This weekend we celebrate the 4th Sunday in Lent, the encounter of Jesus and the man born blind. In yesterday’s post we completed our inspection of the various interrogations. Today, we arrive at the “fish or cut bait” moment. The authorities drive the man away (v.34), then Jesus finds the man and asks: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” Continue reading
This weekend we celebrate the 4th Sunday in Lent, the encounter of Jesus and the man born blind. In yesterday’s post we began to consider the first wave of post-miracle interrogations. Today, we continue to explore the unfolding interrogations – note: it is a long one! Continue reading
This weekend we celebrate the 4th Sunday in Lent, the encounter of Jesus and the man born blind. In yesterday’s post we began to consider the details of the text, discussing the settings of the encounter and the healing itself. Today, we move into the repercussions of the healings: a series of interrogations. It is the longest section of the read and will be covered over the course of today and tomorrow. Continue reading
This weekend we celebrate the 4th Sunday in Lent . In yesterday’s post we considered St. John’s treatment of “sin.” Today we move into the text itself.
If you wanted a one sentence summary of this account – here it is: “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind”(v.39). Or: as a sign that he is the light, Jesus gives sight to a man born blind. But there is a richness to be gained in a detailed look at the text and narrative. The Johannine scholar, Fr. Raymond Brown suggests the following outline: Continue reading
This weekend we celebrate the 4th Sunday in Lent . In yesterday’s post we considered the purpose of miracles (signs) in the fourth gospel. Today, we will see how St. John treats the category of “sin.” In our passage, the concept of sin will be quickly introduced via the disciples’ question in v.2 : “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” This reflects traditional Jewish speculation on the relationship of illness and sin. In 1st century Palestine, people commonly assumed that disease and disorders on both the personal and national level were due to sin, as summarized in the rabbinic saying from around 300 CE that “there is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity” (b. shabbat 55a). Continue reading
The gospel for this 4th Sunday in Lent is taken from the ninth chapter of the Gospel of John. It is important to note that in John 8 one of the key points is Jesus’ self-identification as the “light of the world.” Jesus’ claim to be the light of the world (8:12) is repeated in 9:5, and the healing miracle in John 9 stands as a demonstration of this claim. In addition, the Mishnah identifies Siloam, the water in which the blind man bathes (v.7), as the source of the water for the water libations of the Tabernacles feast, also mentioned in the previous chapter. John 8 also captures an on-going engagement with the religious authorities – an engagement which continues in conflict in John 9. Continue reading
What a difference a day makes. Wednesday, I woke up with a full day of ministry awaiting. Lots of people calling, emailing – all asking “Are we going to shut down? Will the Bishop suspend Masses? What’s going to happen now?” Today I awake wondering what I will do with all the time on my hands. Not that there aren’t a lot of things to do, but the rhythm of the day is changed. Changed dramatically. What a difference a day makes.
It made a difference for the man born blind. One day was all it took, and he had to figure out how to live in a world that was completely new to him. What a difference a day makes. The rhythms of his life dramatically altered needing to figure out what to do with the time given.
Here we are celebrating a live stream Mass as are many churches and chapels across this country and the globe. The rhythms of our life are changing. Today for sure. Tomorrow…? Who knows, it is will be a new world perhaps. Continue reading
Being Lead to Decision: Faith or Disbelief. Where the authorities drive the man away (v.34), here Jesus finds the man (cf. 6:37) and asks: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” Just as the Samaritan woman was confronted by Jesus with the possibility of the anticipated Messiah’s being already present (4:25-26), so also the healed man is confronted by Jesus with the possibility that the future judge is already present. To this point in John 9, the theme of the judgment evoked by the light of the world (9:5; cf. 3:17-21; 12:31-36) has largely been implicit. Jesus’ question makes this theme explicit as he asks the man whether he recognizes in his healer the one who brings of salvation. As v.36 indicates, the man is ready. Continue reading
A second interrogation of the man by the Jews (9:24-34). In the third and final interrogation scene, the authorities are identified only with the pronoun “they.” They are clearly the same group identified as the Pharisees who interrogated the man in vv. 13-17, but the motivation for the second interrogation is also clearly linked to the parents’ testimony and their rebuttal: “…he is of age.” The man is recalled before the elders.
Twice in this interrogation scene the authorities hold their knowledge up to the man and expect him to accept their positions (vv24, 29). Each time, however, the man counters with his own experience (vv.25, 30-33). Continue reading
Sin in the Gospel according to John. John seems to understand sin in a way that accents a singular aspect in a way that deserves mention. Words for “sin” occur often in our text: hamartano = “to sin” (9:2, 3; elsewhere in John: 5:14 & 8:11); hamartia = “sin” (9:34, 41); hamartolos = “sinner” (9:16, 24, 25, 31 — all the occurrences in John). The question is does John’s discussion match the discussion of hamartia in the other gospels?
In our passage, the concept of sin will be quickly introduced via the disciples’ question in v.2 : “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” This reflects traditional Jewish speculation on the relationship of illness and sin (cf. 5:14). In 1st century Palestine, people commonly assumed that disease and disorders on both the personal and national level were due to sin, as summarized in the rabbinic saying from around 300 CE that “there is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity” (b. shabbat 55a). Continue reading
friarmusings 