02/09/2022 – Gospel of John – Chapter 9 commentary – “Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind.” / Questions regarding connections of sin to human suffering.
This question came from the disciples, but unfortunately could have come from almost any Jew of the time:
“Rabbi, who sinned this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (9:2)
Jesus response:
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned but this happened so the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While i am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (9:3 – 9:5)
This reply is what Matthew Henry’s commentary reads: Two reasons: “(1)…. Misfortunes are sometimes intended purely for the glory of God, and the mainfesting of his works. If God be glorified, either by us or in us, we were not made in vain. The man was born blind, that the works of of God might be manifest in him. First, That the attributes of God might be made manifest in him, especially that his extraordinary power and goodness might be manifested in curing him. The difficulties of providence, otherwise unaccountable, may be resolved into this — God intends in them to show himself… (2). Secondly, That the cousels of God might be manifested in him. He was born blind that our Lord Jesus might prove himself sent of God to be the true light of the world. It was now a great while since this man was born blind, and yet it never appeared till now why he was so. The sentences in the book of providence are sometimes long, and you must read a great way before you can apprehend the sense of them. ” (Jimmy note – if ever in this life)
Just FYI: Matthew Henry’s commentary is 1, 986 pages at what I would guess at only a “8” font size compared to my entire NIV bible at 1,084 at a minimum of a “11” font size. So a ratio of say at least 3:1 in length.
Personally speaking, I would have found that reply much more comforting than the reply that Jesus gave the Jews regarding the collapse of the tower of Siloam that killed eighteen people:
“Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, ‘ Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent , you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on this them — do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13: 1-5)
I agree with Tim Keller who commented, from the corresponding Mark verse for that scene, that he could enivision a response akin to: “Thank you Lord, but I wasn’t asking about my sin?”
Let’s explore that last comment by Jesus in verse five through Barclay’s commentary, as I think he postulates an interesting premise:
“There is a far more than an historical problem in this passage. The Jews rigidly connected sin and suffering. Eliphaz had long ago said to Job, ‘ Who that was innocent ever perished? ‘ (Job 4:7) . This was a cruel and heartbreaking doctrine, as Job knew well. And Jesus utterly denied it in the case of the individual. As we all know very well, it is often the greatest saints who have to suffer most.
But Jesus went on to say that if his hearers did not repent they too would perish. What did he mean? One thing is clear — he foresaw and foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in A.D. 70 (cp. Luke 21: 21 – 24) He knew well that if the Jews went on with their intrigues, their rebellions, their plottings, their political ambitions, they were simply going to commit national suicide; he knew that in the end of Rome would step in and obliterate the nation; and that is precisely what happened. So what Jesus meant was that if the Jewish nation kept on seeking an earthly nation and rejecting the kingdom of God they could come to only one end.
To put the matter like that leaves, at first sight, a paradoxical situation. It means that we cannot say that individual suffering and sin are inevitably connected but we can say that national sin and suffering are so connected. The nation which chooses the wrong ways will in the end suffer for it. But the individual is a very different case. He is not an isolated unit. He is bound up in the bundle of life. Often he may object, and object violently, to the course of his nation is taking; but when the consequence of that course comes, he cannot escape being involved in it. The individual is often caught up in a situation which he did not make; his suffering is often not his fault; but the nation is a unit and chooses its own policy and reaps the fruit of it. It is always dangerous to attribute human suffering to human sin; but always safe to say that the nation which rebels against God is on the way to disaster.” (The Gospel of Luke Commentary – William Barclay)
Thoughts on his Barclay’s premise and conclusion on human suffering?
And lastly, Jesus so flumaxed Pharisees in his replies to their accusatory questions! Here again are the last two verses in the chapter:
“Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘ What? Are we blind too?’
Jesus said, ‘ If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.’
(John 9: 40 – 41)
The Pharisees and Sadducees hated one another, but they shared a dislike for Jesus, but for completely different reasons. In the case of the Pharisees, Jesus was a threat to their religious legalism fanaticism. In the case of the Sadducees, Jesus was a threat to their tenuous hold on power , a division of power agreement between them and the Romans as to religious and secular hegemony, respectively.
Soli Deo Gloria!