JOHN 9:13–34
“If this man were not from God, He could do nothing”
(John 9:33).
This confrontation between the man healed and the Pharisees can be called a Battle of Syllogisms. A syllogism is a logical construction used for the purpose of argument. To construct a syllogism, you form two premises, a major and a minor, then you formulate a conclusion. If the two premises are valid, the conclusion will be valid. The Pharisees used this kind of reasoning to argue their case with the man who had been healed. They wanted to find Jesus guilty of wrongdoing, and they thought their crafty use of syllogisms would serve that purpose.
Let’s call the argument of the Pharisees Syllogism 1: Major premise—all people who are from God keep the Sabbath. Minor premise—this man Jesus does not keep the Sabbath. Conclusion: this man is not from God. Of course, by Jesus’ own testimony, we know that the minor premise is wrong. Jesus kept the Sabbath because He is Lord over the Sabbath of God as opposed to the traditions of men. The Pharisees wanted to prove that Jesus was a Sabbath breaker, but they ran into a snag. The man who had been healed used their weapon of reasoning against them. He didn’t try to argue that Jesus kept the Sabbath. Instead, he used another tactic by forming another syllogism.
This is the man’s argument—Syllogism 2: Major premise—only people who are from God can open the eyes of those born blind, in order that by doing this they may display the works of God. Minor premise—this man, Jesus, with that purpose in mind, has opened the eyes of one born blind. Conclusion: this man is from God or is not a sinner. If this man is not a sinner, then He could not have broken the Sabbath. Thus goes the man’s reasoning. And his case is strengthened even more when the Pharisees themselves admit that they do not know Jesus’ origin. The man is shocked by the Pharisees’ ignorance, and as if to rub it in, he throws out another rock-solid syllogism in verses 31–33.
The lesson here is that we must be careful in what conclusions we draw concerning theological matters. Our premises must be founded on the truth; otherwise, we might fall into grievous error just as the Pharisees did concerning Jesus’ true identity.
CORAM DEO
2 Chronicles 32–33
John 18:24–40
It is significant that both the Pharisees and the healed man were ignorant of Jesus’ true nature (vs. 25, 29). Yet, the Pharisees made assumptions about Jesus to form their syllogism, while the man let the evidence before him speak for itself. Using this example, how should you approach your study of Scripture?
For further study: Job 27:9; 35:12 • Jer. 11:11; 14:12 • John 3:1–2
wednesday
june