090. Chapter 31 - The Man Born Blind

Chapter 31 - The Man Born Blind

John 9:1-41 The Blind Man

John’s introduction of the healing of the man born blind leaves uncertain whether it followed immediately upon the preceding debate with the Jewish leaders. “And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.” Nor is the location made clear; since “he sat and begged,” the blind man probably was seated at one of the main entrances to the temple. This possibility immediately introduces the question as to how much he knew about Jesus and the apostles, how often he had heard Jesus preach, and how much he had heard about the miracles of Jesus. He answered his questioners promptly as to who had cured him: “the man that is called Jesus.” This increases the probability that he recognized the voice of Jesus when the conversation began concerning his affliction. The question His disciples asked about the man seems to have been inspired by the manner in which Jesus stopped and looked upon the blind man. The query would have excited the most intense interest in the heart of the man: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?” The man, even if he could not recognize the person who spoke, would realize that a learned rabbi was being asked a profound question. This would assist him in immediately identifying Jesus as the one who answered. Such a case was held to be hopeless as far as human aid was concerned (John 9:32). The Popular Theory The apostles suggested the current theory that all affliction is the immediate result of specific sin. The manner of their question seems to shut up the proposition to the sin of the parents. But they might have had some idea that a direct act of God had brought the affliction upon the man on the basis of His foreknowledge of what the man would do In His reply Jesus did not endorse the idea that all affliction is the result of the sin of the person or persons involved. He affirmed exactly the opposite: “Neither did this man sin, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifest in him” (John 9:3). Thus Jesus disposed of the popular theory and announced His intention to heal the man. All this must have had a tremendous impact upon the man. Jesus heaves unsolved that most difficult of philosophical problems — the reason for human suffering, but Jesus came to save man’s soul rather than to satisfy his curiosity.

Sin and Suffering The immediate relationship between sin and suffering is ordinarily obvious in the life of a human being. But there are times when such a connection is not manifest. The noblest of persons in the midst of the most sacrificial living may suddenly contract a contagious disease and die. “Why does God suffer?” is the ultimate question. Jesus continually reminds us that the hope of heaven holds the key to the mystery of human suffering. That Jesus worked miracles to give tangible proof of the validity of His claims to deity and the truth of the gospel in no way denies that He was moved by sympathy for human suffering. As the soul Is more important than the body so spiritual suffering is more dreadful than physical suffering. The salvation of the souls of lost men is chief among “the works of him that sent me.”

Textual Difference The textual problem in John 9:4 offers the familiar pattern of the a.s.v. , following the text of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus against the vast majority of manuscripts. The a.v. has, “I must work the work of him that sent me.” The a.s.v. says, “We must work.” The incongruity of joining we with me is self-evident. The night cometh suggests His death and the close of Jesus’ ministry and fits with the a.v. text “I must work.” If the a.s.v. reading is correct, then “the day” is the earthly life of each individual, and “the night” is death, when earthly toil is over. This reading fits with “when no man can work.” His Faith Tested The extraordinary character of this blind man begins to emerge. His keen intellect had followed closely the discussion of his misfortune by Jesus and the apostles. The anointing of his eyes with clay gave him time for reflection. It stirred his faith that Jesus was about to heal him by a miracle, even as He had said that the works of God were about to be manifest in him. It tested his faith as Jesus gave the decisive command to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam. The man’s obedience was instant and unquestioned. The Pool of Siloam lies south of the temple area where the low slope of Ophel sinks into the juncture of the Tyropean Valley and the Valley of Hinnom. it receives its supply of water by an underground aqueduct from the intermittent spring called “The Virgin’s Pool.” The Greek verb nipto (wash) is used, which indicates he did not immerse himself, but only washed the clay from his eyes as Jesus had commanded. If he had been seated at one of the gates of the temple, he would not have had to travel more than a half mile. With what trembling excitement he must have searched out the familiar landmarks and made his way to the pool.

First Testimony The man seems to have returned immediately to the temple area. To see all the glories of the temple buildings would have filled the dreams of a lifetime. But to see Jesus would have been his immediate longing. His old friends and neighbors could scarcely recognize him. His appearance had changed as the shrunk, sightless eye sockets were replaced with shining eyes that transformed his face with radiant joy. The excited discussion among his friends as to his identity was promptly ended by the man: “I am he.” The question as to how he had gained eyesight was answered with simple, direct recital of the facts. The desire of these friends was to see Jesus, but the man could give no information.

Further Witnesses

“They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind” (John 9:13). The motive is not evident. If they were favorable to Jesus, then they would be seeking to force the unbelieving hierarchy to face this new sensational evidence. If they were subservient to the Pharisees, they were trying to help them suppress the extraordinary testimony which the man was openly presenting in the temple area. That the combat which followed was deliberately planned by Jesus is evident from the fact that He had selected the sabbath as the day on which to work this miracle. The miracle was about to undergo the most severe investigation possible. This was for those present and for all the ages. Moreover, the nation could not be saved until the strangle hold of these false leaders had been broken. And if they themselves were to be saved, they must be forced to face the facts. That the man should have been left alone to face the furious controversy with the famous scholars of the nation resulted from Jesus’ sudden disappearance. It offered further testing of his faith. It brought out the verity of the miracle as nothing else could. What further tests of the actuality of the miracle could modern science have made? His ailment was not a temporary loss of sight; the man had been blind from birth. The Sanhedrin was unable to confuse the witnesses on this point. The account of how the miracle took place and the reality of his eyesight could not be denied.

Pharisees Face a Crisis The Pharisees called the scholars together to meet this new crisis. The rigorous questioning of the man brought forth a simple, factual answer. He was not overawed by the famous assembly. He knew his facts and stated them clearly. He refused to be browbeaten. The testimony and the evidence were so overwhelming that even the assembly of scholars became shaken and divided. The more hostile resorted to their previous charge against Jesus that He was not keeping the sabbath according to their interpretation of the law. Some who were more fair-minded offered deadly rebuttal: “How can a man that is a sinner do such signs” (John 9:16). The cumulative effect of all the preceding miracles was added to the present one. This raises the question as to how many more of the Pharisees besides Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea would have spoken out thus in favor of Christ and whether any such division was in existence at the time of the trials and condemnation of Jesus. The minority must have been small; they lapsed into silence as the controversy became more hectic.

Cross Examination The next step was to question the man: “What sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes” (John 9:17). Their bitter scorn of the man’s opinion later on shows that now they were fighting for time in the midst of a desperately embarrassing situation, and that they were hoping to show that the man was prejudiced in favor of Jesus or at least to tangle him in a discussion which would reveal his ignorance. The man spoke again with utter simplicity, but he also showed amazing shrewdness. Instead of plunging into their arguments — a sinner vs. not a sinner, he gave a different answer: “He is a prophet.” He knew his Old Testament well enough to give this wise answer. The prophets were not sinless. The Old Testament very frankly relates the derelictions of various prophets. But they had faithfully delivered God’s message while fighting the battle against temptation in their own lives. In their debate among themselves the Pharisees had meant that Jesus was “a sinner” in the sense of being in open rebellion against God’s revelation in the Old Testament. They were confusing their opinions as to interpretation of the sabbath with the actual truth God had revealed. They found themselves unable to refute or upset the man’s blunt response.

Cowardly Parents The investigation now turned upon the question as to whether the man had actually been born blind. The parents proved as cowardly as their son was fearless. This was the sort of reaction to their pressure which they had sought in the man born blind. The testimony of the parents was clear that he was their son and that he had been born blind, but they refused to enter the discussion of the miracle. They had not been present when the miracle occurred. john comments on the fear of the parents and its cause: “for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue (John 9:22). This excommunication would prevent a Jew from enjoying any of the privileges of worship in the temple or a synagogue. Presumably the temple guard would forcibly eject such a person from the temple courts, and the local rabbi would be instructed to forbid entrance to the synagogue. Thus the very choice privilege which the man born blind had now within his reach for the first time were in danger of being snatched from him. This pressure was exerted on his parents, and its miserable results furnished calculated threats against the man born blind.

“Third Degree” Pressure The second interview with the man became a “third degree” examination with all the threats and intimidation they could supply. “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner” (John 9:24). This was a new approach. Instead of attempting to deny the miracle, they offered the positive suggestion to the man that he should give the glory to God. They united very cleverly with this their own accusation that Jesus was a sinner. The ground on which they said “we know” was that He did not keep their regulations about the sabbath. The man refused to engage in technical discussion of their regulations or the validity of their charge. He insisted on standing on the solid ground of his own experience: “Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). This reply is most powerful testimony. Here is a historic fact of colossal proportions. Their theory could not stand once the fact was established.

They were so stunned by the calm assurance of the man and his unshakable testimony, they could only fight for time by asking that he relate again the entire account of his healing. They evidently hoped he would contradict himself in some manner or offer them some opening to attack his testimony. The man was shrewd enough to see through their hypocrisy, so he boldly challenged their motives in demanding a second recital of the facts. “I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? would we also become his disciples?” (John 9:27). The boldness of this taunt from a man unlearned who had suffered the handicap of blindness from birth is most impressive. He spoke with the simplicity of a little child in thus going to the heart of the matter. But there was deep sarcasm in his words. Great scholars were they, but they could not understand or recall even the most vivid narration of an event enacted in their midst. He saw through their wicked pretense and added sarcastically that they must have been planning to become His disciples. He boldly added also, making his first clear declaration of faith. As the discussion goes on, his faith increases at every step, and his boldness keeps pace. His parents have just been bullied into submission, but he serves notice that he has no fear of them. They reviled him probably indicates a chorus of jeers and insults. “Thou art his disciple.” This much they felt they had proved, but what they could gain from it remained to be seen. “But we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is” (John 9:28, John 9:29). The ground of their faith that Moses was a prophet speaking for God was the same sort of evidence they now rejected from Jesus — the miracles that were wrought.

Resort to Violence The man born blind argued this very point with powerful force. He again used sarcasm, saying this was truly a remarkable thing that the great scholars of the nation could not determine whence Jesus was, while they had before them indubitable evidence of this astounding miracle Jesus had just worked. Then he plunged into their debate — a sinner vs. not a sinner: “We know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth” (John 9:31). See how ancient and accurate was his description of a faithful messenger of God. “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (John 9:33). Now the man advances His position as his faith grows. He is defining what he hid meant by “a prophet.” Unable to reply to such scorching, logical denunciation from this unlettered man, they cast him out: “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us” (John 9:34). They cited his misfortune of having been born blind as disqualifying him for further testimony. They have arrived too late at this conclusion, for his bold witness had already been given for the ages. Unable to disprove either his testimony as to the miracle or the logic of his argumentation based upon the miracle, they sought welcome escape from their embarrassment by driving him out. The Lord and His Disciple At this very moment Jesus returned to the scene of action. The man had fought a brave battle for the truth. He was being tempted to think that his struggle for the right had been in vain. His faith had developed under the pressure of fierce persecution to the point where he deserved the full revelation which Christ could give. We are not told where this meeting took place. From John 9:22, John 9:27-32 we conclude that the man, having declared openly that he was a disciple of Christ, had not only been thrust out of the Sanhedrin council chamber, but that he was now excommunicated from the temple area. Jesus chose the time and place for this meeting, and He probably came to the man near the temple area and in a place where a quiet interview was possible. The Good Confession The approach of Jesus was blunt and brusque. He demanded an answer to the question, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” The man had made a very courageous defense of Jesus before the assembly of scholars. He had been very careful and cautious as to what he affirmed. But under the pressure of persecution his faith had constantly grown with bolder assertions. Jesus now asked him to go the full length of affirming His deity. Nothing short of this would suffice. The man still showed a hardheaded clinging to known facts. This is the first time he had even seen Jesus. How his eyes must have fastened upon Christ as he stood before Him. He had been able to recognize Jesus’ voice and profound teaching when he was still blind. But his cautious nature was shown in his demand for absolute certainty. He was convinced that he was in the presence of Jesus, the Son of God, for he called him “Lord,” but he desired absolute assurance.

Saul’s Similar Dilemma

“And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?” His response reminds one of the question Saul asked Jesus on the road to Damascus: “Who art thou, Lord?” (Acts 9:5). The salutation Lord indicates that Saul did recognize both the identity and deity of Christ, and yet the question asked definite explicit identification. His question condensed in one gasp all the desperate battle of faith and doubt which had raged for months in his heart while he was “kicking against the pricks” (of Stephen’s dying testimony?). He recognized who Jesus was, but like the man born blind he wanted. absolute assurance. In his presentation of this evidence of the risen Christ, Paul testified not merely to a blinding light and a divine voice, but he affirmed he had actually seen Christ in the same unquestionable manner as the other apostles and eyewitnesses: “Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord” (1 Corinthians 9:1). Although he looked at the prints of the nails in His hands and feet and saw the face of Jesus, Saul yet demanded the absolute certainty of assertion of identity by Christ. The reaction of the man born blind the first time he had seen Jesus was precisely the same. The majestic answers of Jesus to Saul and to this man are thrilling. To the man born blind He said, “Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee” (John 9:37). The man at the first meeting could only depend upon his hearing; now he had the testimony of both sight and hearing with the absolute assurance Jesus gave of His identity. The words seen him cite the evidence of the miracle. The man’s confession of faith was both in word and in deed. He said humbly, “Lord, I believe”; and, prostrating himself before Jesus in divine worship, he made his self-surrender and dedication complete.

Manuscript Difference

Three problems arise in the interpretation of this scene. The first is the manuscript difference in John 9:5 : “Son of God” vs. “Son of man.” Again the translators of the a.s.v. faced the choice between following Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Son of man or the majority of the Greek manuscripts, which have Son of God. They have been criticized for allowing too much weight to these two manuscripts, but in this passage they rejected the reading of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and accepted as genuine the reading Son of God. The important manuscripts that have Son of man are) B D W, and the Sinaitic-Syriac. Son of God is the reading in A L K X QY, and most other manuscripts together with the important testimony of the Syriac and Old Latin versions and Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Cyril. The context plainly requires Son of God. Sadler points out that Jesus would not have required from the man less than a full declaration of faith. Looking at the other confessions of faith in the Gospel accounts, we see immediately that Jesus is always acknowledged as Son of God (Matthew 14:33; Matthew 16:16; John 1:49; John 11:27; c[. John 20:28). The title Son of man is equivalent to Christ; Son of God makes a full declaration of deity. Godet declares that the fact the man born blind worshiped Jesus as God at the close shows that Jesus used the term Son of God. To this must be added the fact that he addressed Jesus as Lord in both of his replies. The Man’s Background The entire background of the man must be taken into account. He had a daily location where with but slight effort he could have heard Jesus preach many times and could have witnessed His thrilling claims to deity. He simply could not have failed to hear the backwash from the controversies which resulted from these claims and the many attempts to kill Jesus as a blasphemer for having claimed to be the Son of God. The preceding chapter of John records just such a fierce discussion and such an attempt at assassination. The astounding declaration “Before Abraham was born, I am” would have swept through the city like a tornado. It requires incredible credulity to suppose the man born blind was seated on top of the volcano and knew nothing of it.

Lord The second difficulty is that the Greek word kurios can mean either sir or Lord. It can be respectful address to a human being or reverent address to God. Here is a place where the translators have to read the heart of the person and render the verdict in their translation. Both the a.v. and the a.s.v. translate Lord, which has the man asserting his belief in the deity of Christ in both of his replies. He is demanding that Jesus give him the absolute assurance of identifying Himself, but in his heart the man believes.

Proskuneo The third difficulty arises from the Greek verb proskuneo — to worship. Godet did not take this into consideration in his citation of the clinching evidence that the man worshiped Jesus. Thayer gives the following definition of proskuneo:

(to prostrate one’s self); prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence:….among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence...hence in the N.T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) to make obeisance.

He then declares that it is used in the New Testament both of homage shown to man and worship “rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings, and to demons.” Professor Thayer was head of the New Testament department in Unitarian Harvard Divinity School. As secretary of the New Testament Committee that translated the a.s.v. he exerted a strong influence on the translation. He was able to have footnotes accepted which recorded his radical influence in regard to the meaning of this word. These radical footnotes in the American Standard Version come forth in full bloom in the text of the Revised Standard Version. Thayer was trying to deny that any eyewitness ever worshiped Jesus as God during His ministry. This is the very heart of the attack the Revised Standard Version makes on the deity of Christ in its double-dialect “thou-you” translation. As Robinson argues that the disciples did not begin to develop new ideas (myths!) until Pentecost, so the meaning of this verb proskuneo is rendered in the Revised Standard Version to fit this radical theory. In fact the Revised Standard Version will not permit the apostles to address Jesus as God even in the resurrection appearance at the ascension (Acts 1:6). Of course, the Revised Standard Version adopts the reading Son of man in John 9:35. It is again the kerygma attack on the deity of Christ. A footnote in the a.s.v. on John 9:38 sends the reader back to Matthew 2:2, where the Wise men “come to worship him.” That first footnote reads, “The Greek word denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature (see Matthew 4:9; Matthew 18:20), or to the Creator (see Matthew 4:10).” It is impossible for us to know how much understanding there was in the hearts of the Wise men as they prostrated themselves before Christ the King. But why should any translators jog the elbow of readers at this point to tell them they need not conclude that the Wise men had had a revelation of the deity of Christ? Why should not the reader be left free to his own conclusions? The Worship of the Wise Men

Matthew definitely informs us that the Wise men received a miraculous revelation from God as to how they should return home (Matthew 2:12). The natural inference is that God gave them a miraculous revelation to start them on their journey. Since they did not even know Micah 5:2 (Matthew 2:1-6), they would not have understood an obscure passage such as Numbers 24:17, if they had had secondhand, or even firsthand, contact with the Old Testament. They certainly would have been more likely to understand Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 9:7 than Numbers 24:17.

God did not give them a complete revelation of the star, informing them that the child would be born in Bethlehem. They could have made the journey in secrecy if He had. Instead, God caused a miraculous moving star to shine, guiding them on their journey. They were permitted to blunder around in Jerusalem with their explosive question, “Where is the new-born King?” Thus the entire nation was given this preliminary announcement. The slaughter of the infants silenced the excitement, but in God’s own time the evidence would be assembled. Has anyone suggested a logical reason why God would not have given the Wise men a miraculous revelation of the supernatural character of the Messiah at the start of their journey? Luke definitely informs us that God revealed this profound fact to the shepherds through His angels, “Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). Why should the Wise men have been kept in ignorance of the deity of the Christ? If they merely regarded Jesus as an earthly king, a petty, local king of a tiny province in the Roman Empire, why should they have bothered to make such a long journey and bring such precious gifts?

Worship of the Devil The citation which Thayer feels makes assured his assertion that proskuneo is used in the New Testament of homage to created beings absolutely destroys his whole contention. It is the temptation of the devil in Matthew 4:9, “If thou wilt fall down and worship me The argument runs like this: “The devil is a created being, is he not? He actually proposed that Jesus worship him, did he not?” Such reasoning is shallow beyond description. What did Jesus say that the devil meant by proskuneo? He meant divine worship; he was demanding that the worship given to God be given to him. Hear Jesus’ stinging reply: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” A Sycophant’s Worship The same proposition appears in the second passage cited (Matthew 18:26), where the king in the parable both represents God and is addressed by the wicked servant as Lord. We cannot tell whether this is mere scenery of the parable where the king represents God or whether it is the contemptible course of a sycophant offering to man what should have been reserved for God. In the Book of Revelation when John, mistaking an angel for Christ, starts to worship the angel, he is instantly rebuked: “See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant...worship God” (Revelation 19:10). Thayer says the verb is used of heavenly beings, but observe here that it is rejected by an angel, who declares it is only to be given to God. Divine worship is repeatedly given to Christ in the Book of Revelation.

Worship of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas In horrified protest Peter refused to allow Cornelius to worship him: “Stand up; I myself also am a man (Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26). Thus also Paul and Barnabas rejected the proffered worship at Lystra: “They rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you” (Acts 14:14, Acts 14:15). What could make it any plainer that proskuneo in the New Testament means divine worship; and that, when Jesus accepted this worship, He was making solemn claim to deity?

Summary on Worship of Jesus A study of the passages in the New Testament where proskuneo is used will show that it is uniformly used of the worship offered to God. The exceptions use this verb of the divine worship which is falsely sought by or offered to created beings. It is utterly perverse to argue that because the devil tempted Jesus to offer to him divine worship, therefore the word proskuneo is used in the New Testament of worship offered to created beings and that no one ever offered divine worship to Jesus during His earthly ministry. The depth of understanding involved in the divine worship given to Jesus undoubtedly varied according to the person and the circumstances. Is this not true today in our worship of God? Must we not confess with shame that sometimes we approach the throne of grace in prayer and offer worship that is ill-conceived, mechanical, disconnected, and without depth of thought and devotion? The Gospel narrators do not specify that the rich, young ruler worshiped Jesus. They do not use the word proskuneo. Mark records, There ran one to him, and kneeled to him” (Mark 10:17). The attitude of the young man was obviously just as shallow as his words. This is the very reason that Jesus replied with such a stern rebuke (Mark 10:18). The divine worship which the man born blind gave to Jesus was the fruitage of profound thought, miraculous evidence, and the majestic simplicity of Jesus’ self-revelation (John 9:35-38). What a whirlwind of deep conviction and solemn dedication is evident in the man’s humble confession: “Lord, I believe.” As he prostrated himself on the ground before Christ in divine worship we are reminded of the occasions where the Old Testament prophets worshiped God as He appeared and spoke to them.

Final Discussion with Pharisees

“For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and they that see may become blind” (John 9:39). The conference with the blind man was evidently in private, but the Pharisees have now put in an appearance. It is not certain whether they had kept the man under surveillance and now entered the scene, or whether this confrontation occurred after an indefinite period while Jesus was preaching on the miracle. Jesus contrasts the physical blindness of the man who had opened his heart in faith and had been given his sight, with the Pharisees, whose spiritual blindness became the more hopeless by their having heard and rejected Jesus, the Light of the world. The Jews who thought they saw and understood everything are the type of all those who in their pride of knowledge and self-sufficiency reject the illumination of God’s Son and become totally blind (Sadler). Jesus repeatedly declared that He did not enter the world at this first coming to judge the world, but to offer redemption. For judgment therefore came I into this world means therefore that Jesus was laying the ground of judgment by offering to all the saving knowledge of God’s final revelation.

“Are we also blind?” (John 9:40). The declaration of Jesus had been too pointed for the Pharisees to ignore. Their protest is the acme of self-assurance as they affirmed their mastery of sight and truth. “If ye were blind, ye would have no sin.” Augustine’s explanation of this statement is best. If they had realized their blindness, then they would have sought the Light and repented, and He would have taken away their sin; but now, as they boast of their vision and reject the Light, their sin remains.

Dramatic Nature of This Account

Beyond all doubt the apostle John considered this account of the man born blind to be one of the highlights of his Gospel narrative. The grand climax of John’s Gospel comes in the twentieth chapter when Thomas is overwhelmed by the final evidence of the deity of Christ as he worships the risen Christ with the immortal words “My Lord and my God.” Chapter 11 is another high point, as Mary and Martha worship Jesus as the Son of God. But they had enormous advantages over this man born blind. They were from a background of culture and refinement, and had received the instruction and had enjoyed the fellowship of Jesus over a period of years. This man without sight from birth had to rise out of the depths of deprivation. He suddenly found himself in an encounter with Christ, and through his faith and obedience was healed by a prodigious miracle, but then he was confronted by all the learning, the skill, and the furious opposition which the celebrated leaders of the nation could assembly against him. His reasoning faculties and his ability to declare the facts and state his convictions were most remarkable. His high moral courage and his devotion to the truth were heroic. His confession of faith is for the ages.