Two kinds of blindness

I went away on a ladies’ retreat this past weekend, so Murray and Cam stayed home together and talked about ‘guy stuff’… and ate Marie biscuits in bed… which doesn’t generally happen if I’m at home :). Cam also spent an afternoon with his cousins (the naked photo).

Last week I read some commentary on Matthew 20-21, by Graeme Gilmour. He writes the following:

Here we have two kinds of blindness. The two men on the outskirts of Jericho were physically blind (as were those who came to Jesus in the temple). But these two men seem to have had much clearer insight into who Jesus really was than the sighted ones around them. On the basis of what they must have heard about Jesus, they ‘saw’ who he really was – the Messiah (hence their use of the Messianic title, ‘Son of David’). As those who knew their own neediness, they simply cast themselves on the mercy of Jesus, and found that his grace met their deep need. They also ‘saw’ that the appropriate response to Jesus’ grace was to follow him (v34).

The chief priests and teachers of the law had no trouble physically seeing the wonderful things Jesus did in healing the blind and lame in the temple (21:14-15), but they suffered from a much more damaging blindness than had those whom Jesus had healed. They couldn’t see that Jesus was God-in-action-on-earth, despite the overwhelming evidence before their very eyes. What had blinded them – self-interest, prejudice, theological blinkers?

Closer to God © SU 2009