but a blind man sees no light, even if he be out in broad daylight.  What

happened is that once again the miracle consisted not in the supernatural

provision of light, but in the opening of the eyes.  It is exceedingly

instructive to follow the course of this grant of greater vision, for we

remember that in another case, the man whose eyes were opened did not

comprehend all that he saw at once.  We have the strange, yet understandable

statement, that at the first, he said `I see men as trees, walking' (Mark

8:24).  So with the man born blind.  He did not attain at one step a full all

-round knowledge of the glory of the Person of his Saviour; he learned by the

very opposition that ranged itself against him.

`How were thine eyes opened?' he was questioned.

`He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and

anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and

wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight' (John 9:10,11).

Just as simply as that.  Here are two related actions.  The Saviour

alone could do the anointing; without that, no washing in the pool of Siloam

would be of any use.  But it is as well to remember that there is no reason

to believe that had the blind man refused to go, and to wash, the anointing

alone would have been effective.  The same word that provides us with the

concept `believe', provides us with the answering concept `obey' (peitho, see

Acts 28:24; Gal. 5:7).  The Pharisees again pressed the man born blind to

explain, and attempted to extort from him some admission that would

compromise the Son of God.  After a deal of controversy, the blind man was

again questioned:

`What sayest thou of Him, that He hath opened thine eyes?

He said, He

is a Prophet' (John 9:17).

Here is an advance.  The opened eye of faith now sees that `A man that

is called Jesus' was `a prophet'.  Again pressure was brought to bear, not

only upon the man, but his parents, with the dread of excommunication ranged

on the side of the enemy.  Addressing the man born blind for the third time,

the Pharisees said:

`Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner' (24).

A mature believer would immediately have sprung to the defence of his

Lord.  He would have given chapter and verse to show that He knew no sin, He

did no sin, that He was `Holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from

sinners'.  This however was beyond the range of the man whose eyes had been

so recently opened.  He was fair and unassuming, but he was growing in grace

and knowledge:

`He answered and said, Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not; One

Thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see'.

To that there could be no reply.  In the next verses there is a

theological jangle which ended as most theological arguments do:

`They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins,

and dost thou teach us?  And they cast him out' (John 9:34).

It was this uncharitable action of religious bigotry that brought about

the complete opening of the man's eyes: