Skip to main content

Jesus Heals a Blind Man (John 9:1-12)

 Jesus saw a blind man while he was passing by. The disciples asked the natural question, especially as good Israelites, who knew their Scriptures. They knew that every sorrow and trouble in the world came about from the sin of Adam and Eve.

Still, it probably rings a little harsh in our ears, the way they ask it. And when Jesus answers, he reveals a great mystery: that sometimes God gives a great difficulty to someone, in order to glorify Himself in them. In general, we talk about our weakness and frailty, and the tendency to sin, as part of the consequences of original sin. But it is important to recognize that original sin is different than personal sin, and that's part of what Jesus was trying to communicate.

Jesus tells the guy to go and wash in the pool of Siloam, after Jesus spits on the ground, and makes mud or clay out of the dirt, rubbing it on the man's eyes. Do you notice how physical everything is? Jesus isn't afraid to touch people, or the ground on which he walks. He works a miracle with his own spit. We should remember all of this when we read later about Jesus's body. Our bodies are good; heaven will not be about getting rid of our bodies. Maybe you can think of a part of your body which reminds you of some challenge that you overcame, or some event that was meaningful to you. Even in this little story, Jesus shows that he cares about all of that as well.

You can imagine that the neighbors and friends of this man weren't really sure that it was the same person they knew. These kinds of things don't happen every day. It was the man they knew, and he finally got around to telling them what had happened. It is interesting that St. John says Jesus "anointed" the man's eyes. There may have been something formal that Jesus said, like a prayer. Maybe he said a blessing that he was familiar with. In any case, the crowd ends up looking for Jesus. They asked the man where Jesus went, and he didn't know. They brought the man to the Pharisees, because they figured the Pharisees would know what to do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...