Why did Jesus send the man born blind to the pool of Siloam to open his eyes?

[tonychanyt]

In the process of Jesus healing a man born blind in John 9:

6b he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud 7 and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent).

Why did Jesus send him to the pool of Siloam? Why didn't Jesus just heal him on the spot?

To test his faith.

So he went and washed and came back seeing.

He passed the test. Later he passed more tests. Some unbelieving Pharisees asked him about Jesus:

17b “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”

He defended Jesus in front of the Jewish authority. Then he did it for the second time:

32 "Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34 They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.

They excommunicated him.

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” 38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

His faith was strong. He believed in Jesus and not the Jewish authority. He passed the test of faith.

 

[epostle]

In the process of Jesus healing a man born blind in John 9:


Why did Jesus send him to the pool of Siloam? Why didn't Jesus just heal him on the spot?

To test his faith.

Jesus used mud as a means of transmitting grace. It's physical matter. Just as water is physical matter. Oil, bread, wine and water are physical, earthly items used to transmit grace; it's found all over the place in Scripture. I think the automatic disdain for physicality in a Christian context is unwarranted.

 

[tonychanyt]

I think the automatic disdain for physicality in a Christian context is unwarranted.

Who does that?

 

[epostle]

Who does that?

Radical iconoclasts who haven't a clue about THE INCARNATION PRICIPLE. I'm referring to a minority within a minority of those vehemently oppose what they think Catholicism teaches. They are easy to spot. Their view of the Trinity is a dim reflection of the first major heresies challenging the Church. They reject the Nicene Creed. I haven't come across any in this forum yet.

 

[tonychanyt]

Radical iconoclasts who haven't a clue about THE INCARNATION PRICIPLE.

Thanks for the references. To save the effort of your readers, this is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner:

1. Give the source/citation.
2. Provide the URL link to the source if available.
3. Indent the quoted text.
4. Bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making.
5. Be concise and to the point.

This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you it will sharpen your analytical thinking. In any case, no one is required to do it here.

 

[epostle]

Thanks for the tips. I'll have to start from the beginning.