks from the village of Sychar. And then some true disciples in chapter 6. And now we can add the blind man to our little roll call of true believers. Every one of them is a divine and supernatural miracle.
Interestingly, Year A (2023) has had some of these Gospel readings. I gave you the one of the Samaritan woman a few paragraphs ago. Peter, Andrew and John’s conversion was the reading for the Second Sunday after Epiphany (John 1:19-42). Nicodemus’s story was the one for the Second Sunday in Lent (John 3:1-17).
I love serendipity, especially when it involves the Bible. We can really make proper connections then.
Our Lord’s discourse with the man concludes at this point. Henry says:
None but God is to be worshipped; so that in worshipping Jesus he owned him to be God. Note, True faith will show itself in a humble adoration of the Lord Jesus. Those who believe in him will see all the reason in the world to worship him. We never read any more of this man; but, it is very likely, from henceforth he became a constant follower of Christ.
Jesus then directed His thoughts elsewhere, saying that He came into this world for judgement, so that those who do not see may see and those who do see may become blind (verse 39).
He spoke of the Pharisees in the second half of the verse. They were wilfully blind to Him.
MacArthur says:
Obviously a play on words on this whole concept of blindness, which is, as I said, is all over the Scripture. When Jesus sees this man worshiping Him, He compares this humble, confiding, trusting, believing heart of the beggar with the hostile, stubborn hatred of the Pharisees. And He admits: this is how it’s going to be in my coming. Even though the Son of Man is come to seek and to save the lost, even though He doesn’t come for judgment, as He says in John 3, He didn’t come to judge the world but to save the world.
MacArthur reminds us that Simeon prophesied similarly when the infant Jesus was presented at the temple 40 days after His birth (Luke 2:22-32 and Luke 2:33-40). We remember this day on February 2, the feast of Candlemas:
34And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed 35(and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
MacArthur tells us that salvation becomes division:
… even though He came in His incarnation to save, His salvation in itself becomes a dividing reality. There is a judgment bound up in it. Like Simeon said, “This child is for the rising and the falling of many.” He’s the divider. This is not final judgment. This is a kind of immediate judgment that happens at the point at which the gospel is introduced, at which Christ is introduced. There is a dividing that takes place between the believer and the unbeliever. Yes, He didn’t come to judge in the sense of final judgment. He came to save. He came to be humbled, and go to the cross, and rise from the dead to save. But even that is a judgment rendered. In fact, in John 3, He says, “If you reject Him, you judge yourself.” You judge yourself. You’re already judged. If a person sees in Jesus who died on the cross for salvation, nothing desirable, nothing that that person wants, that is a judgment on that person. That’s a self-condemnation.
If a sinner sees in Jesus nothing to desire, nothing to long for, nothing to want, nothing to put trust in, that’s a self-condemnation. That’s the Pharisees. They didn’t need anything. They could see clearly. They saw it all. They knew God. They knew the truth. They knew that Jesus was a vile sinner, a satanic, demonic, insane man. Because they thought they see, they are totally blind. So that’s the point of verse 39.
Some of the Pharisees heard Jesus and said to him (verse 40), ‘Surely we are not blind, are we?’
Whether they scoffed at Jesus or scorned Him, they resented His words.
Henry rewords the text to give it fuller meaning:
“Now,” say they, “we know that the common people are blind; but are we blind also? What we? The rabbin, the doctors, the learned in the laws, the graduates in the schools, are we blind too?” This is scandalum magnatum—a libel on the great. Note, Frequently those that need reproof most, and deserve it best, though they have wit enough to discern a tacit one, have not grace enough to bear a just one. These Pharisees took this reproof for a reproach, as those lawyers (Luke 11 45): “Are we blind also? Darest thou say that we are blind, whose judgment every one has such a veneration for, values, and yields to?” Note, Nothing fortifies men’s corrupt hearts more against the convictions of the word, nor more effectually repels them, than the good opinion, especially if it be a high opinion, which others have of them; as if all that had gained applause with men must needs obtain acceptance with God, than which nothing is more false and deceitful, for God sees not as man sees.
MacArthur tells us about spiritual blindness:
The first thing then, about spiritual blindness is: spiritual blindness brings judgment. Spiritual blindness brings judgment. Tragic. Judgment. Now, and in the future. Spiritual blindness, secondly, is stubborn, verse 40. “Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, ‘We’re not blind too, are we?’“ Again, speaking metaphorically, they refused to admit their blindness. We’re not blind in the sense that, they say this with disdain, and arrogance, and scorn. You’re not saying we, the most learned, erudite, righteous, holy, virtuous, representatives of God, you’re not saying we’re blind, are You? Well, that’s exactly what He was saying. This man was spiritually blind, but now he can see, spiritually. You think you can see spiritually, which simply demonstrates that you are spiritually blind. Blindness, the idea of spiritual blindness to them is a joke.
Jesus replied, saying that, if they were blind, they would not have sin; however, now that they say they see, their sin remains (verse 41).
Henry explains:
This very thing which they gloried in, Christ here tells them, was their shame and ruin. For,
1. If you were blind, you would have no sin. (1.) “If you had been really ignorant, your sin had not been so deeply aggravated, nor would you have had so much sin to answer for as now you have. If you were blind, as the poor Gentiles are, and many of your own poor subjects, from whom you have taken the key of knowledge, you would have had comparatively no sin.” The times of ignorance God winked at; invincible ignorance, though it does not justify sin, excuses it, and lessens the guilt. It will be more tolerable with those that perish for lack of vision than with those that rebel against the light. (2.) “If you had been sensible of your own blindness, if when you would see nothing else you could have seen the need of one to lead you, you would soon have accepted Christ as your guide, and then you would have had no sin, you would have submitted to an evangelical righteousness, and have been put into a justified state.” Note, Those that are convinced of their disease are in a fair way to be cured, for there is not a greater hindrance to the salvation of souls than self-sufficiency.
2. “But now you say, We see; now that you have knowledge, and are instructed out of the law, your sin is highly aggravated; and now that you have a conceit of that knowledge, and think you see your way better than any body can show it you, therefore your sin remains, your case is desperate, and your disease incurable.” And as those are most blind who will not see, so their blindness is most dangerous who fancy they do see. No patients are so hardly managed as those in a frenzy who say that they are well, and nothing ails them. The sin of those who are self-conceited and self-confident remains, for they reject the gospel of grace, and therefore the guilt of their sin remains unpardoned; and they forfeit the Spirit of grace, and therefore the power of their sin remains unbroken. Seest thou a wise man in his own conceit? Hearest thou the Pharisees say, We see? There is more hope of a fool, of a publican and a harlot, than of such.
MacArthur contrasts the way Jesus uses blindness in verse 40 with verse 41:
This is continuing this little play on words on the notion of blindness. But Jesus is using the term in a completely different way. In verse 40, you are blind. You are blind, in the sense that you don’t see your sin. You are blind. You are blind. But in verse 41, you’re not blind. How do you do that? You’re not blind. “If you were blind, you would have no sin.” What does that mean? You are not blind as to the truth. If you were blind to the truth, if you had no knowledge of the truth, no revelation of the truth, if you didn’t have the Scripture, didn’t have the Old Testament, the law, all the prophets and holy writings, didn’t have Me, didn’t have all the demonstration of who I am, your sin would not be so severe. This would be like the times of the past when God overlooked people’s sin because the revelation was incomplete. There’s less punishment, a less severe judgment falls on those who have no knowledge. But you’re not blind. You are blind in the sense that you don’t see your own sin. You are not blind in the sense that you have been exposed to the truth. You have the law, the prophets, the covenants, everything. The promises, the Old Testament. You’ve had Me. You’ve heard My words. You’ve seen the miracles. You have no excuse. Yes, blind to your own sin; no, not blind to the truth.
Spiritual blindness then, receives judgment, refuses to admit its blindness, rejects the offer of light and sight when it’s given, such as they had received. Finally, results in doom, end of verse 41. “But since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”
You’re doomed. You are accepting the condition you’re in, of spiritual blindness, as spiritual sight. You are doomed. You are hopeless. If you think you can see, you’re doomed. Amazing play on words. Your sin remains. Finality. So, the light shines in the darkness. The darkness cannot extinguish it. The darkness cannot put it out, but the darkness rejects it. Came to His own, His own received Him not. He’s in the world. The world was made by Him. The world knew Him not.
They are the religious elite. They are in the darkness. And a blind beggar, who’s a total outcast, sees physically; more importantly, sees spiritually.
MacArthur gives us something to consider as we contrast the blind beggar with the Pharisees:
How do you know when someone’s a believer? Because he becomes a what? Worshiper. How do you know you’re Christian? Not because you prayed a prayer. Not because you asked the Lord to do something for you. Not because you got emotionally moved in a meeting and felt sentimental about Jesus. How do you know you’re a believer? How do you know you’ve been transformed? Because you have become a worshiper, a worshiper. That’s why I said to you earlier: this narcissistic, sentimental, self-centered approach to the gospel creates an endless dependency that the system that offered originally the answer to what everybody wants keep giving that person what that person wants. It’s relentless. How do you turn that person into one who is a totally selfless worshiper?
This man falls on his knees in adoration. The opposite, back in verse 59 of chapter 8, when Jesus declared who He was to the Pharisees, they picked up stones to stone Him. That’s what spiritual blindness produces. This is what spiritual sight produces. So, if you’re asking the question: how do I know if I’m saved? Ask yourself if you love Christ, if you love God, if you love the Holy Spirit, if you desire to be obedient, if you desire to honor, to please the Lord, if you’re a worshiper. We were talking in the elder’s meeting the other night about some few people who don’t come to church, and when we contact them, they give all kinds of kind of lame, well, you know, I’ve got other things, and so and so bothers me, and blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is: those people, very likely, aren’t believers, because believers worship. That’s the priority of their life. And I’m not saying that the only place you worship is in the collective assembly of the church. That’s not. But this is what lifts you up and strengthens you and encourages you for the rest of those hours when you worship as an independent person. This is critical. This fulfills the longing of our heart, to honor the Lord, to hear from the Lord, to exalt the Lord, to praise the Lord. Worshipers.
May all reading this (far!) have a blessed day.
Forbidden Bible Verses returns tomorrow
The Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity — the Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost — is October 24, 2021.
Readings for Year B can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
Mark 10:46-52
10:46 They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.
10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
10:48 Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
10:49 Jesus stood still and said, “Call him here.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart; get up, he is calling you.”
10:50 So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus.
10:51 Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man said to him, “My teacher, let me see again.”
10:52 Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
We pick up where we left off last week. Last week’s reading was about James and John requesting they sit next to him in Heaven, insisting they could drink our Lord’s cup (God’s wrath) and take on His baptism (severe trial). Jesus granted their request of the cup and baptism. They ended up martyred. St James the Great was beheaded and St John suffered a slow death in exile on Patmos.
Today’s reading involves another request, but, in contrast to that of James and John, a very humble one made in faith.
Jesus had finished His ministry in Peraea. He and the disciples were now in Jericho, on their way to Jerusalem for Passover.
John MacArthur sets the scene for us and describes the beauty of Jericho:
Jesus had been ministering in Perea, which is a region east of the Jordan and down in the south. And He would keep moving down in Perea, eventually would cross the Jordan, just north of the Dead Sea. And the first town He would come to of any note would be Jericho. And from Jericho it is a direct ascent right up the hill to Jerusalem. “They came to Jericho.”
A great crowd is with Him; that is indicated to us here in the text. They are following along a large crowd. Matthew tells us the same thing: a large crowd, a great multitude. And it’s a combination of people who are following Jesus because they know about Him; and just the mass of humanity flowing down to the south to ascend to Jerusalem because they want to be there for the Passover. Many of them would cross the Jordan to go to the east, and cross the Jordan back again to avoid Samaria.
Our Lord has concluded a brief preaching, teaching, healing mission in Perea, and now crosses over the Jordan, probably by some kind of a ferry or a raft. The river would have been swollen at this time of the year, Passover is springtime, and the snow would have melted high in the mountains of Lebanon and filled up that lake of Galilee, and it would have overflowed down the Jordan River, and they would have crossed. They came to the city of Jericho known as the city of palms, city of Palms – about a six-hour walk straight up to Jerusalem.
Well-known in New Testament times, well-known, formidable place, a city fed by springs, had a lot of water even though its desert. Plenty of water piped in if there wasn’t enough there in the springs. They piped enough in to irrigate that place and to turn that place into a garden. It had a large population because of the availability of water. It was filled, they tell us – historians do – that it was filled with palm trees, it was filled with fruit trees of every kind. It was home to a bush known as the balsam bush that supplied juice that was used as a medicine and found only there.
The climate was warm, obviously. Josephus says linen clothes were warn even when there was snow in Jerusalem. Mark tells us that it was not yet the season for figs in the eleventh chapter, verse 13, in Jerusalem, but it would have been the season for figs ripening already in Jericho. Almonds flourished there, we are told, and rose plants. It was really a garden, the city given by Marc Antony to Cleopatra, according to Josephus, in the place where Herod built a fort and a palace in which he finally died. So it was a magnificent place.
But it’s not just the Jericho of the New Testament that we know about, the Jericho of the Old Testament is pretty famous, isn’t it? We all know the story recorded for us in Joshua chapter 6 about the destruction of Jericho when the walls came falling down, when the Israelites marched around it for seven days. It had a well-known history to the Jews. It had recovered from those darker days and was a flourishing, flourishing place. So in verse 46 they came to Jericho.
Now, Mark says He was leaving Jericho, Luke says He was approaching Jericho. That’s quite interesting. Matthew says He was going out of Jericho. What’s going on here? Well, the best way to understand that is that those references can be taken to mean He was in the general vicinity of Jericho. He was going in and out of Jericho because He was not intending to stay very long, although He did stay long enough to spend an evening and a night in the house of Zacchaeus the tax collector to whom He brought salvation. Whether He was at this point coming in before the incident with Zacchaeus or going out after the incident with Zacchaeus, one can’t be dogmatic about. But safe to say, in any case, it is in the vicinity of Jericho where this happens. And that place would have been a buzz, filled with all kinds of sites and sounds and smells, even memories for Jesus, because very near Jericho was an area called “the devastation,” the devastation, the very place where our Lord had been taken by the Holy Spirit to be tempted by the devil.
Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, was a blind beggar sitting by the roadside (verse 46).
This story features in the three synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. The account in Matthew 20 mentions two blind men. Luke 18 and Mark 10 only feature one.
Mark is the only account to name the man.
Matthew Henry’s commentary says that some scholars believe his father’s name is included because he, too, was blind. As was usual in Christ’s miracles, there was also a spiritual element in the cure:
This one is named here, being a blind beggar that was much talked of; he was called Bartimeus, that is, the son of Timeus; which, some think, signifies the son of a blind man; he was the blind son of a blind father, which made the case worse, and the cure more wonderful, and the more proper to typify the spiritual cures wrought by the grace of Christ, on those that not only are born blind, but are born of those that are blind.
The Jews viewed physical infirmity as a divine curse, so when Bartimaeus called out to Jesus, ‘the Son of David’, to have mercy on him (verse 47), the crowd sternly ordered him to be quiet. Yet, he yelled out all the more loudly (verse 48).
MacArthur says Bartimaeus would have been the lowest of the low:
He’s at the bottom, by the way, socially, obviously below the peasants. Below the unclean and degraded sinners are the cursed. He’s just a hair above a tax collector.
MacArthur explains the Greek words in the original text:
When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, which is what they said, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, son of David.” He began to scream. Mark uses the verb krazō, “to shout.” It’s a very strong word. It is used in Mark 5 to speak of insane epileptics, demon-possessed people. It’s used also in the Scripture to speak of – Revelation 12 – birth pain and the screaming of a woman; strong. He begins to scream in anguish and desperation, and he doesn’t say, “Jesus of Nazareth,” he says, “Jesus, son of David.”
Bartimaeus uses the messianic title for Jesus:
Son of David; that is a messianic title, and he knew exactly what it was. The Messiah was to be the heir of David’s throne, according to 2 Samuel chapter 7. The Messiah would receive the kingdom that had been promised to a son of David. David’s greater son would be the King who would bring the fulfillment of all the promises both to David and to Abraham. This was the most common Jewish title for the Messiah: son of David, son of David, son of David.
That is why you have the genealogy in Matthew 1 of Joseph that shows He comes from the family of David. That is why you have the genealogy of Mary in Luke to show that she comes from the line of David. Both His earthly father and His true mother were in the line of David. He is truly a son of David.
Jesus stood still and asked the crowd to call Bartimaeus to Him. Their mood changed as they encouraged him to take heart — ‘take courage’ in the older translations is even better — and approach Jesus (verse 49).
MacArthur points out our Lord’s rebuke to the crowd and their change in mood:
… this is such a rebuke, such a rebuke to religion, elite religiosity, that the Lord saves the scum …
Verse 49: “And Jesus stopped.” And I just need to say, if you see anything through all the years of studying the Gospels, you see the compassion of God toward people, demonstrated in Jesus Christ, compassionate at every turn. He stopped and He said, “Call him here. Call him here. Don’t silence him; call him here, bring him to Me.”
In fact, Luke 18:40 puts it this way: “He commanded that he be brought to Him.” He commanded it. “And so, they called the blind man,” – in verse 49 – “and they said to him, ‘Take courage, stand up! He’s calling for you.’” Now all of a sudden they change their tune. Jesus’ response to the man changes their attitude for the moment. Their curiosity drives them to let this thing happen and see what could be made of it. Maybe they’ll see another miracle.
Bartimaeus threw off his cloak and ‘sprang’ to Jesus (verse 50).
MacArthur says:
Somebody had to bring him obviously.
Jesus asked what He could do for Bartimaeus. It was the same question he asked James and John. Instead of responding with pride and ambition as they did, Bartimaeus addressed Jesus humbly as ‘my Teacher’ and asked to be able to see once again (verse 51).
MacArthur elaborates on this call for divine mercy, both physically and spiritually:
So here is a man who recognizes Jesus as the true Messiah; and here is a man who knows what he needs, and it is mercy, it is mercy. And while this is a typical cry of afflicted people, certainly it’s a true and pure cry of this man from the heart: “Pity me.” He’s not deserving of anything and he knows it. He would have understood the theology of his people as well and thought himself cursed by God because he was blind. He knows he needs mercy, he knows he is a sinner; his blindness aids him in facing that.
Note that Jesus tells Bartimaeus that his faith has made him well. With that He healed the man, who regained his sight and followed our Lord on His way (verse 52).
MacArthur explains:
This man only wants mercy. Unlike James and John who thought they needed elevation, this man knows he deserves nothing. He’s not laying claim on anything. Mercy means to give what people don’t deserve. And he said, the blind man did, “Rabboni,” which means, “Master,” Master. And according to Luke 18 he also said, “Lord, Master, Lord.” Wow, now this theology is starting to fill out here, “Lord and Master,” and he uses a form of the word kurios. He recognizes him as his Master and his Lord; and yet Jesus is taking the role of a servant and a slave. “What can I do for you?” I mean, compassion and sympathy and lowliness and tenderness and kindness and affection and grace and mercy, the King does what the beggar asks him to do.
“What do you want?” “Rabboni, I want to regain my sight. I want to regain my sight.” According to Matthew’s account, Jesus then reached over and touched his eyes. And according to Luke 18:42, He said, “Receive your sight.” He so often healed with a touch, didn’t He? He touched him and said, “Receive your sight.”
What happened? Verse 52: “Go; your faith has made you well. Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.” This really is a model of a conversion pre-cross, a model of a conversion pre-cross. Do you think there was any doubt in his mind that this was his Lord? No. His Master? No. His Messiah? No. That he was a sinner? No. That he needed mercy? No. There was no doubt in his mind that here was the dispenser of mercy needed by this desperate man.
This then is more than a healing, my friend, more than a healing. When Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well,” He uses a verb sōzō, from which we get “saved.” It means “to save.” “Your faith has saved you.”
There is a word strictly referring to healing, iaomai. That’s not the word here. It’s the word sōzō, “Your faith has saved you.” And we know that that encompasses the healing, but also the salvation. The healing is indicated, “and he regained his sight,” and the salvation is indicated in, “he began following Him on the road.”
The evidence of the healing was obvious, “He saw,” 20/20 instantaneously. The evidence of salvation was, “following Him.” He had received mercy; and he gives the sign of a true conversion: “He followed.” By the way, Matthew focuses on the two of them, and it says, “They followed.” And so his friend followed also. So he was there when he got to the top of the hill.
MacArthur speculates on what happened next, saying that Bartimaeus could well have been at the first Pentecost. Perhaps that is why Mark wrote of him by name:
You know, there must have been a – there must have been a literally stunning experience going on in his mind as he comes out of his blindness into sight and out of his sin into salvation, and walks with Jesus to the triumphal entry. And he’s there through the week, and he’s there after the resurrection. And very likely he’s there in the church; and that’s why he’s named, and that’s why his story is told. Who knows? My guess is he was one of the hundred and twenty in the upper room at Pentecost; a lifetime of being an outcast, and now he’s on the inside.
MacArthur reminds us that this was the last of our Lord’s creative — healing — miracles. Conversions are the remaining spiritual events with Zacchaeus, the criminal at the Crucifixion and the centurion who saw Jesus die:
… in Jericho two wonderful salvation stories take place. Two stories that stand in stark contrast to national rejection in bleak contrast to the unbelief and hatred of the leaders and the people, two. Two prodigals, you might say, come home; two lost souls are found; two darkened minds are enlightened; two sinners are saved; two outcasts are reconciled. One is the story of the blind, the other is the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector; for he too encountered Jesus in Jericho, and that is recorded for us in Luke 19, verses 1 to 10. Mark doesn’t tell us that story, but it is Zacchaeus and Bartimaeus who are the last two trophies of sovereign, saving grace until the cross; and then there is a thief and a centurion.
It’s an illustration, isn’t it, and a reminder of what our Lord said about the narrow gate; and few there be that find it. And it is also remarkably an indication of the fact that there are not many noble, not many mighty; but it’s the poor and the outcasts and the nobodies and the nothings. All four of them fit into that category: a blind beggar, a tax collector, a thief, and a despised Roman. These are the only shining moments. It’s as if they make an exclamation point on the divine rejection of the Jews. The hypocritical hoopla that will occur when He comes into the city is just that, superficial and hypocritical. We really need to cherish these stories of conversion before the cross, and even the two at the cross.
MacArthur concludes with a practical application for us:
So many lessons here. You see the Lord’s profound compassion. You see that He never ignores the cry of a true heart of repentance; and desperate sinners who know they’re worthy of nothing will always gain a hearing with Him. You learn again what we’ve seen all through His ministry, that He has the power to heal disease. But far more importantly, He has the power to save sinners, turn them into obedient followers who live lives of true worship.
That’s why we’re here tonight, because we have been approached by Jesus somewhere along the road in our lives. In our blindness, in our desperation He passed by, and our hearts were awakened, and we cried out, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” And He heard our cry, didn’t He? And all of this is possible because He went all the way to Jerusalem, all the way to the cross, and out the other side of the open tomb.
May everyone reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
Jesus Heals Two Blind Men
27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” 29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.” 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, “See that no one knows about it.” 31 But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
—————————————————————————————————
This healing — creative — miracle took place after Jesus raised Jairus’s daughter from the dead. ‘There’ in verse 27 refers to his house.
Jairus was the ruler of the synagogue in Capernaum, so Jesus would have been on His way to retire for the evening. We do not know where the house in verse 28 was, but it is possible that it was Peter’s home, as Bible scholars say that Jesus stayed there often.
The two blind men had been following Him. No doubt there were crowds around Him, too, as John MacArthur says (emphases mine):
He has two crowds, really: the crowd that’s been following Him all along, the crowd that pushed their way through the little narrow streets of Capernaum all the way to the house of Jairus, the crowd that was there when he healed the woman with the issue of blood, the crowd that is looking for His miracles, that is fascinated by Him. And now another crowd has been added; and that’s the crowd of mourners and paid musicians, flute players, and weeping women who were holding the funeral service for the daughter. The funeral was broken up when He raised her from the dead. And now He has this whole collection of humanity; and He moves from that place back toward the house in which He was staying; and as He does, the story unfolds.
The two blind men were persistent, to the point of boldly following Him into the house. He was not about to heal them in public and even told them to keep quiet about the restoration of their sight (verse 30).
However, our two commentaries tell us that Jesus wanted to test their faith before He performed the miracle.
No doubt He could hear their crying, which was actually shrieking. MacArthur explains:
It is a word that has a broad range of possible interpretation, but the word basically means to yell or to scream or to shriek; and in the Gospels it is used of an insane person who is just screaming and shrieking unintelligible babbling. It is used of an epileptic. It is used in Mark 5 of the maniac of Gadara who was demon-possessed and was screaming and shrieking and yelling. It is used in Mark 15 of our Lord on the cross; and it says, “He cried out and gave up His Spirit.” It is used in Revelation 12:2 of a woman who is screaming the pains of childbirth. It is a word that doesn’t necessarily have to refer to intelligent speech, intelligent verbalization. It may be the unintelligible crying in, in agony that we see in those illustrations.
They were desperate. Their blindness had broken them in the biblical sense. They wanted healing. They needed relief. MacArthur continues:
And it interests me that it says they were not only shrieking and screaming and crying, but they were, interspersed with that, actually saying some intelligible things, such as, “Son of David, have mercy on us!” But it wasn’t a, a calculated, cold, pedantic, academic kind of thing. They were crying out in agony and desperation and deep need and shrieking, pleading, begging. That is the desperation of which regeneration is made.
They called Him ‘Son of David’, which was the universal Jewish way of referring to the Messiah.
He asked them whether they believed He could restore their sight (verse 28). They answered in the affirmative, calling Him ‘Lord’.
He healed them simply by touching their eyes and saying (verse 30):
According to your faith be it done to you.
He would have known they believed in Him and wanted to increase their faith, new and imperfect as it was. Matthew Henry says:
They followed Christ, and followed him crying, but the great question is, Do ye believe? Nature may work fervency, but it is only grace that can work faith spiritual blessings are obtained only by faith. They had intimated their faith in the office of Christ as Son of David, and in his mercy but Christ demands likewise a profession of faith in his power. Believe ye that I am able to do this to bestow this favour to give sight to the blind, as well as to cure the palsy and raise the dead? Note, It is good to be particular in the exercise of faith, to apply the general assurances of God’s power and good will, and the general promises, to our particular exigencies. All shall work for good, and if all, then this. “Believe ye that I am able, not only to prevail with God for it, as a prophet, but that I am able to do it by my own power?” This will amount to their belief of his being not only the Son of David, but the Son of God for it is God’s prerogative to open the eyes of the blind (Psalm 146:8) he makes the seeing eye, Exodus 4:11 …
Note, The treasures of mercy that are laid up in the power of Christ, are laid out and wrought for those that trust in him, Psalm 31:19.
As soon as Jesus touched their eyes, they were able to see fully (verse 30).
At that point, Jesus told them not to say anything about the miracle, even though they did (verse 31).
There were several reasons for this but part of it was because our Lord knew they would be zealous about their healing. Henry tells us:
This was more an act of zeal, than of prudence and though it may be excused as honestly meant for the honour of Christ, yet it cannot be justified, being done against a particular charge. Whenever we profess to direct our intention to the glory of God, we must see to it that the action be according to the will of God.
There were other reasons for Jesus’s request for silence, despite His many miracles recorded thus far in Matthew’s Gospel. It could be that silence was intended against the people of Capernaum, where our Lord based Himself. They knew and saw these miracles, yet did not believe. Another possibility was that the more miracles the people knew about, the further the ire among the Jewish leaders who feared He was becoming more popular than they. He also wanted to guard against an idea among the people that He would be a temporal Messiah.
Ultimately, what we learn from this miracle, that of Jairus’s daughter and the woman with the 12-year blood flow, is that they approached Jesus in their brokenness and desperation. In the case of the blind men, they had not only a physical disability but a spiritual one. They were given faith that they might believe. In their faith, Jesus healed them.
Today, with all its atheism and unbelief, this miracle has relevance with regard to personal desperation and need for redemption. As in Jesus’s time, the self-sufficient and self-righteous do not think they need His saving grace and ultimate sacrifice on the Cross. MacArthur explains:
You never find the self-sufficient people. You never find the people who think they have the resources. You never find the people who don’t really have any questions. I talked to a man this week, and I said to him, “You, I can introduce you to Christ. I can talk to you about Christ. I can tell you about Christ if you really want to know.” He said, “I don’t want to know. I don’t have any need for that.” The thing to do in that situation is pray that God’ll bring him to the place where he has a desperate need, because it’s only desperate people who come.
It’s useful knowing where blindness featured as a disability in our Lord’s era. MacArthur says that congenital blindness was common not only in Israel but other nations in the region. Much of it — though not all — was caused by gonorrhoea, difficult to detect in women:
In fact, the gospel records include more healings of blind people than any other type of healing. That may indicate its commonness. Poverty and the unsanitary conditions that went with it, brilliant sunlight, excessive heat, blowing sand, accidents, war, infectious organisms. All of those things contributed to blindness. Many of the people were blind from birth; and, very commonly, their blindness from birth was caused by a form of gonorrhea. Sometimes it was not even known to be existing in the mother; and, yet, when the little baby passed from the uterus down, those particular germs that lodged in that mother’s womb would find their lodging in the conjunctiva of the eye; and, as they did, they would begin to multiply; and within only three days, the child would be permanently blind. That is why, today, antiseptic drops are put in the eyes of a newborn baby; and for all intents and purposes, we have eliminated that problem.
Because of the link between venereal disease and blindness, the Jews connected it with parental sin that had been passed on to the child:
That may also have been what was in the mind of the question on the heart of the disciples in John 9:2, when they saw the man born blind and they said, “Who sinned? Did this man or his parents?” There may have been a theology in that question, but there also may have been a little bit of medicine in that question, or a little bit of the physical. They may have been saying, “Is he blind because of his parents’ sin?” Because very often venereal disease contracted in a sinful situation was the cause of a child’s blindness. So that was a common thing for people born blind. There were also infective organisms and viruses that were the common cause of trachoma. Sulfa drugs have pretty well eliminated that nowadays. But all of these things created the problem of blindness, and it seemed to be a, a major problem, and blind people hung around together. It was not uncommon to see a couple of blind people hanging onto each other; and, thus, did our Lord say to the Pharisees on one occasion, “You’re like the blind leading the blind. You both fall in the ditch.”
In closing, a thought on faith. MacArthur cites Richard Chevenix Trench, a devout Anglican of the Victorian Era. Trench served as Dean of Westminster Abbey and as the Archbishop of Dublin. He said:
The faith which, in itself, is nothing is yet the organ for receiving everything. It is the conducting link between man’s emptiness and God’s fullness; and herein lies all the value faith has. Faith is the bucket let down into the fountain of God’s grace without which the man could never draw water of life from the wells of salvation. For the wells are deep and, of himself, man has nothing to draw with. Faith is the purse which cannot of itself make its owner rich, and yet effectually enriches by the wealth which it contains.
May we remember this as we go about our daily responsibilities this week.
Next time: Matthew 9:32-34
In response to my post ‘Lifting the lid off the piano’, one of my readers Michael J McFadden, author of Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains and Tobacconacht – The Antismoking Endgame, asked:
We’re all familiar with Beethoven’s hearing problems, but has there ever been a famous composer who didn’t physically know how or was incapable of playing the piano themselves?
A great question.
There are many classical composers who are considered to be ‘disabled’ through depression or addiction. However, for the purposes of this post, disability is considered on the basis of incapability or difficulty of playing a piano or other instrument.
Gustav Holst
Gustavus Holst was born in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, on September 21, 1874. His father Adolph von Holst was a renowned pianist and his mother Clara was a student of his with whom he fell in love and married. Clara died when Gustavus was eight years old.
Gustav Holst is best known for his magnificent orchestral composition, The Planets, still very popular in Britain today. He wrote it in 1914.
Young Gustavus was a sickly child. His eyesight and chest functions were weak. He also suffered from neuritis, which affected his learning the piano and other musical instruments. His hands were shaky. This prevented him from playing an instrument for any length of time. As a result, he was unable to attend a prestigious conservatory for further training.
However, he did not let his disability overcome his love of music. He persevered and, when he was 17 years old:
He was appointed to play organ and act as a choirmaster at Wyck Rissington. He gave his first official performance with his father at a concert where he played the role of the pianist. The audience of that show called him Gustav which he opted [for] instead of his original name “Gustavus”.
In 1893, he was able to enter the Royal College of Music, with financial help from his father. His first job after graduating in 1898 was with the Carl Rosa Opera Company where he coached and played piano during rehearsals.
In 1900, he wrote a symphony performed to great acclaim in 1902. He married Emily Harrison in 1901. He decided to teach music. After a period spent at a school in south London, the well-known St Paul’s Girls School appointed him Director of Music. He worked there until his death in 1934 of a duodenal ulcer. His funeral was held at Chichester Cathedral on the south coast. Composer Vaughan Williams played Holst’s music during the service.
Holst’s other compositions include:
First Suite in E-flat for Military Band, Second Suite in F for Military Band, I vow to thee, My Country, St. Paul’s Suite, In the Bleak Midwinter, A Choral Fantasia, Two Eastern Pictures, The Wandering Scholar, First Choral Symphony, Ave Maria, A Moorside Suite, In Youth is Pleasure, The Magician and Hammersmith among others.
I vow to thee, My Country and In the Bleak Midwinter are popular hymns to this day.
Today, Holst is still considered as one of England’s greatest composers.
Jean ‘Django’ Reinhardt
The late Belgian guitarist Jean ‘Django’ Reinhardt (1910 – 1953) also had a hand disability.
He suffered burns to his left hand in a fire, which paralysed his fourth and fifth fingers.
Like Holst, he refused to allow this disability to affect his love of music. He played chords with the index and middle fingers only. This resulted in a new style of music, sometimes called ‘hot jazz’, which attracted the attention of Duke Ellington, with whom he toured in 1946, and Stéphane Grappelli among others.
Whilst Reinhardt was a jazz musician, he is worth including because of his perseverance in overcoming disability. The fire also left his right leg paralysed. Doctors wanted to amputate it, but Reinhardt refused. Within a year he was able to get around with the help of a walking stick.
Allan Pettersson
The late Swedish composer Allan Petterson contracted rheumatoid arthritis in the 1950s.
By 1968, he was housebound. He remained at home until his death in 1980.
Despite severe arthritic pain — and unfriendly neighbours — he continued composing prolifically:
he composed 15 large-scale symphonies which are among the most powerful of the 20th century, along with several imposing concertos of comparable length.
Incredible!
Maurice Ravel
In the midst of a stunning career French composer and arranger Maurice Ravel began experiencing problems with speech, hand co-ordination and memory.
No one is sure what the condition was. Some suggest Ravel had Pick’s Disease. Others say aphasia.
The symptoms began in 1927, much to Ravel’s distress as well as that of his fellow musicians, family and friends. His contemporary, Igor Stravinsky, said:
His final years were cruel, for he was gradually losing his memory and some of his coordinating powers, and he was, of course, quite aware of it.
In 1932, Ravel suffered severe head injuries in a collision. He was a passenger in a taxi.
It is thought that the injuries exacerbated the disorder he already had. With the help of transcribers, he wrote his last piece in 1933, the score for the film Don Quixote.
By 1937, Ravel was in great pain, though socially active. He sought expert help from one of France’s foremost neurosurgeons who operated on him. The surgery appeared to be successful, but within a short period of time, Ravel lapsed into a coma and died in December of that year.
Charles John Stanley
The English composer and musician Charles John Stanley (he later went by ‘John’), lived between 1712 and 1786 and was nearly blind for most of his life.
At the age of two, he struck his head on a marble hearth whilst carrying a china basin.
Despite this, Stanley began studying music at the age of seven. As well as playing the organ and harpsichord he was also an accomplished violinist.
By the age of nine, he was an occasional organist at the Church of All Hallows Bread Street in London. When their regular organist died, the church officials appointed him head organist; Stanley was 11 years old.
At the age of 14, he was appointed head organist at St Andrew’s, Holborn. At 17, he became the youngest person to earn a Bachelor of Music degree from Oxford University.
Persistence and hard work — despite near-blindness — paid off from Stanley’s childhood!
In 1734, he became the organist for the Society of the Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court. He held this appointment until he died in 1786. His assignment also included playing the organ at Temple Church, where he met George Frideric Handel, who used to hear Stanley play frequently. He later directed Handel’s Oratorios, committing them to memory first.
Stanley wrote several compositions, which he played at well-attended venues such as Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, Covent Garden and the Drury Lane Theatre.
In 1734, he married Sarah Arlond, whose father was a captain of the East India Company. Sarah’s sister Ann transcribed Stanley’s compositions.
Stanley had an active social life with many influential friends. Amazingly, he was also an avid card player!
George Frideric Handel
George Frideric Handel (1685-1759) is probably best known for his Messiah and Water Music.
In Britain, we also know his Zadok the Priest which he wrote for George II’s coronation in 1727. It has been part of our coronation services ever since.
This is the best recording I have heard, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to present this in a proper context rather than giving it a gratuitous mention, tempting though that is:
In Britain — including Ireland, then under British rule — Handel was also famous for giving many charity concerts.
In August 1750, Handel was returning to England from a visit to his native Germany. He was a passenger in a carriage involved in a serious accident somewhere between the Hague and Haarlem in the Netherlands. The following year, he had lost some of his sight in one eye. A London surgeon operated on him, but the procedure seem to worsen his eyesight.
It was during this time that John Stanley (see above) took over directing Handel’s music at concerts.
Handel died in Brook Street in central London in 1759 at the age of 74. He lies buried in Westminster Abbey.
Johann Sebastian Bach
Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) needs little introduction.
This Baroque composer came from a family of musicians and is one of the greatest of all time.
He spent his entire life in Germany. Most of his appointments were to Lutheran churches. His last major work was Mass in B Minor which he wrote between 1748 and 1749.
That was fortuitous, because in 1749, his health began to decline. Bach began to lose his eyesight. A British eye surgeon travelled to Leipzig to operate on him early in 1750, but the great composer died in July of that year, aged 65. Although the cause of death was stroke and pneumonia, a newspaper at the time noted:
the unhappy consequences of the very unsuccessful eye operation
as the true cause.
After his death, Bach’s music went out of fashion for a time. Some of his family members who were bequeathed his unpublished compositions fell on hard times and had to sell them. The unhappy result was that over 100 cantatas have been lost as well as his St Mark’s Passion.
However, by the end of the 18th century, Bach’s reputation was revived by Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann and Mendelssohn who incorporated some of his techniques in their own work. Beethoven described Bach as the
original father of harmony.
Louis Braille
Although we think of Louis Braille (1809-1852) as being the inventor of the famous reading and writing system for the blind, he was also an accomplished cellist and organist.
A devout Catholic, Braille was the organist at two churches in Paris: Saint-Nicholas-des Champs and Saint-Vincent-de-Paul in the 1830s and 1840s.
He was also highly intelligent and very well educated, more about which in a moment.
Braille’s father had a successful leather and horse tack business. Young Louis loved to play in the workshop. One day, when he was three years old, he tried making holes in leather using an awl. Unfortunately, Louis had his head close to the awl. The tool slipped and struck him in one eye.
As the family lived close to Paris, they were able to take him to a highly respected surgeon for treatment. However, the surgeon said that nothing could be done. Louis’s eye became infected and, in what is known as sympathetic opthalmia, his other eye also was severely affected. The boy was in great pain.
By the age of five, Braille was blind in both eyes.
His parents were undaunted and were determined that Louis live as normal a life as possible.
Louis’s father made him sticks which allowed him to navigate the village. He was even able to study at the local school until he was ten years old. His teachers and the local priests were impressed with Louis’s ability to learn.
Braille was admitted to the Royal Institute for Blind Youth — now the National Institute for Blind Youth — in Paris where he prospered.
He absorbed the school’s entire curriculum and asked to stay on as a teaching assistant. In 1833, he became a full professor there and spent most of the remainder of his life teaching history, geometry and algebra.
As for his reading and writing system, Braille used an awl, the same tool that blinded him! He had largely developed his Braille system by the age of 15 in 1824! French Army Captain Charles Barbier had an influence on Braille when the youngster began using the officer’s method of ‘night writing’ as well as his slate and stylus tools in 1821.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Louis Vierne
French composer and organist Louis Vierne (1870-1937) was born legally blind with congenital cataracts.
Despite that, he was able to attend school locally before he began studying music at the Paris Conservatory.
Vierne had a gift for music from the age of two. A pianist played him a Schubert lullaby and the toddler began tapping at the correct keys afterward.
As an adult, Vierne’s life was marked by divorce and the death of both his brother and son in the Great War.
Nonetheless, he went on to become the principal organist at the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris. He held the post from 1900 until his death in 1937.
For his compositions, Vierne used huge sheets of paper, enabling him to see the notes he was writing. Wikipedia tells us:
His output for organ includes six organ symphonies, 24 Fantasy Pieces (which includes his famous Carillon de Westminster), and 24 Pieces in Free Style, among other works. There are also several chamber works (sonatas for violin and cello, a piano quintet and a string quartet for example), vocal and choral music, and a Symphony in A minor for orchestra.
Vierne also taught music. His students described him as kind and encouraging.
On the evening of June 2, 1937, Vierne gave his 1750th organ recital at Notre-Dame. He had finished the first part of the concert playing magnificently, the best ever, according to contemporary accounts of the time.
When he began his closing section, he suddenly lurched forward. He lost consciousness from either a stroke or a heart attack, however, his foot was on the lower ‘E’ pedal of the organ. The sound reverberated around the cathedral for some time.
As shocking as it must have been for the audience, Vierne had achieved his lifelong dream of dying at the console of the organ in Notre-Dame.
Jean Langlais
The style of French organist and composer Jean Langlais (1907-1991) is more contemporary classical.
Much of his canon was comprised of Masses influenced by Gregorian chants as well as polymodal harmonies.
Langlais, as some of the other composers here, went blind in early childhood. Langlais’s malady was glaucoma, which usually afflicts middle-aged and older people. He was only two years old.
Like Louis Braille, Langlais attended the National Institute for Blind Youth in Paris. Like Louis Vierne, he progressed to the Paris Conservatory, where he received prizes for organ playing and composition.
After completing his studies, he taught both at the National Institute for Blind Youth and at the Schola Cantorum. His teaching career began in 1961 and ended in 1976.
Most people know of his fame as an organist, however. He was the principal organist at Paris’s Basilica of Saint-Clothilde from 1945 to 1988. He also toured the world, giving concerts and recitals.
Langlais died at the age of 84. His widow, second wife Marie-Louise Jaquet-Langlais, and three children, Janine, Claude and Caroline, survive him.
Beethoven’s deafness
We all know that Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) was deaf, but how much and when?
He was a prolific composer. His best known compositions comprise:
9 symphonies, 5 concertos for piano, 1 violin concerto, 32 piano sonatas, and 16 string quartets. He also composed other chamber music, choral works (including the celebrated Missa solemnis), and songs.
Beethoven’s father Johann was an accomplished musician who began the boy’s musical education. Alas, home life was unhappy, and young Ludwig used to play the piano in an attempt to stop Johann beating his mother.
Beethoven could hear until he reached his 20s, at which time he began to grow increasingly deaf.
When Beethoven died in 1827, his autopsy report stated:
… The ear cartilage is of a huge dimension and an irregular form. The scaphoïde dimple, and above all the auricle, were vast and had one and a half times the usual depth…
By 1796, according to Beethoven’s letters, he began to experience buzzing noises and other abnormal sounds.
By 1801, the composer had lost 60% of his hearing.
He went completely deaf in 1816.
Although doctors have studied his case posthumously, no one has reached a definite cause of deafness. There was no family history of it. Beethoven had no ear problems when growing up. Furthermore, no matter what doctors tried, nothing worked. The deafness continued to progress. This leads some to think that Beethoven had syphilis, although this has not been proven.
Beethoven eventually gave up concerts and recitals. At his last concert in 1824, stage assistants had to turn him around to face the cheering audience.
Nevertheless, he continued to write compositions in private.
Interestingly, he wrote many of his most famous works whilst being completely deaf.
Conclusion
Disabilities are terrible afflictions.
However, the preceding stories should give parents and siblings of the disabled — as well as the disabled themselves — hope for the future.
If men living up to 300 years ago can be successful despite blindness, deafness or hand problems, then, we, too, can encourage the disabled to follow their dreams and do what we can to help.
And, finally …
Thanks, Michael, for the question. I hadn’t realised this would have been such a fascinating and inspiring topic!