FatherRon.com

The response of the Pharisees to this miracle of healing is a classic
example of the old adage, “There is none so blind as he or she who will
not see.” We do not fault these men for their investigation of the facts.
Faith should never be equated with naviete. The fault lies in their failure
to face the facts and deal with them openly and honestly. They refused
to see anything that contradicted their own little concept of the truth. We
should keep in mind that these men were not atheists. Every one of
them believed in God. Neither were they morally degenerate. In many
ways, they were people much like ourselves; yet, these were the men
who were spiritually blind. What exactly does that mean?
I. The first thing I see is their indifference to human
suffering. They obviously had little or no compassion for the
man who was born blind. Had they been genuinely
concerned for his problem, they would have rejoiced in his
healing, regardless of how it came about. But such was not
their response. I get the impression that they would have
preferred the man remain blind than have his receiving of
sight contradict their theological theories.
What that says to you and me is that we can be
religiously devout and spiritually blind at the same time. If I
understand at all the message of the New Testament, it is that
God is more concerned about people than his religious rules.
Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for
Sabbath.” Religious rules are relevant only as they serve to
protect and enrich the lives of people.
So, Jesus would not be intimidated by the orthodoxy of
the Pharisees. In his system of values, keeping the law was
not nearly important as helping the people for whom the law
was given. If you and I can learn that lesson and live by it,
we will have opened our eyes to a major truth about God and
life. The Pharisees never saw that. With them, people were
expendable; the protection and propagation of the system
were all-important. They lived in a world of spiritual
darkness and did not even know it.
II. A second element of their blindness was their inability to
see themselves. Notice their contempt for the man born
blind. They said to him, “You were steeped in sin from your
birth. Who are you to be teaching us?” They were, of
course, right about the man. He was a sinner. The interesting
thing is how they failed to see the same truth applied to them.
They were moralistic people, and they had a sharp eye for
sin, but there was something artificial about it. Whenever
they spoke of sinners, it was always in the second person or
third person, never the first person: “you sinner,” or “those
sinners,” never “we sinners.”
Exactly how they exempted themselves from the
fellowship of the fallen is not quite clear. But one thing is