28. Born Blind

What title can we give to the story where a man blind from his birth is cured? "Cure of a man blind from birth?" rather dull don't you think?; "Passing by the fountain..." to suggest the baptism at Siloe? No? and this more poetic one: "The mud and the light"? more graphic: "The spittle and the Sabbath"? That seems more apt, for this is the reality: Jesus did spit, it is written down! Happily, ophthalmologists today have discovered other methods. One is not permitted to spit. It is not easy to see the link between this method of cure and its object, which is to see clearly. Mud is at the opposite end of transparency, just as spitting is at the opposite end of purity. Now while I was preaching on this Gospel, I was tempted to ask the assembly to imitate Jesus, i.e. to spit on the ground, and then anoint the eyes of their neighbour with saliva mixed with dust. However, I had second thoughts; I feared the congregation would have been shocked, and I don't think those whose job it was to clean the floor would have been at all pleased! I also guessed at the objections of the more educated lay people: "You haven't understood anything! That text must be understood in its cultural context. When Jesus made a paste of mud and spittle, He was imitating the Creator's gesture in Genesis, when in those early days He fashioned Adam. This silent gesture is eloquent: Jesus makes Himself the equal of God and the Jews are not oblivious of the fact. He furthers creation by curing the blind man. He restores his sight, symbol of the faith."

All right then on this point. But why mud and why spittle? Why the straw of the manger and the wood of the Cross? Why tears of blood and the soldier's whip? Why the stone at the Tomb? Just to pretend? If one were to say to me that this is the human aspect of Jesus and that it is only provisional, something that will pass, an exception to the real nature of God; if someone were to say that to me, I would protest! For everything in the Gospel has sense and meaning! And everything that is said about the Man Jesus, is also said about God.

We have no right to attenuate reality: the sufferings of Gethsemane are the agony of God. The torture on the Cross is the death of God. The stone at the tomb is His burial. And a spit is a spit, and it is thus that this too has a literal meaning! All the mud in the world is needed to open eyes. It is only when one has suffered derision, and been spat at with scorn and contempt, that one is able to realise that men know not what they do. I understood that better the day I was spat at with scorn and contempt.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is not limited to the more or less clear understanding of a few tenets of catechism or points of theology. The Mystery is far deeper. To reach it, one must be properly initiated. What I mean here by "initiation" is a teaching which first of all causes us to experience in our flesh and blood, at the heart of life and in the wide context of nature, a hidden reality which the Word later on is to uncover. Quote John 9 35-38

These revealing words are not spoken at the beginning, but come towards the end when the ground is prepared, i.e. when the heart and the eye are ready to receive them, when man hears them and they make sense to him because he feels he has been understood. Before that, the least one can say is, that the anonymous blind person, who could be any of us, stumbles along, feeling his way. A passer-by places mud over his eyes, bidding him go and wash in the pool of Siloe. The blind man takes him at his word. He could have protested saying that an infirm man should not be ridiculed; but no! he trusts knowing that he has nothing to lose; so he carries out the Lord's bidding, believing the word, and we know the rest. He then proceeds to announce his cure to all, insisting that it is true, even if his proclamation is ill-viewed by the authorities. Three times he repeats his story.

This long polemic plays a role of social initiation, allowing our now-cured blind man to open wide his eyes, by personally experiencing the mystery of Light which shines in the darkness and which the darkness has not received. In spite of himself, he understands the normal condition of the disciple, physically excluded, literally "thrown outside", socially buried. I would willingly entitle this episode: "The blind mans' trial"

Let's re-read it from the beginning: "Passing there, Jesus saw a man blind from birth." There follows a debate on the question of evil: Why is it like this? There must be a reason for this infirmity, a cause for this effect! "Who has sinned?" Who is responsible? ask the disciples. If I were a Buddhist I would reply: "The blind man himself in a previous existence! However, he can make progress, redeem himself and enjoy a better condition in a future life". The disciples also offer another explanation, by suggesting that it is the responsibility of his parents: their fault perhaps if the child turns out to be handicapped? The question is indeed soul-searching, but who, one day or another has not had to confront it?

This type of question manifests a closed-in logic: infirmity presupposes culpability. When you are ill, it is terrible to hear someone say it is your fault, that you had it coming to you, indeed that you deserved it! It would make you think you were listening in to the dialogue between Job and his pseudo-friends. Faced with the problem of evil, we would like to be able to reassure ourselves with a reply to the "why?", and knowing the cause of the malady, try to prevent its happening to us. Let it happen to others, if possible to the wicked ones - as in Hollywood's films - while the good guys are always protected!

In the deepest sense then it is a strategy to protect God: He ought not to be responsible! If we wish to be more precise still, we see that it is not so much a question of protecting God, but the system itself in its automatic functioning: the Good march towards success, the Wicked towards their punishment. In this system, God becomes an instrument to reassure us. It is not the God of the Bible, but a childish representation, for if Job is sick and ruined, if our blind man is thus finally excluded; if Jesus finishes up by being condemned by both the religious and political tribunals, expelled, thrown outside the town, put to death, it is because God does not intervene in time in order to protect Him! But we believe Jesus is innocent, Job and the blind man also. Who then is going to open our eyes? Quote John 9, 39

I see clearly that the living God is not an all-risk insurance, nor an alarm device nor a guarantee. Still, I remain blind in face of evil, of scandal that is opaque, absurd and always inexplicable..

What I see is a blind man cured and that is good and beautiful: well for him! What I do not see are the wounded who have recovered, the innocent who have been acquitted, the countless victims of drought, famine, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, wars, orphans consoled, all the dead restored to life! I do not see any of this, but I believe I will see it! Just as I see this blind man cured, the symbol, sign and hope of what is to come. The title here takes up Isaiah's prophecy: "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great Light"

To the problem of evil, Jesus does not oppose a debate. No theory, but actions and deeds. He is absolutely opposed to evil. Our God is "the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob; he is not the God of the dead but of the living." He accomplishes the whole of creation. Our recently blind man, now seeing clearly, finally meets the One who cured him; outside the town, and as in the case of every Pascal visitation, he does not recognise Him. But he recognises His voice - as did Mary Magdalen recognise the voice of the one she believed to be the gardener - and every fibre of his being resonates, not with intellectual conviction, but with exultation. He hears himself saying: "Lord, I believe!"

So I'm going to propose one final title: "Easter visitation for a man born blind!"