After working through the obvious contrasts of the Pharisees and the blind man, new sight brings out the depth of the passage. One of the themes introduced is that this man is blind in order that "the works of God" might be revealed/displayed in him. The typical reader of this passage will find a way to associate the words "the works of God" with a mental image based on their experience and perhaps take this to mean that he is blind so that Jesus can perform a miracle. The astute reader will not reach that conclusion!
The astute, informed reader will remember that "the works of God" is a theme that has previously been introduced in this gospel. In 6:26-30 Jesus engages in answering this question to a less than astute audience. His answer in 6:28 identifies the "work of God" as believing in the one God sent. If this is the case, then the man is born blind so that belief in the one God sent will occur.
The question becomes, in the words of the disciples, 'who sinned, this man or his parents?' Jesus' response to the disciples that echoes throughout the ages remains the same, those under the power of sin are in such a condition so that they might believe in the one whom God sent?
Is that an appropriate understanding of sin? Sin is unbelief, people have only one way to go when they are under the power of sin, that is to burst its bonds and in a victorious shout yell, "MY DEBT IS PAID", "I BELIEVE IN THE ONE WHOM GOD SENT!" Jesus is the victorious one, should our reading of the Bible not transform our thinking?
Indubitably. Reminds me of John class, definitely one of my favorites at the Friendly University.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I am preaching on John 20.19-31 this week and I stumbled onto your "Un-Doubting Thomas" piece on ATLA. So know you're getting a shout out on my works cited page. Also, to point out the ridiculousness of the label "Doubting Thomas" I name other biblical figures who have not been so trapped by their faults (whether real or otherwise). We don't call him Adulterous David, Denying Peter, Stoning Saul, or if you prefer Persecuting Paul. One just occurred to me while thinking about John: Naive Nicodemus.
Hope life is good back in Kansas. Duke continues to treat me well.
Peace.
Your "stumbling" makes me not feel so bad. You had to write a response to that article in the John class four years ago!!! So when I don't remember what I have read at my age I can take solice in knowing that I am not alone!
DeleteOtherwise, All is good in Kansas at this point. Bad storm day possible, really bad!
Treat Duke well in return!
So then is that an answer (maybe not THE answer, but an answer) to the question of "If God is good, then why do bad things happen?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe they happen so that the work of God may be done: that people might believe in the one that God sent...or is that a misreading?
It is probably 'an answer' to that question. But much of the answer bank depends on the theological position of total or limited providence and monergism vs synergism. Did you know there is a monergism website, monergism.com but not synergism.com?
DeleteWell done my friend...I'm learning!
ReplyDelete