|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: There is none so blind
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
as those who will not see,
There is none so deaf as those who will not hear.
John 9
I am struck by two items in the story. The first is how previous beliefs blind the disciples and the Pharisees to what is about to take place.
We don't do this ourselves, do we? Okay, I know that may be pushing the boundaries of this board.
But two, how the blind man is rejected twice by his community. He is rejected first because he is blind. And then he is rejected because he can see.
One can certainly see how this reflects the division of the Christian community from the Synagogue fellowship.
He was also abandoned by his parents
Bereft from community and abandoned by family I could imagine all this fellow would have wanted to do is crawl into a hole and just die. But Jesus finds him once again
Note, he is rejected twice by the community. He is found by Jesus twice.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
How do verses 4-5…
quote:
“We must perform the deeds [= work the works] of the one who sent me as long as it is daytime. Night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
…fit with verse 3?:
quote:
Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.”
Was Jesus saying that the purpose for this man’s defect was solely to provide an opportunity for healing while Jesus was on earth? In other words, Jesus’ answer to the problem of evil (or, at least, the reason for disease) was not one for all time. He was referring only to the time he was on earth. That was when he and his disciples had to perform miracles / signs. That would mean John (the author) was not intending to refer to a more universal understanding of pain suffering and deficiencies here.
Was this why when the disciples sought a reason, Jesus responded with a purpose statement (not answering the question!) instead?
It doesn’t seem right, but the language use lends itself to the idea.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
2 questions about this passage:
1. Are the parents who tell the Pharisees they do not know how their son now sees or who opened his eyes merely supposed to represent potential Christians who will not make a public confession of whatever faith they have for fear of persecution or are they more broadly supposed to represent a kind of agnostic who will not make a definite decision to believe one way or another about Christ or miracles, especially when speaking in an official setting or when speaking to non-Christians?
2. When it says that the formerly blind man "worshipped" Jesus, does that mean that he believed that Jesus is God and was worshipping him as God? I am never sure what exactly is meant by the word "worship" when I see it in translation in the Bible, and I don't know any Greek or Hebrew.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I understand, but I have forgotten the source, that there was a tradition or understanding that only God could open the eyes of a person born blind. So this healing is a graphic demonstration of the Johannine "I Am" statements.
Perhaps the worship statement is confirming that Jesus is God, but I do not know the Greek.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Indeed, in the reading the formerly blind man asks if anyone not from God could have given him his sight. The passage also refers to those who are so deaf that they will not hear; they do not listen to what Jesus was preaching.
As to the parents, a couple of other possibilities. The first rather appeals to me. They were teasing those from the temple, just as their son later did. They were putting the priests into their place.
The second is perhaps more plausible and is that the parents feared what would happen to them were they to relate what had occurred.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to the parents, a couple of other possibilities. The first rather appeals to me. They were teasing those from the temple, just as their son later did. They were putting the priests into their place.
The second is perhaps more plausible and is that the parents feared what would happen to them were they to relate what had occurred.
Here is John 9:20-22. quote:
His parents answered, ‘We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.’ His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.
If someone had been put out of the synagogue, the other Jews would have refused to hire or do business with them. Only someone with a great deal of wealth could afford a risk like that.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I heard no fewer than 4 sermons on the text over the last week, and the suggestions I made came from those - not all from each though. One said that the expressed fear was not real but rather the tease I wrote of. I'm not in a position to judge between them.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to the parents, a couple of other possibilities. The first rather appeals to me. They were teasing those from the temple, just as their son later did. They were putting the priests into their place.
The second is perhaps more plausible and is that the parents feared what would happen to them were they to relate what had occurred.
Here is John 9:20-22. quote:
His parents answered, ‘We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.’ His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.
If someone had been put out of the synagogue, the other Jews would have refused to hire or do business with them. Only someone with a great deal of wealth could afford a risk like that.
When Jesus cured the man's blindness there was no mention of the parents being anywhere around. Thus, it seems to me that there statements ("He is our son. He was born blind. We don't know how it is that he can now see.") were just flat statements of fact. It is only John's editorial comment (to scratch his usual itch about "the Jews") to say that they said it out of fear. But there was no need for fear--they literally did not know how it was that their son could see.
So, if we go with "the parents were teasing the temple folk" on the one hand and "they were afraid" on the other, I tend to feel it is more in the middle: they simply told the truth.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seedsower
Apprentice
# 18754
|
Posted
I feel that after his healing by Jesus he was rejected by the religious leaders because he gave The Lord the credit for his being healed. If they accepted his testimony then they would be on the road to acknowledging the Messiahship of Christ.
Rejected by his parents simply out of fear and even possible future harsh treatment in some way. Rejected before his healing could be because anyone with any blemish or disability was not allowed to approach God in the Mosaic Law. This perhaps would have led his community to shun (not so severely as a leper) him and even become somewhat wary of him.
[ 27. March 2017, 14:14: Message edited by: Seedsower ]
Posts: 5 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Indeed, in the reading the formerly blind man asks if anyone not from God could have given him his sight. The passage also refers to those who are so deaf that they will not hear; they do not listen to what Jesus was preaching.
But saying that someone is from God or that someone is a prophet, even that someone is the Messiah, is different than saying someone is God. I am wondering whether the passage implies that the blind man came to believe the Jesus is God and that the blind man worshipped Jesus as God, if that is what the word in translation "worship" means.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is part of the point of the story a power-play with the Pharisees? Or is it reasonable to bring thoughts from other interactions with authorities to the understanding?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I have ended up focusing on how preconceived ideas keep us from realizing new possibilities.
From past experience: there was a time when a bunch of young Lutheran theologians (including me) were trying to dissect a particular passage in terms of law and gospel. But there was another theologian that was from the Reformed tradition also there. He finally pointed out to us, that a better way to understand the passage was through covenantal theology--and he was right.
The Pharisees, it appears are so focused on proving Jesus a sinner, that they would not hear of any other explanation, even though their own traditon says the only one that can cure blindness is God. Seems like they found themselves hemmed in and could not find any other way out but to reject the formally blind man.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Indeed, in the reading the formerly blind man asks if anyone not from God could have given him his sight. The passage also refers to those who are so deaf that they will not hear; they do not listen to what Jesus was preaching.
But saying that someone is from God or that someone is a prophet, even that someone is the Messiah, is different than saying someone is God. I am wondering whether the passage implies that the blind man came to believe the Jesus is God and that the blind man worshipped Jesus as God, if that is what the word in translation "worship" means.
I have neither Greek or Hebrew so can't comment if anything may turn on the precise words. With so much of the NT, I don't think there is 1 intended and absolute meaning, rather that the author wrote in poetic fashion, leaving multiple approaches possible and valid.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's pure life of Brian. The blind guy's oppressed parents are as bolshy as they dare, not much, but the guy himself drives them to enraged, therefore terrified, irrationality by perfectly rational faith, in fact their irrationality develops his faith in a conversation of seven turns:
24 A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.”
25 He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”
26 Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”
27 He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?”
28 Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”
30 The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. 32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”
34 To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
