Ship of Fools: The Man born blind.

Thread: The Man born blind. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028342

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

The lectionary for this Sunday is the story of the man born blind. ( John 9)

The Bible translations confuse me. When asked why he was born blind Jesus opposed the traditional explanation that his parents had sinned.

Then the problem comes. Some translations go on to say that he was born blind "so that the works of God might be manifest in him". I find this quite appalling. 30 years of blindness simply to provide the occasion for a miracle? What sort of a God is this?

Other translations say that he was born blind " but that the works of God....."

I can live with that.

The difference is that the former translation treats the man's blindness as purposeful. The second treats it as simply a fact of life which provides an occasion for a miracle.

I go for the second. What say others?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Couldn't the first translation be read as the miracle being purposeful, not the blindness? Using 'so' in a different way? As in, God chose to use the blind man for a miracle because the man was a weak and poorly-regarded member of society rather than a rich person who everyone admired.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Couldn't the first translation be read as the miracle being purposeful, not the blindness? Using 'so' in a different way? As in, God chose to use the blind man for a miracle because the man was a weak and poorly-regarded member of society rather than a rich person who everyone admired.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Here is a link to a variety of translations. Of course, other translations are available, but most do seem to come away with the impression that the guy was cursed with lifelong blindness just so Jesus could work a miracle. But, like shamwari, I recoil from that conclusion.

I rather visualize the scene as follows:

The disciples as Jesus if the man was born blind because of his own sins or those of his parents. "Neither," says Jesus. Full stop. End of discussion. Then, Jesus goes on: "However, to show that the works of God might be made manifest even in a poor blind guy, watch this!" And then Jesus cures him. Over time, in the telling and re-telling of the tale, the "Neither" and the "works of God made manifest" comments got jammed together as a single sentence.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Punctuation is everything in this story. I like Hedgehogs rendition.

[ 27. March 2014, 22:00: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Yes. Also I think this is a good example of a general principle at work. When good comes from a bad situation does that mean that God intended that bad thing to happen (knowing that good would eventually come of it)?

No. I don't think so. God is able to redeem a bad situation and bring good from it. The bad thing (the man being born blind) was because we live in an open Universe in which good and bad things can happen. However, it presented Jesus with an opportunity to redeem things by demonstrating God's power and healing the man.

Redemption (bringing good from bad) doesn't somehow mean the bad wasn't really bad in the first place or was intended by God.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I understand that the contemporary view was that only God could open the eyes of a person born blind.

my take on it is that we are to stop looking for someone to blame and do something that will glorify God.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I find the question in John 9:2 curious, to say the least. "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"

Why would anyone imagine that someone could be born in a certain condition as a result of his own sin? That seems to imply a belief in reincarnation, in which a morally responsible person would have to pre-exist his own birth on this earth.

Most odd.

Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on :

there was a popular Jewish belief that if you were born blind, it was the fault of your parents - they must have sinned. "Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes" (Ps 89.v32)

This belief was challenged by Jesus - see John 9.3

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

One thing I'm going to catch crap for, I know, but ...

We're hearing views condemning a God who would allow a human being to suffer forty-odd years in order to be the subject of a miracle in the last year, and this is very natural. It sounds coldhearted.

Still, the person with the best right to an opinion on the subject is the formerly blind man. And in the tiny space of time we see him, he appears to have nothing but gratitude. It looks parallel to a heap of modern circumstances where someone is to our eyes living with appalling suffering--and yet they tell you how good God has been to them, and they mean it, too.

I suspect the blind man would say "Yes, God has a right to do that with my life, and I'm all right with it, thank you." I know for a certainty that my own life has some situations that have made onlookers condemn God for allowing them, and yet I too say, "Yes, God has a right to do this with my life, and I signed on for this of my own free will, and I approve what he has done with me to further the Kingdom."

And the fact that that personally-chosen signing-on took place later in my life, when the suffering had been underway since babyhood--does that matter? I don't think so. I consent now, as I would have done then, had it been possible.

More than that, I rejoice to be used by God in such a way. It is an honor to suffer for Christ, it is a glory to have him make us part of his team and trust us enough to give us a real share of the cost for the coming of the Kingdom. It means he regards us as fellow workers, as friends--not as mere wards or minors who must be spared every burden, all of those to be shouldered by the guardian alone.

Posted by Silver Swan (# 17957) on :

EE, good point!
Lamb Chopped, I have a similar theory about having signed up of our own free will for suffering. In my case, one of the most defining events of my childhood was nearly dying from tetanus at the age of nine. I was left feeling very sorry for myself for a long time until the idea came to me that it's possible that before I was born God said, I need someone to go and suffer such and such, are you willing? If I agreed to it, why carry on moaning about it?
Of course this supposes a prebirth existence which not all Christians adhere to.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

...Or simply that choice works in a nonlinear fashion when it comes to time. That's something I've suspected about Christianity in many areas, including conversion, baptism and the Lord's supper.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
One thing I'm going to catch crap for, I know, but ...

We're hearing views condemning a God who would allow a human being to suffer forty-odd years in order to be the subject of a miracle in the last year, and this is very natural. It sounds coldhearted.

Still, the person with the best right to an opinion on the subject is the formerly blind man. And in the tiny space of time we see him, he appears to have nothing but gratitude. It looks parallel to a heap of modern circumstances where someone is to our eyes living with appalling suffering--and yet they tell you how good God has been to them, and they mean it, too.

I suspect the blind man would say "Yes, God has a right to do that with my life, and I'm all right with it, thank you." I know for a certainty that my own life has some situations that have made onlookers condemn God for allowing them, and yet I too say, "Yes, God has a right to do this with my life, and I signed on for this of my own free will, and I approve what he has done with me to further the Kingdom."

And the fact that that personally-chosen signing-on took place later in my life, when the suffering had been underway since babyhood--does that matter? I don't think so. I consent now, as I would have done then, had it been possible.

More than that, I rejoice to be used by God in such a way. It is an honor to suffer for Christ, it is a glory to have him make us part of his team and trust us enough to give us a real share of the cost for the coming of the Kingdom. It means he regards us as fellow workers, as friends--not as mere wards or minors who must be spared every burden, all of those to be shouldered by the guardian alone.

Well, you won't catch any crap from me for that. I agree. Glory to God for all things. To the unbeliever that of course is a cause for great scandal but for the person who has faith that is, as you say, a reason to be grateful and rejoice.

Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on :

The last few posts are very alien to me, and alien to my reading of this sign in John.

If God made some people blind and disabled for purposes best known to Him what must be obeyed, then praise be for Him who is Love for inspiring people to work to overcome cancer, TB, polio, cholera and disabilities and diseases, and for those who set up a Welfare state to make sure that the poor aren't left out of medical advances..

Similarly, if Him what must be working for our own good sent Hitler or other tyrants, praise be to Him what inspired people to fight Hitler even at the cost of so many lives.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We aren't disagreeing with you at all. My own life has been spent working with immigrants to fight injustice and make their lives better.

What I am saying is that there are some of us who would actively refuse your pity (though not concrete help!), because we can see that God is using our particular suffering as part of his work to redeem the world. Though it's awkward to say so when someone has just been emoting indignantly about how unfair God is to let X happen to me, trying to be emotionally supportive, you know--and then I'm left with the embarrassing choice between letting their kind error go uncorrected (!) or correcting their viewpoint--in which place they think I'm doing it way too brown, trying to look like a saint.

Note: none of this applies to theorizing about other people's suffering. It's a thing that can only be fairly discerned from the person involved.

[ 28. April 2014, 12:27: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Waw consecutivum (# 18120) on :

quote:
Then the problem comes. Some translations go on to say that he was born blind "so that the works of God might be manifest in him". I find this quite appalling. 30 years of blindness simply to provide the occasion for a miracle? What sort of a God is this?

Other translations say that he was born blind " but that the works of God....."

I can live with that.

The difference is that the former translation treats the man's blindness as purposeful. The second treats it as simply a fact of life which provides an occasion for a miracle.

I go for the second. What say others?

## A version of the first, definitely. Come to think of it, this appears to be one of those passages in which two translations need to be given if the meaning of the text is to be done justice. The Evangelists quite often say two or more things at once.

Both translations make the point that God is in charge - this is good solid apocalyptic thinking, like that in the Book of Revelation. The emphasis is on God and something like His Sovereignty; not on man. Specifically, God is in charge even of great infirmities. They are not mistakes, they are not outside God's Providence, & they do not separate men from God. Sin separates us from God - but our infirmities do not; on the contrary, they (so to speak) incline God to us, because they show the greatness of our need; He "allows" them, so that He may heal us of them, in this world or the next.

The miracle is not "merely" a healing miracle - it is an efficacious sign of the presence of God's Kingship, and therefore, of the "casting out" of "the prince of this age/world". IOW, it is part of God's purpose "from before the foundation of the world". The man's blindness is not just an infirmity - it has a positive function in God's Plan, because this blind man, not some other, is the blind man whose healing is a blow to the rule of the devil.

To blame the blindness on parental sin, is to trivialise the blindness, and to make it a mere human misfortune, rather than what it is: something in which God is at work so that He can, "in the fullness of time", heal it, & do so as a work of Messianic healing power that breaks down the "kingdom" of the "prince of this world".

And it has a typical function: what Jesus is shown doing here, He does, really if less obviously, every time anyone is converted to Him: the bodily blindness stands for a much more serious spiritual blindness. All of us are blind spiritually in some degree, so all of us need the healing that God has sent His son to give. The question is, whether our blindness is that of the blind man - or, of those who cast him out.

I don't think it is reading too much into the text to say also that the passage implies that because the man is given his sight, God was with him while he was blind, preparing him for the time of his healing, that was unknown to him but known to God.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0