In John 9, we are told of a man who was born blind. Jesus “spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes and said to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.’ (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing” (John 9:6b-7).

There was much controversy around the healing of that blind man. The first question was whose fault was it that the man was born blind (John 9:1-2). Jesus answered that it was no one’s fault but this man had been born blind to bring glory to God (vs. 3-5). After Jesus healed him, there were questions about whether a miracle had really happened or if this was just another man who looked like the blind man (vs. 8-9, 18-23). Was he really born blind? This controversy was put to rest by witnesses, the parents, and the blind man himself. A miracle definitely happened! The big controversy, though, was whether Jesus was from God (vs. 10-17, 24-34). Some wondered how a man could perform such a miracle if He was not from God? Others objected, because Jesus performed the miracle on the Sabbath and people weren’t supposed to work on the Sabbath. That controversy did not get fully resolved by the end of the chapter. Some were convinced Jesus was from God and others were convinced He was a sinner.

Do you know what wasn’t a controversy though, but somehow would be today? Whether the man healed himself.

You see, Jesus told the man to dip in the pool of Siloam. Did the man have to do it? He wasn’t healed until he did. Some today would say that the blind man tried to earn his healing by washing in the pool. After all, if a person dips in the water, that is a work (or so we are told by all of those who oppose the need for baptism on the basis that it is a work). I wonder if it would have made sense for the blind man to refuse to go dip on this basis. Would you have refused?

The only person accused of doing a work in this scenario is Jesus. He healed the man, even though He required the man to dip in the pool of Siloam. No one misunderstood who removed the blindness. At least, they didn’t back then.

Just before healing the man, Jesus explained the purpose of the blindness and healing was so “that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3). Who was doing the working? Isn’t it obvious? Dipping in the pool of Siloam doesn’t normally remove blindness. The man dipped. Jesus was the one who worked the miracle. It was the work of God on display and not the work of a wet, blind man. Everyone understood that then. No one accused the healed man of working. Why do we struggle so much with it now? 

We have been told to be baptized, not to be cured of blindness but to wash away our sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). We’ve been told that baptism is directly connected to our salvation (Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). In no way does baptism change who is doing the spiritual healing. God is doing that. But just like the blind man, we have to do something. He wasn’t healed on his way to the pool but he came back seeing (John 9:7), after he did what Jesus said to do.

If the people who were looking to be offended by works, knew to look at Jesus and not the man who dipped in the pool, why is it that the people looking for works today look at the people who dip rather than the Lord who heals them?

Again I ask… if you were the blind man and you were told to dip in the pool of Siloam, would you have done it or would you have let some one talk you out of it?