John 9:1-3

[Dyskolos]

I'm curious what people make of this passage:

John 9:1-3 "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him".

The disciples ask Jesus if the man could have commited a sin that led to his blindness. Since the man was born blind, the obvious question is when could he have commited such a sin?

It seems clear that the disciples are assuming that the man might have commited a sin in some pre-natal state, and Jesus doesn't correct them on this, He just says no the man didn't commit a sin that led to his being born blind.

[Petro]

The answer is found in the rest of verse 3 and 4;

3 Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

Now consider verse 39;

For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.


Blessings,
Petro

[Dyskolos]

Sorry I don't see where your response answers the question.

Why did the disciples assume that the man could have sinned before birth?

Why did Jesus not correct this assumption?

[2nd Timothy]

Sorry I don't see where your response answers the question.

Why did the disciples assume that the man could have sinned before birth?

Why did Jesus not correct this assumption?

My answer would be,

1. They didn't assume the MAN had sinned before birth, they assumed the MAN was somehow punished or misfortuned due to sin his PARENTS had commited.

and

2.  God many times ignores silliness in mens questions because he is addressing something much deeper than the physical which becomes evident after ones spiritual eyes are opened.

Grace and Peace.

[Petro]

Sorry I don't see where your response answers the question.

Why did the disciples assume that the man could have sinned before birth?

Why did Jesus not correct this assumption?

dyskolos,

Forgive my rash asnwer.

I assumed you knew the 2d commandment.

Ex 20
4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6  And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.


What was I thinking..

Blessings
Petro

[2nd Timothy]

Something else that comes to mind is, all men are born spiritually blind.  Not because we had already commited sin, but because we are born in sin.

Rom 5:14  But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam,[....]

Just thoughts.

Grace and Peace!

[Dyskolos]

My answer would be,

1. They didn't assume the MAN had sinned before birth, they assumed the MAN was somehow punished or misfortuned due to sin his PARENTS had commited.

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

They definitely asked if this man had commited a sin causing him to be born blind.

[2nd Timothy]

And Nicodemus asked how he could re-enter his mothers womb to be re-born.  Also being silly, or questioning what he did not understand.  It seems to me that neither Nicodemus nor the deciples believed possible what they were asking, they just couldn't make sense of the spiritual situation at hand.  The physical is silliness to the spiritual, and in both instances men were trying to understand God's spiritual workings on a physical level.  Not gonna happen.

Grace and Peace!

[Allinall]

Sorry I don't see where your response answers the question.

Why did the disciples assume that the man could have sinned before birth?

Why did Jesus not correct this assumption?

The assumption of the disciples is at the core of the passage.  Common to the theology of the Pharisees in that day, those who had ailments of any kind, had them as a direct result of sin.  If you were sick, then you must have sinned as far as the Pharisees believed and subsequently taught.  The disciples, mislead by this teaching, asked who then had committed the sin this man was now suffering the direct consequences of.  Jesus replies that this was not the case - shooting a popular Pharisaiacal thought in the proverbial foot!  How often do we attribute illness to sin?  Granted illness came as a result of sin, but all illness isn't sin related.  Sometimes God uses illness..."that the works of God should be made manifest in him."  

[Tog_Neve]

Allinall stated it correctly.  The man was blind so that works of God could be made manifest in him (the blind man).

And then what happens?  Jesus cures the blind man and allows him to see....the works of God manifest in this blind man through Jesus

[cris]

Dyskolos,

Matthew Henry's Commentary says that some think the disciples were tainted with the Pythagorean notion of the pre-existence of souls, and their transmigration from one body to another.  Jesus probably didn't correct them because He knew where they were coming from with the question.

This particular verse caused me to think, also.  In fact, I asked someone that question sometime ago and needed to ask it three times before they got it.  Then their answer was, "oh".  

cris

[Sower]

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

They definitely asked if this man had commited a sin causing him to be born blind.

You are correct.  That is exactly what they asked. It would appear that the disciples assumed that souls exist before birth and are even capable of committing sins.
 
Notice that the Lord DID NOT CORRECT THEIR ASSUMPTION regarding the pre-existence of souls, but revealed that neither this man's sins nor those of his parents were responsible for his unfortunate blindness.

We should not jump to the unwarranted conclusion that re-incarnation as taught by pagan religions is either assumed or condoned in this Scripture or elsewhere in the Bible.  A soul could, theoretically be in a pre-existent condition before being placed within a human "tabernacle", but God has seen fit to withhold this information from us.

We really do not have any biblical revelation regarding the pre-existence of souls that are born into this world. What we do know very clearly is that God knows each soul intimately, and is involved intimately with the birth of each and every human being (Ps. 39:5-6; 139:1-24).  Job assumed that had he died in childbirth, he would have "lain still and been quiet; I should have slept; then had I been at rest" (Job 3:13 see vs. 1-19)

[Symphony]

I think the fact that he was "blind from birth" was probably not a relevant fact to the disciples, since their question assumes there was a cause somewhere--regardless of who was the cause.

Jesus' response is that there is no tangible cause, in this particular case.

Even if the disciples did consider his congenital blindness relevant, they probably figured it retroactive.

That is, in a sense, we are all retroactive sinners, because of Adam--born in sin, whether we've committed any sin yet or not.

It's likely the disciples simply figured the blind man was already being pinned for something he had yet to do.

hehe.  Looks like God has us cornered.    

It's a good question.  Thanks dysk...

[Sower]

Dyskolos,

Matthew Henry's Commentary says that some think the disciples were tainted with the Pythagorean notion of the pre-existence of souls, and their transmigration from one body to another.  Jesus probably didn't correct them because He knew where they were coming from with the question. cris

It is almost impossible that the disciples were "tainted with Pythagorean ideas". That is mere speculation. Scripture reveals:

1.  They were ordinary fishermen who lived in obscure Galilee, not rabbis or men of learning,, .
2.  They had not attended any rabbinacal or pagan schools either Alexandria or some other centre of pagan or Gnostic learning, as had many Hellenistic Jews.
3. They were Orthodox, conservative Palestinian Jews who would have shunned Greek learning and Greek culture.  Even the Pharisees insisted on staying out of Pilate's Hall of Judgement for fear of defilement during the Passover. This was the prevalent attitude of Palestinian Jews towards Gentiles.
4. When Peter had a vision regarding unclean and clean animals, he was appalled. His relationship to Gentiles would have been almost non-existent, and had God not specifially commanded him to visit the Gentile Cornelius, Peter would gladly have avoided that man.

No, it is more likely that among Jewish oral traditions, or rabbinic theology, there were many speculations regarding the unseen world, and some of these ideas could certainly have been accepted by the disciples, who generally respected the rabbis. That is why Christ warned them "Beware of the "leaven] [doctrine] of the Pharisees".

This should be a lesson to us also.  When Scripture is silent, we should not speculate.  There is a great deal of information which is hidden from us purposely by the Holy Spirit, so that our focus is on things of real eternal value, in particular on Christ.