I am currently reading Greg Boyd's God at War. In it, Boyd addresses the blind man "who sinned, him or his father" passage in John 9.
Jesus response is typically translated "he was born blind -so that- God's works might be revealed in him." Boyd argues that the word we translate "so that" shouldn't be translated as passive, but as an imperative (as more of a command). Boyd translates it, "he was born blind. But let the works of God be manifest!"
The disciples are asking a moral question, Jesus is responding with a command to heal the man. Jesus isn't concerned about answering questions about God's intent other for this man to be healed. "Yes, he is blind, stop asking questions and heal him." In such a situation, with such an emphatic command, there is little room left for God's will to be in question. He wants this man (and all men) healed. He is blind because the world is fallen/the devil caused it, but this passage isn't about why he is blind. It is about God's desire to heal him.
Even if we did read this passage in the traditional vain of thought, it would be a lone passage saying its God's will for this man to be blind from birth in a book neck deep in stories of God healing all whom he touches. Should we change our entire mind set to fit this one passage (that as Boyd argues is mistranslated/interpreted to start with), or should we seek to find the reading of this passage that fits with the rest of scripture?
Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) by healing the sick, raising the dead, and advancing the kingdom of God/heaven/light against the kingdom of darkness. Everywhere else in the gospels, Jesus healing acts are seen as advancing the kingdom. Nearly everytime the "Gospel of the Kingdom" is mentioned in the gospels, healing, raising the dead, etc, follow as commentary on what preaching this gospel entails. I could walk you through the versions, but I feel like I have done this multiple times before, so scroll down.
Would it be too much of a stretch to say that this man was blind because he lived in the "kingdom of darkness" (i.e. the fallen world he lives in)?
When the Light of the World comes into the Kingdom of Darkness, the only proper question is not about God's will, or the origin of sickness, "Why is this man not healed yet?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So.....I am not a Greek scholar with the authority to say whether or not something was translated correctly....but I love the attitude behind that phrase. "This man was born blind. Quit arguing about why that is, and take the necessary action". I feel like this reflects a lot of insight into the spirit realm, and the acknowledgment of a higher reality that transcends the details of the physical. It is higher than reason or politics or people's past actions, bigger than history, and more real than physical blindness, deafness, deformity, or even death. I want to live in this reality that is not hung up on details, but participates in the warfare that is truly going on. The story in Daniel 10 (vs. 12-14 being key here) really stirs me up to action and makes me want to sense and participate in true reality, which is found in Christ and in the heavenly realms.
ReplyDeleteGod, may we have insight into the greater spiritual reality and not become inhibited or distracted discerning the spiritual through the eyes of the physical. Amen.
You really should consider reading that book I mentioned, God at War. I'm almost done with it. It is kind of a long read, but really interesting. I think Boyd hits the nail on the head much more often than not with his "warfare view" or the world.
ReplyDelete