so the man and his parents were without sin?

 

so does that mean then they weren't descended from eve & adam, the Original Sinners?

 

if so, then there were at least some human beings who never missed the mark and didn't need jesus to die for them?

 

hmm...

 

oh wai-------------

This Bible  passage bothers me - was the man blind just so Jesus could do a magic trick?

What of the countless folk who are blind and never healed?

 

 

More and more I'm coming to the conviction that the Bible is just folk's stories about grappling with things they simply didn't understand - but think  someone (whom they call God), does..

 

This is not to say that I don't believe - just that I think Biblical interpretations won't help.

 

You either experience "The More" (God) or you don't........

Interesting point.

I don't think his reply lacked compassion. For one, God's works are already revealed in him because he can see, not materially, but in his mind's eye- maybe more important than the physical healing aspect of the story.

And the God of the time couldn't see that a bright boy might appear in the demoniac crowds if the heirarchy screws around with the bottom lines ...

 

Is this about psychic things or god as ante ... before time? This is what Its like to scro'bote in the dark with god know's Hoo ... some rationale is advantageous ... but one learns by Eire 'r ... similar to that old Greek Gamma ...

 

OSH-ite not that ole witch again ... psyche? It appears chi mu' sede Ur way into a hole-E in space ... like entanglement thesis! The pious can't figurte it out ... not supposed to think ... or know ...

Don't understand the problem people have with this passage - except that those to the more progressive side of the theological spectrum also insist on literalism as a manner of biblical interpretation. I understand the appeal of literalism. It makes things easy. We can cherry pick the passages we like and ignore everything else. But we also don't have to struggle with the tough passages. We just dismiss them.

 

The point of this story is that the man's blindness wasn't the result of anyone's sin. So, context: obviously, some had been insisting that the blindness was a divine punishment of some sort. No. The man wasn't being punished - he had been blind from birth. The man's parents shouldn't feel guilty. Nothing they had done had caused the man's blindness. In other words, nobody should be laying blame. Far from punishment, the point of the story is that the man's blindness presented an opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate God's glory and God's compassion. It becomes a call for us to do the same when we encounter a person in need of any type. Does this mean that God caused the man to be born blind, or the needs we encounter (or experience ourselves)? Of course not. Clearly there was some physical problem. Sometimes that happens. I don't believe that God micromanages our lives and decides everything - including what illnesses we're going to get and when we die. But the story does make the point that even our trials can be used to demonstrate the power of God in our lives and the presence of God's compassion in the lives of others.

No Steven it was all about the apocalypse of one man (singular enlighttenment)about the ill literates all about eM ...

 

The lights come on sporatically in GEO Gaia ... down ere eh bi? Creation had to put the emotional population somewhere so they could gravitate to the opposing light ... that of wisdom.

 

Isn't that far route humur? One has to wonder a bit ... Lilliputun? Never never ignore the wee bits ... the larger feeling bunch usually does ... until approaching the threshold ... once known as dagon ... where'n it go? Then theywonder what happened ... when the opportunity has passed to love the oddities of real life ... and things unseen ... suspected to be unreal like Complex I'z, the hommoe of inner visions? Perhaps just perspectus ...

What da yah mean my little bit doesn't count?

 

It's a humble chit ... most of the poweful bunch won't even look at it ... as they don't understand ... never was intended ... as persona non grata ... just out-of-'ere ... the pious don't like knowledge ... it's biblical ... we worship emotions and methods of loosing grip of wisdom ...

 

 Talk about the devil having foxy ways of extracting intelligence ... snotty DNA? They wouldn't believe it in church ... children are the curse of gods ... I hear the old biddies complaining all the time about kid noise ...

 

Did you hear those old women sing ... what a howl ... fun to listen to like that Mrs Hype one bit by the rodent  ... what a squeel ...

 

Some say that's meso soprano ... kills as quick as the God Father ... the Don 'n of light about dissonance? Such things Eris ... but don't be cynical of nut'n ...

Always look on the lighter side ... Levantine?

 

Leviathan can be monstrous to one portion of the statement ... you figure ho's subject and whom is the object and I'll invert the topic so you can reflect upon IT ... consider it a mire film noire ... clouded at least ... ve Spurous ...

I think this story serves two purposes. One is to underscore the general belief in reincarnation and laws of karma. When the disciples asked if it was "this man who sinned", it was a clear indication that they believed in the reincarnation of the soul. The second question of whether it "his parents who sinned", is still another way of restating the biblical doctrine that the sins of the parents can be visited upon the children, meaning the transgressions of the past need to be paid for in the future.


Jesus didn't rebuff them asking such a question. If it was a question of nonsense then he likely would've said so. But rather Jesus answered them with the idea that sometimes we simply don't know the inner workings of karma. And this case it may very well have been that the soul of the blind man purposely came into this world with this affliction in order for the "works of God" to be demonstrated.


The idea that karma is the only answer to all our problems is easily understood by the old Jewish laws such as found in Leviticus where it is written: "And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor as he hath done, so shall it be done to him. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again."


With the new commandment, however, where Jesus said that we should simply "love one another", the "sins of the past", e.g. that of karma, can be overcome and transgressed with the laws of grace and forgiveness.

 

Certainly that's how I have always heard the passage read though, given the wording RAN quotes, I can see why others see it differently.

 

Mendalla

 

John 9:41

"If you were blind you would not have sin. But now that you say "we see" your sin remains."

 

I wonder if Jesus is pointing out that there are many ways to become blind?  The Pharisees have Jesus standing right in front of them and still they don't see Him as God. They still don't believe. They are blind.

 

The blind man was not allowed to enter the temple because of his blindness that the pharisees said sin caused. He is more open to recieving Jesus and to receive the give of "sight" that is offered than those from inside the temple. The Pharisees do not "see" that anyone who believes is saved and it is not dependent on what rules men come up with.

 

I think it's interesting that the physical blindness is compared to a spiritual blindness. And how much easier it is for a man that was born physically blind to see Christ than it is for those that were not.

 

 

I think and feel that God is present in everyone.

 

Everyone is a unique form of God, expressing God uniquely, even a man who is blind from birth, and, because of this, may have a more acute sense of hearing and touch and other non-visual senses, and expresses God in those.

 

As others have said before, sin has absolutely nothing to do with the man's blindness.

 

 

 

 

I almost had to read that in church this morning as the minister called in sick today.  It was SUPER long.  Thankfully, I just did Samuel and the psalm then walked away leaving the two lay people up front: ha ha.

We discussed this passage in Bible Conversations (a small group that meets before church to discuss the lectionary).  We were all a bit puzzled by the literal reading of the first paragraph.  We certainly didn't think that it had been God's will that a baby would be born blind and live through his childhood and youth in a world of darkness just so Jesus could perform a magic trick and convince a few witnesses into believing.  Nor did we think his blindness was punishment for sin.  I don't believe that a benevolent God punishes or rewards in this way - especially punishing a baby for sins he hasn't committed or punishing a baby for his parents sins.  It just doesn't fit in with the Jesus who said, "Suffer the little children ... for of such is the kingdom of God." 

We reminded ourselves that the author had an agenda in writing this gospel. 

 

Moving on through the story we see discussion, tension, disbelief and disagreement.  We see evidence of a split between the followers of Jesus and the religious leaders in the temple.  (Called 'the Jews' in this gospel, although Jesus and his followers were all Jews. 

 

And we begin to understand that seeing means more than physical seeing.  It also involves seeing the truth.

 

I believe we should understand Christs duty was to come into this world  to die for our sinns. Though the life of Jesus. I believe He Jesus shows this in His question to the man , that had been blind. John9: 35-36

 

	Jhn 9:35	Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of man?"
	Jhn 9:36	He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"
	Jhn 9:37	Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you."
	Jhn 9:38	He said, "Lord, I believe"; and he worshiped him.

This also shows it did not take faith on the blind persons side, to be healed.

airclean33

Hi Rev. Steven Davis

 

 

I don't know if that is "the" point so much as it might be "a" point.  That said, it is a very powerful point and worthy of much more attention than it usually gets.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi RAN,

 

 

All told this is a more compassionate answer than the presumptions it demolishes.

 

The conversation presupposes that blindness is a curse, it is the result of sin, it is a punishment.  The only concern at this point, when the question is asked, is who is being punished.

 

If it is the man born blind what kind of sin cost him his vision while he was still in utero?  If it is the punishment for the pervasive effect of the original sin we should wonder why we aren't all born blind.

 

That requires too much self critical refelction and it is much more affirming to blame others for the obvious sin that causes them to be born blind or with any other deficiency.

 

If it is the result of the parent's sin then God is apparently okay taking things out on people who aren't responsible.  It isn't enough that most parents will automatically despair that they have done something wrong resulting in such a disability the rest of us needed to pile on and crowd out any possibility of grace touching these lives.

 

Those are the only two options they have to work with.

 

How tiny and sad a life can you have when disability is equated to punishment for sin?

 

Anyway, Jesus would know who is being punished wouldn't he?  Son of God and all that, of course he'd know so, if your curious why not ask?

 

So, Jesus who sinned, this man or his parents?

 

Neither. is the reply.

 

Which brings a new third possibility in to the conversation.  The possibility that people born with disability are not being punished (unless you count being pluncked into the midst of a sea of ignoramouses who see a disabled person, believe it is the result of sin and then go on to make thoughtless comments about the disability as if they haven't been punished enough already.

 

 

Now a lot of folk are going to jump to the conclusion that since Jesus healed him the man was born blind so that Jesus might have something to do.  Like the blindness is a make work project for Jesus until some bigger miracle is ready to be worked.  You could read it that simplisticly if you wanted.  If you do you'll only impress folk who are more simple-minded than yourself and that doesn't sound like it is that high an accomplishment that it needs to be bragged about.

 

What are these works of God that are to be revealed through this blind man?  Anybody who suggests seeing needs to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on.  If your first thought is healing you should stay after class and write lines.

 

In what way does this blind man do God's work?

 

While we consider that let's point to the text itself:  Jesus is present and part of the narrative in verses 1-7 and verses 35-41.  He's talked about and referenced in verses 7-35 but not present.

 

That means that in all of these 41 verses the main protagonist in the 28 verses between appearances by Jesus is the man born blind and his testimony.  And what is he saying?  Pretty much everything that destroys the opposition to Jesus, which seems especially desperate to deny the reality of what has happened.

 

Telling the truth is no less God's work than healing the sick or feeding the multitudes.

 

His being healed gives him the opportunity to take centre stage and tell the truth.  Because he had a certain celebrity as a man born blind from birth when he suddenly becomes unblind his testimony is going to shake things up.  Especially if it is attributing the ability to heal in this manner to some bumpkin Galilean preacher.

 

The "blindness" is actually a distraction for folk who like to skim.  It really isn't that important and the story isn't about how it happened or why.  If it was Jesus would have had more to say about it.  What is important is the testimony that the man gives after his healing and the uproar it causes in those opposed to Jesus.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

 

There are still people today who many look upon as being cursed for one reason or another - outcasts whom society tends to reject. I feel that Jesus' message for us would be the same as it was for the people of his time - love people, and consider what good God can do in the lives of everyone.

IMO Jesus is talking about the origin of the man's blindness, not about the holiness or himself or his parents. Doesn't RevJohn's suggestion make sense, that Jesus wanted to open the disciples minds to a "third possibility"?

 

That's what I meant about an apparent lack of compassion.

I am afraid RevJohn will need two dunce caps, one for you and one for me. 

 

Two doctors operated on me last year. I seem to be healing well. Should we object because they did not heal everyone? They can't be everywhere at once. Could Jesus?

 

 

I personally feel there is a greater lesson than Jesus just healing a born blind man ---Jesus healed many who were blind from disease and accidents and yes this healing was greater as this man was born blind and the testimony this man would give would be great and more meaningful ---calamities are not always to be looked upon as special punishments of sin ---some are to show God's Glory that are manifested in His works --souls who were week would be strengthened ---doubt would give way to satisfaction --morning to rejoicing and blindness to seeing ----God's Grace in full sight ---  

 

Jesus came into this world to give sight to the spiritually blind and  those who see might be made blind that those who are full of their own wisdom might be sealed up in ignorance --

 

These are just my thoughts on this --Peace

Hi RAN,

 

 

The problem is the causality issue.

 

Why was this man punished with blindness is the underlying question.  Is he being punished with blindness because of his own sin or is he being punished with blindness because of his parent's sin.

 

When Jesus says neither this man sinned nor his parents we should be reading that he isn't being punished with blindness at all.  

 

His blindness is not a punishment.

 

Jesus wants to teach a way of thinking that doesn't see disability as something God punishes people with.

 

We reflect that mindset when we think that the blindness was something that needed to be cured.

 

Doesn't Jesus healing the blind indicate that Jesus thought the blindness was something to fix?  No, but that is a fairly logical thought?

 

When the paralytic is lowered through the roof in hopes of healing.  Is Jesus concerned about the mans paralysis?

 

So much so he forgives the man's sin and says nothing about the fact he cannot walk.

 

The pharisees grumble that he shouldn't be forgiving sins because that is God's responsibility Jesus then proves he can forgive sins because he has the power to restore the man's legs.

 

The paralysis isn't a punishment or a curse from God then why should we assume that this man's blindness is the result of sin?  Assuming for a second that we accept this man's blindness is not a punishment for his or his parent's sin.  What purpose is there in his being born blind?

 

None.

 

Why not?

 

Because God doesn't strike people blind while they are still in utero, not as punishment and not for kicks later.

 

God did not create this man's blindness.  God is still the creator of this man.

 

Jesus is still this man's redeemer.  So Jesus redeems then steps out of the picture so this newly redeemed individual can bear testimony to the one who redeemed him.

 

He goes two rounds with a very stubborn crowd before they brush him aside (probably part of their pattern in dealing with him while he was blind too).

 

Jesus comes back and gets in their faces calling them blind.

 

Who has the disability?  Who is blind?

 

The religious leaders of the day.  That is who.

 

Is the blindness a punishment from God?

 

Will Jesus heal them of their blindness?

 

The truth has been told as mentioned above that is the work of God and it is facilitated in this encounter by one being born blind having his sight restored and getting into a debate with religious leaders born sighted who apparently cannot (or rather will not) see what is right in front of their faces.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'm going to be honest here - I don't KNOW what Jesus meant........ (or indeed, if they were his actual words).

 

What does concern me, is how quick folks are -whether literalist, orthodox, progressive to attribute THEIR thoughts to Jesus.

 

I wouldn't mind it so much if they acknowledged that that is what they're doing.....

 

If faith has to rely on interpreting the Bible alone, it's on shaky ground (IMO).

 

I like the version of this text in "The Message" - it's consistent with what our 'resident Revs' are posting upthread, imo, and with how I heard it interpreted in the sermon this morning.  There is more mystery in life - and in God -  than we often account for, or are even willing to entertain.  Openess to that mystery is important. 

 

The last verse (directed toward the Pharisees) resonates for me - 41 Jesus said, “If you were really blind, you would be blameless, but since you claim to see everything so well, you’re accountable for every fault and failure.”

 

In the sermon I heard today, there was an invitation to Shiloam. 

 

It resonated rather deeply with me. 

 

that's quite alright...one person's 'problem' is another person's 'meh'...

its through the cracks that the light shines through and threw

 

but of course it does make sense t'me

 

after i wrote what i wrote i thought of 4 other different interpretations, one of them involving the mythresonance of the Pool and the Spring where it came from (and from which all of the City of David's water came from)

 

that's what's so great aboot art -- there is room given for involvement and interpretation, and all the different denominations of religions are just popular interpretations that have become adopted by more than one person, usually around a core value generator (thanks again to GeoFee for the wonderful neologism)

 

 

So you are saying we should read the whole story first (and learn how well the "blind" man can really "see"), and then we will recognize the compassion in Jesus' response to the disciples? Did I understand you correctly? 

 

The book of John is call I believe A book of Love, I agree. The answer to John 9: Lies in John1:1--  John1: 4-5 --Gen1:3--4 ---Rev21:23-24.

 

Jhn 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

	Gen 1:3	And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
	Gen 1:4	And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

 

	Jhn 1:4	In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
	Jhn 1:5	The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

IF YOU CLOSE YOUR EYES-- What do you see?

OPEN THEM --What do you see?

 

	Rev 21:23	And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of (God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb).
	Rev 21:24	By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it,

Are God is a God of Light.

All Glory is GODS.--airclean33

 

shine on, loving one another, shine on

That's pretty much what I see as the point of the first part of Jesus' response quoted in the OP (John 9:3). Hence the need for what RevJohn called a "third possibility" to "explain" the man's blindness.

 

 

So this is your way of elaborating "he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him"?

Would it be fair to say Jesus' words may not sound compassionate, but his compassion (and God's compassion) is shown in the healing that follows them?

 

 

Not only is that fair, it's pretty much what I said!

Pilgrims Progress wondered why healing does not come to every blind person. I think that is a common question.

 

But you seem to see no reason for healing to come to even one blind person. I am not sure I have heard anyone say that. Is that really your perspective on blindness?

 

As someone severely short-sighted from birth, I am very happy that I was not born blind, and very grateful to the many opticians, optometrists and ophthalmologists who have helped me to see as well as I can.

 

As in other parts of the Bible, Jesus' teaching style/ tone is rather blunt- he takes on a "wake up and smell the coffee" tone, but I don't think it lacks compassion. Especially not for the blind man. I see Jesus teaching others to treat people with disabilities with respect. There was even the part about asking the man's parents to confirm the healing, and they said, "He's of age. Ask him yourself." The story gives us more insight into how we treat people who have been shunned than it does into Jesus gift of being able to physically heal. The healing that took place was to this man's dignity as a person- it was less about his physical ability to see. And he didn't have to "see" proof of Jesus' ability to heal in order to trust him like the others did. The man listened to Jesus' instructions and participated in his own healing by going down the pool- he didn't ask for Jesus to go with him (and I'm getting the pool and the mud mixed up myself. However.) He instructed the man on what he needed to do, the man heard it, and went off and did it. Jesus didn't treat him like a poor sinner, but like a capable human being. The story itself is a story about compassion- to get us to think about dignity and compassion. IMO.

Can anyone find any symbolism behind jesus using spit & mud to start the deblinding process?

So your group wasn't able to make sense of "he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him"?

What did you think of the way Rev. Steven Davis put it?

 

I assume that's how your group understood the first part of Jesus' response ("Neither this man nor his parents sinned;"). Is that right? 

Or did you think that Jesus' answer left some doubt that the blindness might be a punishment for sins of himself or his parents?

 

 

If I understand your comment Kimmio, you see the parents redirecting the pharisees to speak with their son directly as an indication that he was quite capable of doing so & this should be respected.    Personally, as I read, there is more to this - they were fearful of being condemned themselves by the pharisees & wanted to distance themselves from the event in order to maintain their place in the community.  Speaks sadly to the perceived power of the religious leaders of the time. 

 

20-23 His parents said, “We know he is our son, and we know he was born blind. But we don’t know how he came to see—haven’t a clue about who opened his eyes. Why don’t you ask him? He’s a grown man and can speak for himself.” (His parents were talking like this because they were intimidated by the Jewish leaders, who had already decided that anyone who took a stand that this was the Messiah would be kicked out of the meeting place. That’s why his parents said, “Ask him. He’s a grown man.”) copied from "The Message"

Fair enough, carolla. They didn't deny it though. They asked the man to answer for himself because he was of age. The man was courageous, and spoke for himself. Do you think there's anything to the man's going to the pool himself- his participation in his own healing by Jesus' instruction.

Also interesting is that the formerly blind man did not claim to know or seem to care if Jesus was a sinner. All he knew was that he could trust him.

I think about people with disabilities and their desire to be included is often greater than their desire to be "healed" of their disability.

You are highlighting something that I think is important in this passage. There seem to be many important points in the long passage.

 

What do you think of the way Jesus answers his disciples in John 9:3? Do you find it a compassionate response? 

 

 

 

Good question: Jesus used His spit to heal on other occassions too.

 

Yes - there are interesting language distinctions today - for example, "cured" vs "healed";  and I agree with your comment on inclusion. 

aside - So that's where my mom got the idea! 

 

I don't see this as anything special - he was an adult - why would he not go on his own?  

 

LOL! Mine too, what's with that?

My mom used to spit on a Kleenex and wipe my face. I didn't accept it as 'healing' in any way. Lol!

I think we now know why he went to the pool of siloam to wash his face, LOL!

http://www.gotquestions.com/Jesus-spit.html

I'm not sure why he wouldn't but the authorities questioned the parents on his behalf. There were other healing stories where Jesus was with people and/ or they came and asked to be healed, some enquiring about their grown children, and they didn't have to do anything, is all. This man didn't ask to be healed, nor did his parents ask, did they? And there's something symbolic there about the man washing dirt off with water that was part of the healing, I think, that wasn't witnessed, that he took part in and experienced on his own, came back changed and that changed others. I'd have to think more about that, though.

Hi RevJohn,

This is also how I read Jesus' reply. Or, I should say, this first part of Jesus' reply. "Neither". He doesn't seem to leave much room for doubt on this point. Neither do you.

 

It is this second part of Jesus answer where it seems more difficult to find compassion in the words. I still have not thought through my response, so I will spend some time in the corner wearing my dunce cap until I get back to you on this aspect.

 

And to you.