The Interrogators

“THE INTERROGATORS”

John 9.13-34

It is with particular delight that I bring this morning’s message from God’s Word, a sermon that I have titled “The Interrogations.” The reason for this delight goes beyond the privilege of studying and then preaching God’s Word to include a practice found in the apostle’s record of the events following the healing of the man born blind that is commonly referred to as interrogation.

A number of providential events in my life served to provoke my interest in this topic usually called interrogation, but somewhat more accurately termed interviewing, and even more accurately identified as elicitation, when the Christian version of this process is being referred to. Please allow me to explain. Forty-four years ago, in the isolation of my apartment in Torrance, and while reading large portions of God’s Word, I was drawn to Christ. I had not attended a Church service or talked to anyone about spiritual issues for years when this destiny-changing event took place. Thus, my conversion occurred quite apart from the usual interaction experienced by most people leading up to their faith in Christ.

Recognizing that my run up to conversion experience was a bit unusual, I have always been keenly aware that I needed to learn how to deal with the lost since I had not been effectively or recently dealt with when I was lost. Realizing that the personal evangelism courses I had been taught and had read about bore no resemblance to my own experience, I was casting about for a practical approach to dealing with the lost. I was open to learning about such things when, at almost the same time I was introduced to listening to sinners by a pastor I had met and by a book I had read, A Guide To Christ[1], by Solomon Stoddard, the grandfather of famous New England pastor and theologian Jonathan Edwards. However, it was my acceptance into a course taught by a Chicago law firm that provided me with some of the insight into our text that I want to share with you today.

For fifteen years I had tried and failed to gain entrance to various courses and seminars that are held around the country, hoping to find out from practitioners of the modern art of interrogation how their approaches to gathering information from people differed from the approach used by Solomon Stoddard, Jonathan Edwards, and even the 19th British Baptist, Charles Spurgeon. Alas, my many efforts were thwarted because such courses are limited to law enforcement officers. Then, one day, I received a phone call. “Is this John Waldrip?” Yes, it is. “Do you still want to attend the interviewing and interrogation course?” Yes, I do. “We’ve had a last minute cancellation, and there is one opening. Can you be at the Disneyland Hotel tomorrow at 9:00 AM?”

The rest is history. The courses lasted four full days.[2] The teachers were masters at their craft, with some ten thousand sessions of interactions over decades in which they sought to gather information from individuals, be they suspects, witnesses, or victims. And you can imagine a room full of FBI agents, Los Angeles and Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputies, LAPD officers, San Diego police officers, DEA agents, all turning to look at the one guy in the room who stood up last and identified himself and his agency, “John S. Waldrip, pastor of Calvary Road Baptist Church in Monrovia, CA,” and the only person in attendance not carrying a concealed firearm.

Here is a portion of what I learned in those courses. Modern specialists divide the process of gathering information from someone into three basic categories that reflect three kinds of interactions. There is an interrogation, which refers to the act of questioning, an examination by questioning.[3] There is, next, interviewing, which is generally felt to be a meeting of people face to face.[4] Then there is elicitation, which refers to drawing out and bringing to light.[5]

Interrogations tend to be somewhat accusatory, with interviews being intentionally non-accusatory, and elicitation being even less intense and decidedly more friendly. Unless you are a hostile captured by our armed forces, all interrogations, interviews, and elicitations are by law voluntary. However, sometimes interrogations and interviews do not at all feel like they are voluntary to the person on the receiving end of the questions.

As we begin to turn our attention to the Bible, specifically to the Gospel accounts, I would like you to think for a moment about the way the Savior dealt with people. Whether it was His interactions with His disciples, His exchanges with the woman at the well and the woman caught in the act or adultery, or even His final moments with Judas Iscariot and knowing full well he was plotting to betray Him, did our Lord give any of them the third degree? Did He grill them? Does the Bible suggest He ever got up in anyone’s face to apply emotional pressure to them? This is often done with criminal suspects, but we never, ever, find the Lord Jesus Christ doing that.

As well, seasoned and effective law enforcement officers and other information gatherers intentionally avoid squaring off with someone in an information gathering session, be he a suspect or a witness. Why? A man facing square on to another man is a body language confrontation that demands a superior versus inferior dynamic. Not good. Whenever you see boys on a playground doing that you should expect shoves or punches to be thrown, wives would do well never to position that way when arguing with their husbands. Sometimes law enforcement will want that dynamic, but not often. A Christian who seeks to provide spiritual leadership to another person will not ever want to sit face to face or stand face to face, but rather adopt an oblique or even a side-by-side posture.

What the Savior engaged in with individuals was what modern experts refer to as elicitation. Elicitation is seen as a situation in which a somewhat relaxed exchange occurs when questions are sometimes asked, but the goal is to induce the other person to freely, if not always comfortably, volunteer information. Such was our Lord’s conversation with the woman at the well. Such was our Lord’s interaction with Mary and Martha before raising their brother Lazarus from the dead. Such was our Lord’s important exchange with His apostles in Caesarea Philippi, Matthew 16.13-15:

13 ... Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

In our text for today, we will observe three sessions that are rightly recognized to be interrogations. We will not see in our text anything like a physician asking questions of a patient to learn facts related to a correct diagnosis. Neither will we see anything like a seasoned law enforcement officer seeking accurate witness accounts of events he did not see. Instead, we will read an account of a group of know-it-alls with an agenda that they are pushing, even if it means they must smother the truth and intimidate people to do it. I refer to them as the interrogators.

I invite you to turn to John chapter 9, where we will consider verses 13-34, divided into three ruthless interrogations in which a pretense was made of seeking the truth, but the reality was that concealment of the truth was the goal:

First, THE INTERROGATORS AND THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN BORN BLIND

Of course, his sight had been miraculously given by the Lord Jesus, and the fact that he could see for the first time in his life was admitted by his neighbors and others who knew him. From verses 13-17 we are likely reading an account of events that transpired the day following the miracle. Consider each verse with me separately:

Verse 13:

“They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.”

Why would this man’s family and friends bring him to the Pharisees? I would suspect that the Pharisees, the strictest sect of the Jews and likely the most influential members of the synagogue of the man who had been born blind, were consulted because such a great miracle as had given him sight was recognized to have spiritual significance. We live in a time the late Francis Schaeffer predicted, when people segregate their daily lives from their spiritual lives, with Sunday having nothing to do with Monday through Saturday. First-century Jewish people were not at all like that. It would be expected that the beneficiary of such a miracle would be brought to the Pharisees for their consideration of the miracle.

Verse 14:

“And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.”

Here the apostle informs us for the first time in the narrative that the miracle worked by the Lord Jesus Christ was performed on the Sabbath, with the mention of the clay being significant. The Jewish people had the written Law of Moses, but they also had a fence around the Law. It was their oral tradition, set up to make sure no one violated the Law. The oral Law consisted of rules and regulations not found in the written Law, but carrying as much weight in their estimation as Scripture. Their rules stipulated that one might properly save someone’s life on the Sabbath, or even rescue a valued animal from a pit on the Sabbath, but merely giving sight to the blind on the Sabbath was a clear violation. After all, they would reason, blindness is only an inconvenience. To work a good deed on the Sabbath required something life threatening, they would argue.

Verse 15:

“Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.”

The beginning of this verse shows us the manner by which the Pharisees grilled this man. They asked him how he had received his sight. But they did not believe his testimony of what happened to him, so they asked him again, and again, and again. That is why I identify them as the interrogators. Do you see what these interrogators were doing? It is one thing to ask a fellow what happened to him that he received his sight. It is another thing to assume that he either does not know the truth or that he is lying to you, so an interrogator asks and asks and asks to trip him up, catching a misstatement, or otherwise finding an inconsistency in his account. We see no evidence of this type of conduct by the Savior, or any apostles, or Asahel Nettleton, or Charles Spurgeon. What we are observing these interrogators doing is decidedly not Christian. Is a spiritual leader ever to assume an adversarial posture toward someone like this man who had been born blind? Not so far as I can conclude from Scripture. As for the man who had been born blind, his response to the interrogators was simple and straightforward:

“He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.”

Direct. Succinct. Like a man telling the truth.

Verse 16:

“Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.”

Notice the absence of unanimity among the interrogators who had repeatedly questioned the man who had been born blind. But they are agreed about one thing. The interrogators referred to the Lord Jesus Christ without mentioning His name. The interrogators will not name this man, this miracle worker, some of whom think He is not of God because He violated the Sabbath, with others wondering how a sinner (meaning, Sabbath-breaker) could do such miracles. On that, they were agreed. They would only refer to the Savior as “This man,” as “he,” as “a man,” and lastly as “a sinner.” The interrogators refused to personalize the unnamed Lord Jesus Christ. The last thing the interrogators want is for Him to be thought of by anyone as a sympathetic figure. On that, the interrogators were agreed. What they differed about was if a man could be of God who worked a miracle on the Sabbath, with some wondering how a guy who did such a good thing could be evil. So you have the rules guys versus the results guys. However, both sides were wrong. Why so? Both sides were estranged from the Savior. If you do not know Christ, you are on the wrong side.

Verse 17:

“They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.”

At this point, we observe that the interrogators are at the end of themselves. That the man who they were told was blind can now see is undeniable. That he insists it was a miracle wrought by one who is not named by them is also undeniable. These interrogators are experiencing what is identified in our day as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person experiences mental discomfort resulting from simultaneously realizing two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values that you cannot reconcile with your worldview or how you think things ought to be. Do any of you remember the night Donald Trump was elected president of the United States? I recall one video of a woman kneeling on the floor and screaming over and over again, “No. No. No.” with clenched fists, closed eyes, and tears running down her face. That woman was experiencing cognitive dissonance. And she was not the only one. It was their cognitive dissonance that provoked the interrogators to ask the man who had been born blind his opinion of the unnamed miracle worker, who we know but who they refused to identify as the Lord Jesus Christ:

“What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes?”

They, who were the spiritual elites of their community, would normally never have asked that man’s opinion of anything. But they were experiencing a major brain freeze, so they asked him his opinion about the Lord. His reply?

“He is a prophet.”

This was also the initial estimation of the woman at the well if you recall. In John 4.19 she said to our Lord,

“Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.”

Let me warn you, this man’s opinion that the Savior was a prophet would not remain unchanged for long, just as the woman at the well soon changed her opinion about our Lord. At this point, the man who was born blind, but who can now see, recognizes that the Lord Jesus Christ represents God because that is what a prophet does. He speaks for God.

Next, THE INTERROGATORS AND THE PARENTS OF THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN BORN BLIND

Verse 18:

“But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.”

Failing to find any inconsistency in the testimonies of either the people who brought the now seeing man to them or the testimony of the man himself, the interrogator’s cognitive dissonance could not accept either this man’s account of what happened to him or his estimation of the Lord Jesus Christ, that He was a prophet. They were choking on the facts. In other words, their conclusions about the man who had been born blind and the as yet unnamed miracle worker were conclusions unsupported by the facts, so these Jews rejected the facts. They denied that he had been blind, or that he had been born blind. They denied that a miracle to restore his sight had been worked. In their desperation, the interrogators turned from the man to his parents.

Verse 19:

“And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?”

Two things here:

First, notice the way in which the interrogators confront the man’s parents. The proper way to elicit information from someone presumed to be honest is to kindly ask questions, to gently seek clarification, and to tenderly approach an issue from different perspectives in an effort to learn from the person you are speaking to, or leading that person to a better understanding of what issue is being discussed. Do you get the impression these interrogators have any interest in doing that? I do not. There is no honest effort to learn the truth here. Neither is there an honest effort to bring others to the truth. These interrogators are pushing their agenda, based upon their assumption that they already know all they need to know.

Their second question is even more revealing:

“how then doth he now see?”

The interrogators are thrashing about, refusing to face facts that do not support their preconceived notions. And now they turn on this man’s unsuspecting parents, demanding of them an explanation of his ability to see. How would they know? The only purpose in demanding an explanation from his parents is to apply pressure to everyone involved to produce comments useful to their view that this miracle could not be genuine.

Verses 20-21:

20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

This man is their son, and he was born blind. However, when pressed to explain his ability to see now, they plead ignorance and demand that he speak for himself. How very reasonable.

Verses 22-23:

22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

Here is the apostle’s explanation, written some five or six decades after the event, of what the man’s parents had been afraid of. The interrogators had a known agenda that departed significantly from any effort to discover the truth. They had already decided that confessing Jesus was the Christ would result in excommunication from the place of worship, the synagogue. Thus, the interrogators were profoundly biased and were not seeking objective, verifiable truth.

Finally, THE INTERROGATORS AND AGAIN THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN BORN BLIND

Verses 24-25:

24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

Understand that these interrogators are not asking this man to say nice things about God when they demand he “Give God the praise.” They were demanding that he confess his errors, the way Joshua urged upon Achan when he told him to confess his idolatry, back in Joshua 7.19. However, the man who had been born blind does not budge. He sticks to the facts as he knows them. Why? Unlike Achan, he had done nothing wrong.

Verses 26-27:

26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

Consider what the recipient of the miracle did. Sensing the desperation of the interrogators, who just will not let it go and admit Christ worked a miracle, he asked them,

“wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?”

Does that question bring a smile to your face? Can you imagine a bit of a smirk on his face as he asked them the question? By his comment he reveals that he has come to see himself as a disciple of Christ, or at least a disciple in the making: “will ye also be his disciples?”

Verses 28-29:

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.

29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

Of course, this sends the interrogators over the edge. Their attitude toward the man is now fully revealed as they reviled him, which is to say ridiculed and verbally abused him.[6] But he was once more ready with a timely response.

Verses 30-33:

30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

What an incredible series of statements: In verse 30 he wondered at the remarkable irony that his eyes had been opened by this unnamed man, yet the interrogators (being experts in matters of religion and the Law) do not know where He is from. In verse 31 he rehearses the knowledge common to all Jews of his day, concerning who God hears and who He does not hear. The implication is that, of course, God hears this man not named by the interrogators, this man who worked the miracle on him. In verse 32 he points out the obvious, that the opening of the eyes of one born blind is a miracle of the rarest kind. And he concludes in verse 33, pointing out what was obvious to everyone but the interrogators:

“If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.”

Verse 34 concludes this round of interrogation:

“They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.”

Two things:

First, they reacted angrily and displayed their pride of position. Falling back on the assumption that because he was born blind, he must be guilty of some terrible sin, the interrogators rejected any thought of the man who was born blind teaching them anything. Thus, they betrayed their pretended mission of discovering what happened.

Then, they cast him out. Presumably, this means he was expelled from his synagogue. Interesting, is it not, that he was denied anything approaching due process? Interesting, but hardly surprising. The Law of Moses says a great deal about the processes involved in determining guilt when someone is accused of wrongdoing, but this man was afforded no due process whatsoever before being expelled from his synagogue. Do I need to point out to you that God is all about due process? That God is all about the pursuit of justice? That the right thing, even when dealing with purported wrongdoing, must be done the right way? But these interrogators expelled a man for nothing more than being blessed and holding his own opinions.

Again, we see in the text we have dealt with no obvious Gospel message. But have no fear, next Sunday morning, God willing, we land on a text dealing with sin, faith, lordship, worship, and judgment. And we will see the account of the man who had been born blind, but whose sight was miraculously given to him, actually coming to faith in Christ.

I close by leaving you with this. It is a rare thing these days for pastors and missionaries to speak carefully to those seriously considering the claims of Christ. But how can a preacher know what of his sermon was received by a sinner or a believer apart from eliciting an account of that person’s understanding of what was preached? Of what had been heard?

Sadly, what so many Gospel ministers did in days gone by so few Gospel ministers do in our day. So when the Gospel minister seeks to discover from someone what was thought to have been declared in the sermon, and what is thought to be the proper response, there is a proper way of doing that. It is not; I would suggest to you, an interrogation, such as we observed in today’s sermon. The Lord Jesus Christ never dealt with people in that fashion.

Rather, it is proper for the Gospel minister to engage in elicitation, with gentleness seeking to discover if the person who listened to his sermon grasped what he meant to declare, and further seeking to discover if there are misunderstandings to seek to remedy at that time or in the next Gospel sermon.

May God help us to convey to those we seek to bring to Christ that our goal is to have a purpose that is noble, a motive that is pure, and conduct that is gentle. While I may preach strongly to a congregation, I seek to be tender with individuals.

Please feel free to explain to those you bring to Church that they will be dealt with most gently should they desire to speak with me after a Church service, and that you are always welcome to accompany anyone you bring who wants to speak to me about sin, salvation, and the Savior.

__________

[1] Solomon Stoddard, A Guide To Christ, (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications reprint, 1993)

[2] The courses were taught in April 2010 by specialists employed by the Chicago law firm of John H. Reid and Associates, and were The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation and The Advanced Course on The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation.

[3] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), page 960.

[4] Ibid., page 962.

[5] Ibid., page 588.

[6] Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol IV, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), pages 293-294.

Question? Comment?

Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.