Sunday Homilies by Fr. Rudolf V. D’ Souza

  Click here for other Sunday Homilies 

First Reading...
"The Lord said to Samuel, 'Fill your horn with oil and set out; I will send you to Jesse of Bethlehem, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.'

When the sons of Jesse came, Samuel looked on Eliab and thought, 'Surely the Lord's anointed is now before the Lord.' But the Lord said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.'

Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel, and Samuel said to Jesse, 'The Lord has not chosen any of these.' Samuel said to Jesse, 'Are all our sons here?' And he said, 'There remains yet the youngest, but he is keeping the sheep.' And Samuel said to Jesse, 'Send and bring him; for we will not sit down until he comes here.' Jesse sent and brought David in. Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome. The Lord said, 'Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.'

Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the presence of his brothers; and the spirit of the lord came mightily upon David from that day forward." [1 Sam. 16:1, 6-7, 10-3]

Second Reading...
"Once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light - for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true.

Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it is said, 'Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.'"[Eph. 5:8-14]

Gospel Reading...
"As Jesus walked along, he saw a man blind from birth.. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Jesus answered, 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned: he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world,' 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, saying to him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam' (which means Sent).

Then the man who was blind went and washed, and came back able to see. The neighbours and those who had seen him before as a beggar began to ask, 'Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?' Some were saying, 'It is he.' Others were saying, 'No, but it is someone like him.' He kept saying, 'I am the man.' But they kept asking him, 'Then how were your eyes opened?' 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.' They said to him, 'Where is he?' He said, 'I do not know.'

They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 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.' 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. 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.'

They 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 and asked them, 'Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?' his parents answered, 'We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 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.' His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish authorities, who had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, 'He is of age; ask him.'

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.' He answered, 'I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that thought 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?' Then 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, 'Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes form, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. if this man were not from God, he could do nothing.'

They answered him, 'You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?' And they drove him out.

Jesus heard that they had driver him out, and when he found him, he said, 'Do you believe in the Son of Man?' he answered, 'And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.' Jesus said to him, 'You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he,' He said, 'Lord, I believe.' And he worshipped him.

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.' Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, 'Surely we are not blind, are we?' Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sins remains.'" [Jn.. 9:1-41]

FROGS
A group of frogs was travelling through the woods, and two of them fell into a deep pit.  All the other frogs gathered around the pit.

When they saw how deep the pit was, they told the unfortunate frogs they would never get out.

The two frogs ignored the comments and tried to jump up out of the pit.

The other frogs kept telling them to stop, that they were as good as dead.

Finally, one of the frogs took heed to what the other frogs were saying and simply gave up.  He fell down and died.

The other frog continued to jump as hard as he could.

Once again, the crowd of frogs yelled at him to stop the pain and
suffering and just die. He jumped even harder and finally made it out.

When he got out, the other frogs asked him, “Why did you continue jumping? Didn’t you hear us?” The frog explained to them that he was deaf.  He thought they were encouraging him the entire time.

The Blind Receives His Sight (9:1-12)

When the disciples learned that this man had been blind from birth, they launched into a philosophical discussion, asking our Lord, “Whose sin resulted in this man’s blindness, this man or his parents?” (vs. 2). The disciples were not mistaken in making a connection between sin and human suffering, since all suffering is the result of man’s fall . Moreover, sickness is sometimes the direct result of sin in the life of an individual (Leviticus 26.6; Deuteronomy 28:22; 1 Corinthians 11:30; James 5:15). The sins of the parents can also affect their children (Exodus 20:5). But the disciples doubtless reflected the thinking of their contemporaries when they came to the hasty conclusion that someone’s sin had caused the blindness.

To the Jew, great suffering could not be thought of apart from great sin. Our Lord’s response jolted His disciples back to reality when He responded, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3).
 

By His statement, our Lord did not mean that this man and his parents were sinless, for “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). He did clearly imply that it was the purpose of God that this man suffer blindness, even from his birth. Rather than stress the human reasons for this man’s suffering, He turned His disciples’ attention to the divine purpose, that ‘the works of God might be displayed in him’ (vs. 3).
 

Just prior to healing this man, Jesus made this statement: “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (John 9:5). This Jesus said to establish a clear connection between the healing of this blind man and His claim to be the ‘Light of the world’ (John 18:12; cf. John 1:4; 12:46). What our Lord previously claimed He now demonstrated by this miracle.
 

The healing of this man was unusual from several vantage points. First of all, as we have previously remarked, it was apparently completely at the initiative of our Lord. Then, also, it was not marked with the simplicity of other healings of the blind (cf. Matthew 9:27-30; 20:30-34). Our Lord made clay from the dust and His spittle. With this mixture, He anointed the eyes of the man and then sent him to the pool of Siloam, instructing him to wash there. When he returned with his sight, it would appear that our Lord had long since departed.

Why, then, did our Lord heal this man in such a unique fashion? Let me suggest several reasons for the clay and the washing. First of all, we are told by some that spittle was thought by those in Jesus’ time to have medicinal value. By the use of the clay and the spittle, our Lord is said to have accommodated Himself to the popular beliefs of His day in order to strengthen the faith of the man. Also, as Shepard has suggested, our Lord technically violated the Pharisaic interpretation of keeping the Sabbath, for the mixing of the spittle and clay would be considered work, and the application of spittle on the Sabbath was expressly prohibited by Jewish tradition.
 

The smearing of the clay on the eyes of this man greatly facilitated his faith in a very practical way. Even if the man had his doubts about a man smearing mud in his eyes and promising healing, he had to wash his face anyway, and the pool of Siloam may well have been the closest place. Then, also, by having the man wash in the pool of Siloam, the actual miracle took place away from Jesus, and probably away from the gaping eyes of the Pharisees, who were looking for any cause to bring further accusations against Him. The confrontation in this account is between the healed man and the Pharisees, not Jesus and the Pharisees.
 

The neighbours were the first to notice the change, but they did not all agree as to how they should interpret what had happened. Some maintained that this man only resembled the blind beggar (verse 9). When they asked him to explain in detail all he could say was that a man named Jesus had accomplished it, and that he did not know where He was (verses 11,12).

The Blind Man Receives a Hearing (9:13-34)

While Jesus gave him his sight, the Pharisees gave him a hearing. Those who had first witnessed that the man had been healed did not know how to handle the situation, so they brought the man to the Pharisees (verse 13). Although this was not a meeting of the Sanhedrin, it was no informal gathering either. It must have been some smaller body, convening as a preliminary hearing to see if there was sufficient cause to take more rigorous action.

At this initial hearing, several points were established. The man apparently had been healed by Jesus, and most significantly, on the Sabbath. The evidence presented led to two contradictory conclusions.. Some recognized that such a great work could not be anything other than the work of God. Others, pointing out that the Sabbath had been violated, concluded that Jesus could not have been from God (verse 16). Perhaps in frustration they turned to the man himself. No one was more qualified to judge this matter than the healed man himself. What did he think of Jesus? Without hesitation, he answered, “He is a prophet” (verse 17).

This conclusion was totally unacceptable to the opposing Pharisees. Consequently, they had to investigate the matter more fully. Perhaps this was some kind of hoax. Maybe this man only resembled the blind beggar, as some had already suggested. Perhaps his parents could shed some light on the matter.

The parents were guardedly tight-lipped. It was known to them that the Pharisees had already put the word out that anyone who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue (or excommunicated). As a result, the parents confirmed the fact that this man was their son, and that he had been born blind. As to who had healed him and how it was accomplished, they would not conjecture. If the Pharisees wanted to know more, let them ask their son, for he was of age and could speak for himself (verse 21).

Again, the man was called before the Pharisees with the words, “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner” (John 9:24). The intent of this instruction is not just that the man should give all the glory to God for his healing, and none to Jesus, but it is in effect the swearing of an oath, promising to tell the whole truth. At this point, the man did not attempt to interpret the events of his healing, but he tenaciously held to the facts: before, he was blind, but now he could see. Whatever the Jews decided, they could not alter the facts.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that this man had been genuinely healed, and by Jesus, they probed into the manner of the healing. Perhaps there was something here to give the Pharisees a toehold and thus enable them to press charges against Jesus. And so they asked the man to repeat once more how the miracle was accomplished.

The patience of the man gave way to exasperation. He knew all too well that they had no interest in the matter other than to find fault with Jesus: “I told you already, and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?” (John 9.27)..

Here the motives of the Pharisees were laid bare. They did not seek truth, but some shred of evidence that they could use against Jesus, to prove He was not the Messiah. They did not seek this for their sake so much as for the crowds who still generally held Him a likely candidate.

That little word ‘too’ may be significant, for it may indicate that this man has progressed to the point in his thinking that he included himself among the disciples of our Lord. This is the way that the Pharisees took it, for in verse 28, they referred to him as a disciple of Jesus.

The choice confronting the man was to decide whose disciple he would be. They were disciples of Moses, while he followed Jesus. Assuming their traditions to be a part of God’s Law, they thought that Moses was on their side. This also meant that Jesus was a Sabbath-breaker by their definition, and that, as such, He could not be One sent from God. He must be a sinner. He would have to choose between Moses and Jesus. The point they failed to notice was that Moses, like Jesus, was authenticated as God’s messenger by the miraculous works that he performed.

The blind beggar had not only gained his sight, but he was continually gaining insight into the true motives of his inquisitors. They had no interest in the facts. Their minds were made up. They were simply looking for some loophole in the facts that would make room for their preconceived ideas. With this insight, he turned the tables and put the Pharisees on the defensive. He manifested a boldness in the truth that is unmistakable.

“The man answered and said to them, “Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. We know that God does not hear sinners; but if any one is God-fearing, and does His will, He hears him. Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing” (John 9:30-33).

The self-righteous Pharisees were cut to the quick. All semblance of impartiality and calm judgment were swept aside by the stinging rebuke of the former beggar. In this debate between the beggar and the bigots, the beggar won. This is evidenced by their response to his rebuke:

“‘How dare you, a man whose sins have brought about blindness, speak to us in such fashion,’ they retaliated. And with this they excommunicated him” (John 9:34).

The Blind Sees and the Seeing Are Blind (9:35-41)

Just as our Lord initiated the restoration of sight to this blind man, so He now sought him out to grant him spiritual sight. The Saviour did not hasten the spiritual birth process. His physical healing set the process in motion. The opposition of the Pharisees, far from hindering his conversion, compelled him to it. The failure of Pharisaic was all too evident. If the Pharisees were wrong, then Jesus must be right.

When our Lord found the man He asked him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (verse 35). He was willing to accept Jesus as a spokesman for God, but did not yet know who the Messiah was. And so it was that he asked who the Messiah was, that he might believe on Him. The One Whom he had beheld with his restored eyes, the One to Whom he had been driven by the obstinacy of the Pharisees, the One to Whom he spoke; this One was the Messiah. With this, the man fell at the feet of Jesus in acknowledgement and adoration of His person. And with this bending of the knees came the full sight of the blind man, both physical and spiritual.

But while the healed man bent his knees, the Pharisees stiffened their necks in rebellion and resistance. Our Lord’s coming resulted not only in the restoration of sight to the blind, but also in the blindness of those who professed to see: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).

There is no contradiction in these words of our Lord with what He said elsewhere to the effect that He did not come to condemn men, but to save them (e.g. John 3:17; 12:47). Our Lord’s purpose in coming to the world was to accomplish salvation. But in the process of His coming as the ‘Light of the world’ (John 1:4; 8:12; 12:46), He exposed the sinfulness of men. Those who reject the light and refuse to turn from their sins and receive His pardon seal their own condemnation. I may go to my office late at night to get a much needed book, and in the process encounter a burglar who, because of my call to the police, is captured and convicted. What was done for one primary purpose may result in something different. Such is the case with the coming of Christ as the light of the world.

The Pharisees, who were now watching Jesus like a hawk, seeking any infraction of their meticulous rules, could not help but overhear this statement of Jesus and ask, “We are not blind too, are we?” (John 9:40).

They, no doubt, hoped for a simple “No,” while expecting a stinging ‘“Yes” Jesus explained their guilt in more detail. They would not be blind if they were aware of the issues. But their problem was not a lack of evidence. Their sin was manifested in their refusal to admit that the evidence was true. They refused to let the evidence persuade them to come to the only logical conclusion. Because they claimed to perceive the issues, they were blind, and by their own admission (verse 41).

Conclusion and Application Historical Interpretation

As I understand this passage in the context of John’s gospel, it serves several purposes. First of all, this healing accredits the claim of our Lord Jesus to be the ‘light of the world,’ especially as it was made in chapter 8 (verse 12). This miracle authenticated the claims of Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah, just as the miracles of Moses identified him to Israel as a prophet of God. The blind saw the implications of his healing and knelt in worship before Jesus. As the blind man himself reminded the Pharisees, there was no record of a man ever receiving his sight. More than this, the giving of sight to the blind was viewed in the Old Testament as a work of the Messiah (cf. Isaiah 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). It is not without significance that Jesus is recorded to have performed more miracles of restoring sight than of any other kind of healing (cf. Matthew 9:27-31; 12:22f.; 15:30f.; 21:14; Mark 8:22-26; 10:46-52; Luke 7:21f.).

In addition to providing evidence in defense of the claims of Jesus, His miracles practically forced men to come to a decision about him. In this chapter, we can see that the healing of the blind man divided those who learned of it. Some could not resist the compelling nature of the evidence, while others could not accept it. But in either case, it pushed people off ‘dead centre.’ No one remained neutral about Jesus. Even the opposition of the Pharisees forced people to arrive at a strong conviction in the matter. Humanly speaking, the blind man might have given no more thought to his healing had the Pharisees not made such an issue of it.

Implications and Applications

This passage has a great deal to say to men today: First of all, it addresses those who have attempted to remain neutral on the issue of Jesus Christ. Let me say to you, my friend, that there is no such thing as neutrality concerning Jesus Christ. To attempt to remain neutral is only a more sophisticated way of rejecting Him. As our Lord Himself said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).
 

The apostle John wrote: “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life” (1 John 5:12).

Once again, our Lord said, “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Matthew 12:30).

Those who profess neutrality have failed to take the words of Scripture seriously enough. Those who witnessed the claims and actions of Jesus knew that they must either accept Him for Whom He claimed to be, or utterly reject Him. In this sense, the logic of the Pharisees was not too far from the truth. If Jesus was not the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, the Saviour of the world, then He should have been done away with. Such a man would have been a menace to society. But if He was right, then men must fall before Him as the Creator of the universe, and the Redeemer of men to whom all things will be put in subjection (cf.. Philippians 2:9-11).

Whatever you do this morning, my undecided friend, do not go away tipping your hat to God by acknowledging that Jesus was a good man, a good teacher, a good example for us to follow. If He was not the Son of God, He was an impostor, deceived and deceiving. Do not give Him what He does not deserve. But if, as the gospel writers tell us, He not only healed the blind and raised the dead, but also claimed to be God in human flesh, then you must accept Him as your Saviour or reject Him as a fraud. There is no middle ground. You must face the compelling force of the miracles and teaching of Jesus.

I must also go on to say that this text exposes the real reason why men reject Jesus as their Saviour. It is not an intellectual problem. Let me say it again; it is not, at its roots, an intellectual reason for which men reject Jesus. It is a moral problem. There was no deficiency in the evidence. The problem was that the Pharisees rejected the sheer weight of the evidence, because it did not conform to their preconceived ideas as to the conclusion. It was their presuppositions that killed them (so to speak). They had devised a religious system which outwardly seemed to comply with the Old Testament revelation, but which really defined a God under their control. The reason they rejected Jesus was because He did not conform to their preferences as to what God should be like. They had created a God after their own image, rather than conforming their theology to what God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

And so it is with men today. “I like to think of God as …” people say. And that is precisely their problem. It doesn’t really matter how you wish to think of God. The destiny-determining reality is that we must worship God ‘in spirit and in truth’ (John 4:23). When God does not conform to our preferences, our preferences must give way to the precepts of the Word of God. There is more than enough evidence in the Word of God to persuade any man who is open to the truth (and this, of course, is ultimately the sovereign work of God). No amount of evidence will persuade the one who has determined not to submit to God (cf.. Luke 16:27-31). Men do not accept the gospel of Jesus Christ because they know that they must undergo a radical transformation of lifestyle, and rebels against God that we are, we do not (by nature) wish to do any such thing. That is why, in the final analysis that our salvation must originate with God and not with us.

There is here as well instruction for Christians. We should be rebuked by the hardness of the disciples to the suffering of this man. We, like they, are all too inclined to speculate about the sins of others, rather than to minister to the misery of the suffering.

I am amazed at how this untaught, unlearned beggar stood up to the most highly educated sceptics of his day. He refused to speculate, but tenaciously held to what he knew to be the facts, based upon his own experience with Jesus Christ. And so, I believe, must we stick to what little (“this one thing I know” verse 25) we know from our own experience to be true. The one-thing men can’t explain is a life completely transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

First of all, it was a part of the decretive (purposed, determined) would of God that this man be born blind. Second, God is not untouched by suffering (as the disciples seemed to be), but rather was moved with compassion to heal this man. Our Lord came not only to deal with the symptom of suffering, but its root, which is sin. Although the Christian is no more exempt from suffering in this life than was our Lord, when the restoration of all things takes place, there will be no more suffering (cf. Romans 8:18-23; Revelation 21:4). For the time being, suffering is both for the glory of God and the good of the Christian. Although this man spent years in darkness, he came in contact with the ‘Light of the world’ because of his blindness, and came to see not only physically, but spiritually. That man will never, in all of eternity, look back on those years of blindness with regret. He came to experience the truth of Romans 8:28 that suffering, for the Christian, is for the glory of God, as well as the good of the saint.

  Click here for other Sunday Homilies