John 9, there was this guy that was born blind, and His disciples say: Jesus - who sinned, that this man should be born blind - him, or his mother and his father?
Jesus says: oh look, none of them have sinned. Like, nobody's sinned! He is here so that God may be glorified now; and so Jesus spits in his eyes, with some dirt. He takes some dirt, and He spits - which is another thing that, if we started doing, people would call me a false prophet (just like they did Him) - and He spits in the dirt; makes some mud; and He puts it on his eyes - and the guy has to wash in the pool of Siloam, and he gets healed.
Now this creates an interesting dilemma for the religious people, because many people (I'm paraphrasing this) saw and asked if he was the blind beggar - you're the guy that's been there since birth? Are you that guy?
The Pharisees asked him how he received his sight on the Sabbath, which is interesting, isn't it? They come up to a guy born blind, and instead of rejoicing with him, that he can see; they say: how did that happen on the Sabbath? Why? Why was that a problem for them?
Because their way said that stuff like that didn't happen on the Sabbath; and here's a living-testimony witness that it actually did.
They became bricks instead of springs. They started putting God in a box. They started saying things like: God would never heal people on the Sabbath, because He rests on the Sabbath. They start putting human logic into God. They start trying to relate to a 1000-dimensional God, from a 4-dimensional world, and were proud enough to think they had it figured out.
The Pharisees asked him how he received his sight on the Sabbath. In other words, this is what they were saying: Jesus can't be of God, and break the Sabbath; yet he can see, so you've got a real problem.
Is Jesus of God, or isn't He of God? The blind man's going: umm, I can see; and the Pharisees logic was: Jesus can't be of God, because He broke the Sabbath; but if He's not of God, then how can we explain that this guy can see? Which is a real dilemma isn't it?
So the religious people are divided, and they accuse Jesus of being a sinner; and this whole weird story takes place, and they say: well maybe that's not the guy; so they ask him: are you the guy that was blind your whole life, a beggar on the street, and now you can see? Yes, I am.
Well, we're not sure, so they go get his parents, and they say: mum, dad, is that him? They say: yeah, that's him. He was born blind, he's a beggar, now he can see. So they are in this huge dilemma, so finally the Pharisees come back to the blind man, and they say: you received your sight today by somebody - and the blind man's like: I was blind, not deaf, hello!
And now you can see? Yes. They say: we have a question for you - was the man who prayed for you - and you received your sight - was he a sinner? So they leave this judgement to this guy, who was a beggar, just hours before.
They say: “was he a sinner”? I love the blind man's answer. He goes: whether He's a sinner or not, I do not know; but one thing I do know - I was blind and now I see.
Demonstration in life, is far better than announcement. To announce, without demonstrating, loses credibility; but demonstration covers any deficit in announcement. If things are happening, and people are getting set free, and made whole, and healed and walking out; people who were once mean are now nice, and people who were once angry are now peaceful - you can't argue with that stuff.
I think Jesus wants to free the leaders in His biggest idea, because there's a lot of pressure, sometimes, on us. We go out, and there's unsaved people, and they have all these questions, and we feel the pressure for having to have all the answers.
Listen to me: Jesus wants to save you from having to have all the answers. Jesus wants you to be able to go: I don't know! All I do know is, once I had no peace, and now I have peace, and I don't know; once I was blind, and now I see, I don't know.