Thoughts on John 9

Today’s reading: 2 Kings 10; John 9

To some extent this is another follow up to my post on John 6 because I have a hard time with Jesus’ words here at the beginning of John 9.

When Jesus’ disciples ask him whether it was the blind man or his parents who sinned, this was because of a debate at the time between different wrong understandings. When someone was born with a birth defect or other handicap, some argued that it was a result of the persons’ sins before birth, while others argued that it was a result of the parents’ sins. The understanding, one way or the other, was that such a thing could only be God’s judgment for a particular (and probably heinous) sin, and so the blame had to fall to either the parents or the unborn child.

So Jesus’ disciples are asking Him which side of the debate is right, and Jesus starts his answer by saying, “Neither,” which I think most modern readers would happily agree with. We know that medical issues, birth defects, miscarriages, etc. are not acts of divine judgement for sin. I would not say that God would be unable to do so if He desired, and there are times when He inflicts a medical issue upon someone in judgement for sin, but these instances are few, miraculous, and completely clear as to what they are from. More generally, I would say issues like these are indeed a result of sin, but only in that they are a result of the Fall, but that is very different from being individual judgements for specific sins.

But then Jesus doesn’t stop at, “It was neither this man, nor his parents who sinned,” and He adds that it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. I struggle with this because it sounds like God actively struck this man blind before birth just so that Jesus could heal him all these years later. I have to grant that if that’s really what’s going on here, God is certainly allowed to do that, but the thought of that really bothers me. That God would actively inflict suffering on someone for decades in order that He would be glorified by healing him later on… that doesn’t sound like something a good God would do. If Jesus had instead said, “He was born blind because creation is broken as a result of the Fall, but God will be glorified through him today by reversing this effect of the Fall, then I wouldn’t bat an eye at this and would happily praise God for His power and goodness, but that’s not what Jesus says. It is also possible that this is what Jesus means, and He is just framing it in terms of the debate His disciples are asking Him to resolve for them, but the way He words it bothers me.

I don’t really have an answer for it beyond what I have said above. I fully grant that God is allowed to do this if He so pleases, and it is also possible that Jesus is saying it the way He does simply because of the context of the argument, but I don’t have enough to go on to say that for sure. I do have enough to say though that God is good, and that He is for us. Death and suffering were never God’s intent or design for humanity, but were introduced into creation by our own rebellion. So while I don’t honestly feel comfortable with the face-value reading of Jesus’ words here in John 9, going back to what we talked about in John 6, I know enough to know in whom I have believed, and one thing I don’t understand or feel like I don’t like does not invalidate the clear person and goodness of God I know from so many other things.