[Continued from Pt. 2]

Respecting the use of logical analysis by Christ’s non-expert disciples, firstly let us consider the man born blind whom Christ heals in John 9. After being healed by Christ, the man – who was likely illiterate – logically scrutinized the Pharisees’ accusation that Christ was a sinner and demonstrated the irrationality and immorality of the Pharisees.

The passage in question is John 9:24-34, which states –

So for the second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 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?” And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.

Many people have mistakenly treated the blind man’s assertion – “One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see” – as an example of how a Christian can simply fall back on his experience of being converted by the Lord if he, the believer, cannot answer a question raised about Christ, the Gospel, and the Christian faith. However, that is not supported by the text itself. To get a clear picture of what is happening we need to look at the passage in some detail.

Firstly, note that the blind man is responding to a claim made by the Pharisees about the Lord Jesus Christ. They exclaim –

“We know that this man is a sinner.”

The blind man responds by stating what he knows to be true about Christ –

“Whether he is a sinner I do not know.”

What is communicated by the blind man is that he did not personally know Christ apart from the healing he performed. This is evident when we look at the next portion of the narrative, John 9:35-38 –

Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and is he who is speaking to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

The blind man did not know Jesus personally up until this point, but he did know that Christ was not a sinner. We see this during his exchange the Pharisees in John 9:26-28, wherein the blind man and Pharisees imply that the blind man is a disciple of Christ. Upon asking the Pharisees if they were curious about Jesus’ healing miracle because they also wanted to become Christ’s disciples, they declare –

“You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.”

Although the blind man does not point this out to them explicitly, let us note that the Pharisees here are contradicting themselves. They begin their interrogation with the claim that they know Christ is a sinner; however, here they claim that they do not know where he is from. This idiom expresses their ignorance of Christ’s person and works.1 If they were ignorant of Christ’s person and works, then they could not make a claim about him and his works either way. However, if they could speak negatively about the person and works of Christ, then this demonstrates that they were not ignorant of his person and works. They could not both know that Christ is a sinner and not know where he comes from, and this is precisely the point the blind man goes on to make.

The blind man takes the assertions of the Pharisees about their simultaneous ignorance and knowledge of the person and works of Christ, drawing out the logical consequence of their self-contradiction. He begins by stating –

“You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.”

The blind man refers back to his knowledge: He was once blind, but now he sees. He then makes reference to the knowledge he and the Pharisees share. He states –

“We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.”

What he and his opponents know is that God does not hear sinners, but only hears those who do his will and worship him. Therefore, the blind man concludes his speech saying –

“If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

The blind man did not know Jesus personally, but he knew the following –

If Jesus were not from God, then he could not heal the blind man.
However, Jesus did heal the blind man.
Therefore, Jesus was from God.

A similar hypothetical deduction from assumed premises occurs in the writing of the apostle Paul in his great chapter on the resurrection of the dead, to which we will turn in our last part of this series.

[Continued in Pt. 4]

1 Matthew Poole explains –

Indeed they did know whence he was as to his human nature, for they often made that the cause of their stumbling at him; that he was of Galilee, that his father was a carpenter, and his mother called Mary: but they knew of no Divine mission or authority that he had: this they might have known also, for he did those things which no man ever did, nor could be effected by any thing less than a Divine power; but their eyes were blinded, and their hearts were judicially hardened; they studied to shut out the light by which they should have seen, and would not know whence he was.

Likewise, John Gill comments –

They imagined they knew the country from whence he came, which they supposed to be Galilee, and the place where he was born, which they concluded was Nazareth; though in both they were in the wrong; and they knew his parents, Joseph and Mary, and his brethren and sisters; but as to his divine filiation, they knew nothing of it; nor would they own his mission, commission, and credentials to be from heaven; and pretended they had no reason to conclude they were.

Calvin, similarly, explains that –

When they say so [viz. that they do not know where Christ “comes from”], they refer not to his country or the place of his birth, but to the prophetical office. For they allege that they have no knowledge of his calling, so as to receive him as having proceeded from God.

Anyone vaguely familiar with the life of Christ knows that he did not shy away from asking his listeners questions. These questions played a pedagogical function, causing his listeners to reflect on what he had been teaching them. For instance, when he wanted to get his listeners to reflect on God’s care for his sheep, the Lord asked them –

“What do you think?”1

And when he wanted to get his listeners to reflect on who it is that does or not does do the will of God, the Lord Christ asked them –

“What do you think?”2

When he wanted Peter to reflect on what taxing Christ and his disciples implied, Jesus asked him –

“What do you think, Simon?”3

Jesus, knowing the Pharisees’ position on the identity of the Messiah as being merely the son of David, got his listeners to think about what the Scriptures explicitly and implicitly teach about the Son of David by asking them –

“What do you say about the Christ? Whose son is he?”4

And upon receiving their answer, went on to ask –

“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord…?5

“If David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”6

Unlike many people today, Christ encouraged men to think for themselves about what they were being told, as well as about the implications of their words. Although he is to be trusted immediately, without question, Christ nevertheless encouraged men to think about his teaching, to mull it over, and to think about whether or not they were willing to follow him. For instance, in the Gospel of Luke we read –

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.7

Note that thinking is directly tied to not merely decisions respecting the here and now, but to eternity as well. We find Christ doing something similar in John 6, where after he declared that only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have life in them, asked the disgruntled disciples –

“Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”8

Christ was getting the disciples to reflect on the nature of their relationship to him. He was getting them to think about the most important information they would ever receive, and to do so without the aid of the experts of their time – viz. the Pharisees.

In the next part of this article series, we will delve into the Scriptures respecting this matter.

[Continued in Pt. 2]

1 Matt 18:12.

2 Matt 21:28.

3 Matt 17:25.

4 Matt 22:41.

5 Matt 22:43.

6 Matt 22:45.

7 Luke 14:25-33. (emphasis added)

8 John 6:61b-62.