SERMON: "Blindness and Evil in God’s World" (John 9:1–7)
Blindness and Evil in God’s World (John 9:1–7)
Series: “John:
Life in Christ’s Name” Text:
John
9:1–7
By: Shaun
Marksbury Date:
September
24, 2023
Venue: Living
Water Baptist Church Occasion:
AM Service
I.
Introduction
One
of the toughest questions for Christians to answer, perhaps the most difficult
question, is that of the existence of evil. The conundrum goes something like this: How
can evil exist when God is both all-powerful and good? Theologians and philosophers have dubbed this
problem “theodicy,” seeking to explain how God can justifiably permit pain and
suffering in this world.
There
have been multiple explanations in theodicy. Perhaps the most common one to hear is that evil
is the result of free will. God didn’t want
people operating robotically, lacking personal autonomy. Yet, free will would open us to the ability to
turn from good to evil. This explanation
doesn’t satisfy why God continues to allow evil, but it is an attempt to the rid
God of the responsibility for human atrocities.
Another
defense is that God created the best possible world there would be. He could have chosen to tweak certain aspects
of our personalities or create new laws which would restrict human freedom. However just as with every action comes a
reaction, and the outcomes of such adjustments may have resulted with worse
consequences than what exists now. This
theory seems to constrain God a bit, so there may be a better explanation.
Perhaps
the best is one proposed by Scott Christensen in his book, What about Evil?
A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory. In the book, Christiansen advocates for what
he calls the greater-glory theodicy. He
presents it as one that is faithful to Scripture, arguing, “God’s ultimate
purpose in freely creating the world is to supremely magnify the riches of his
glory to all his creatures, especially human beings who alone bear his image.”[1] He
goes on to argue that the fall of humanity was no accident, but that it was
allowed by God to magnify His glory, stating this “glory is seen in the face of
the divine hero of redemption—Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”[2] This
view explains God has a specific reason to allow evil to remain in the world.
Now,
I open in this way because that’s the view confronting us in the opening verses
of John 9. For context, in this chapter,
Jesus opens the eyes of the blind man, provoking division. In the next chapter, Jesus will use this
miracle to explain who He is. This shouldn’t
be difficult, for the signs of the Messiah would include the opening of the
eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7).
So, they should believe that Jesus is the light of the world (v. 5) and
the Good Shepherd (10:14). Yet, the
unbelievers seem to rather accept the continued existence of evil than come to
the Light of Christ, and even Christ’s disciples seem to have a limited
understanding of God’s purposes for allowing evil in this world.
There
is evil in this world, like blindness and so much more. However, text like these give us insight into
how God’s glory intersects with such troubling issues. So, today, we’ll consider the problem of evil
and the Lord’s glory, the purpose of evil and the Lord’s glory, and the power
over evil in the Lord’s glory. Let’s
consider the first of these.
II.
The Problem of Evil and the Lord’s Glory (v. 1)
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from
birth.
It’s
difficult to say whether this miracle occurs right after Jesus slips away from
the crowd which wanted to stone Him in the last verse. It’s possible to read it that way — that
Jesus went out of the temple and then, as He passed by, He saw this man. Some see a possibility that time has transpired,
but the most natural reading is that this happens right after the events of
chapter 8.
If
that is the case, then Jesus punctuates His divine claims to the Jews of
Jerusalem with this healing on His way out the gates. And that’s probably where this man was. As one study notes, “Beggars waited by the
gates of the temple for gifts from worshipers.”[3] Because
Jesus isn’t fleeing for His life (it isn’t His time), He has no concern
about stopping here for this person in need.
There’s
hope in this. Jesus sees us in our infirmities. He doesn’t hold the sins of others against
people in need, for our Lord just faced accusations and rejection but still cares
for this individual. We should be of the
same mind, not allowing the troubles of the day prevent us from doing good.
Now,
in noting that, we read here John’s ironic statement that Jesus sees the
blind man. Throughout this account,
John plays on themes of spiritual sight and blindness. He underlines this with constant reminder that
this man was blind. By the end of this
chapter, he has this blind man seeing better than those who were born with
healthy eyes! He also notes Jesus’s
words in v. 39, which reads, “For judgment I came into this world, so that
those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” In this Gospel, the blind sees Jesus and
believes, while the seeing misses Jesus and disbelieves.
We’re
not told how our Lord or the disciples knew that this man was blind from
birth. Perhaps there was more
conversation here than recorded. Perhaps
the man himself explained his condition, or he was known to all locals and
regulars to Jerusalem (his neighbors knew about him in v. 8). Whatever the case, this was a congenital case
of blindness, the only recorded time our Lord heals a person with such a
condition.
Yet,
we arrive at the theodicy problem. The
skeptic might ask us: Was the Lord not able to create a world without blindness?
If He could do so and didn’t, then how
can we call Him good if He created it anyway? The assumption behind that faulty logic is that
God has no good reason to allow evil. He
has a purpose, as we see next.
III.
The Purpose of Evil and the Lord’s Glory (vv. 2–5)
And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who
sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man
sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed
in him. We must work the works of Him
who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the
world.”
The
disciples have a limited understanding about God’s reasons for allowing evil,
but it will be helpful to consider their question before we move on to consider
Jesus’s reply. First, they ask if “this
man” sinned so that “he would be born blind.”
Sin can have divine consequences, and God does punish the evil which
exists. Yet, they propose a fascinating
scenario, requiring us to imagine someone sinning before birth! Their question leads to a couple of theories.
One
theory is that they refer to reincarnation.
In other words, they might be asking if this man sinned in a previous
life and is now paying for it. However,
that’s a belief foreign to Jewish thought, as they believed in resurrection,
not reincarnation.[4] So,
that doesn’t explain their question.
They
might have asked this because the Jews believed a person is a sinner from birth
(v. 34). Understand that this went
beyond the concept of original sin — they believed that a person could commit
sin within the womb. For
instance, Scripture says that Jacob and Esau “struggled together” in the womb
(Gen. 25:22), which some rabbis took to mean they were engaging in fetal sin.[5] That
wasn’t a universal view, but it seems to explain the disciples’ faulty
understanding of why this man might be born blind.
They
also ask if this man’s parents caused his blindness. That question makes more sense to us. We know all too well that poor parental
choices during pregnancy can cause developmental issues. For instance, we’ve seen fetal alcohol
syndrome create physical, neurological, and even behavioral problems which
children may carry into adulthood. Even
past actions can affect infants, for as one commentator notes, certain sexually-transmitted
diseases can infect children as they pass through the birth canal.[6]
Moreover,
God might specifically bring chastisement through the children. He warned this in the Ten Commandments (Exod.
20:5) and says later that “He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the
children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Exod.
34:7). We see an example of this when David’s
baby with Bathsheba died (2 Sam. 12:14–15, 18).
Yet, that was a special case (David deserved death for his sins, but an
innocent died in his place in full view of the watching people) — becoming a
picture of the gospel of grace for undeserving sinners as well as a graphic
reminder of the destructive nature of sin.
If children are to honor parents, then parents should live as people of
honor.
Still,
that speaks more of societal consequences, and God also commanded the people to
bear their own sins. He tells them, for
instance, that sons shall not be put to death for their fathers — “everyone
shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut. 24:16). Moreover, He says in Ezekiel 18:20, “The
person who sins will die. The son will
not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the
punishment for the son’s iniquity.” He is
just and desires mercy, and a child living for God need not fear God’s wrath
for the sins of his parents.
They
assume all suffering is the result of sin, which is why their question betrays such
a hyper-religious spirit. It is easy to wrongly
assume that suffering comes because others are greater sinners (Luke 13:2). Yet, our Lord rebukes such a notion in the entire
Book of Job — Job was a righteous man who suffered staggering loss while his
friends assume he had somehow brought it upon himself. The Lord gives us another example in the
Apostle Paul, who contracted a bodily illness (perhaps malaria) which
ultimately led to him to leave the low lands and preach the gospel to the
Galatians for the first time (Gal. 4:13).
There are reasons God allows us to go through what we do that unrelated
to personal sin, and that’s what we see here.
It’s
sad that so many still think all evil results from sin. We expect this in false religion, but sadly,
some Christians still believe it. For
instance, those in the prosperity/health and wealth orbit teach that a
Christian must declare healing over sickness, and that remaining disabilities
or ailments are the result of faithlessness.
One of the training centers for such nonsense is just outside of
Colorado Springs, run by Andrew Womack, and I’ve heard from local pastors there
about how his false teaching hurts people.
The Bible never says sin universally causes sickness nor that faith
universally heals.
We
see the truth of the matter here. In v.
3, Jesus says, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents;
but it was so that the works of God
might be displayed in him.” Our Lord doesn’t
deny that it’s possible that sin might result in suffering, but we cannot
assume that’s the only reason it might exist.
To be clear here, God allowed the natural evil of blindness to
display His works; He didn’t create it.
He uses situations in a way that doesn’t compromise His character or
integrity to bring about a greater good.
Not
just one greater good, either, for Jesus says “works of God” (plural)! As one commentator notes,[7] first, the man’s blindness may have had a
humbling effect on those who witnessed it.
Moreover, the goodness and power of God is displayed in the curing of
the blindness. These works exalt Christ,
encourage His disciples, and prompt men to glorify God. God has reasons for allowing the evil in this
world that He does.
He
keeps that plural with what He says next — “We must work the works of Him who
sent Me.” Jesus says that God’s purpose
includes us! As Galatians 6:10 says, “So
then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially
to those who are of the household of the faith.” When we perform a good work for someone in
need, the Lord is indeed using that as part of His ultimate plan to glorify
Himself.
There
is, unfortunately, limited time to do good.
Jesus uses a metaphor to describe His walk on earth — the daylight hours
— warning His disciples that night would soon come. They would not have Him in the same way, but
they must also recognize that their time and ability is likewise constrained. We all have a limited time, requiring us to conduct
ourselves “with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity”
(Col 4:5). The Lord has allotted this
current world only so much time, so let’s seek to help fulfill God’s purposes
to turn evil to good.
Jesus
is not away from His disciples just yet, of course. This is what He says in v. 5 — “While I am in
the world, I am the Light of the world.”
The world is already dark and evil.
Jesus comes in His grace and mercy to show forth the Light of truth and
goodness. Even after His time on earth,
we who are in Christ remain as lights in the dark world (cf. Matt. 5:14),
presenting His message.
For
now, Jesus is going to prove that He is indeed the Light of the world. Jesus said He was during the festival (8:12)
and again here. Now, He is going to open
eyes of darkness to the Light.
IV.
The Power over Evil in the Lord’s Glory (vv. 6–7)
When He had said this, He spat on the
ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and
said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back
seeing.
Now,
we understand that our Lord can perform a miracle without intermediate sources. He could have touched the man simply, or He
could have but spoken a word over Him.
Yet, He sometimes chooses to work through objects (and people).
In
this instance, He uses His saliva here.
Some have wondered if He believed there was medicinal value in it. Some rabbis thought so, though others
condemned it as pagan superstitious magic.[8] In
Jesus’s case, He most often didn’t use it (only in one other miracle does He do
so, in Mark 8:23–25). His virtue and power,
as we’ve often noted, is from the Father.
So, it’s unlikely that He placed any faith in His human spittle.
He
also uses mud or clay. There is arguably
limited medicinal value to it, but certainly not anything that can cure blindness! So, there must be some other purpose for our
Lord to utilize these means.
Commentaries
contain numerous suggestions as to why He might do this. For instance, one study suggests, on the
basis of some early interpretations, that Jesus was fashioning a new set of
eyes for the blind man,[9] though the language doesn’t quite support
that. Alternatively, Jesus may have been
calling the witnesses’ minds back to the first creation, when God took the dust
of the earth, mixed it with His breath and created man (Gen. 2:7).[10] That’s
possible, and our Lord may have also done this purposefully to flout Sabbath tradition,
since kneading mud or clay was forbidden.[11] It’s
also possible that it tested the man’s faith, for as Matthew Henry notes, “Daubing
clay on the eyes would close them up,
but never open them. Note, The power of God often works by
contraries; and he makes men feel their own blindness before he gives them
sight.”[12] Whatever
the reasons, Jesus applies this to the man’s eyes, apparently without request.
In
the next verse, the Lord commands the man, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,” which
is just southeast of where they are. Now,
if the man’s eyes had just needed a good mud soak and washing to cure his blindness,
his parents would have undoubtedly “cured” him in his childhood. Nothing in mud, saliva, or the water explains
here what is clearly a supernatural event.
Jesus
sends him, and John adds the comment here that Siloam “is translated, Sent.” This is more than evidence that the author is
familiar with the area. As one study
puts it, “The man was “sent” there and Jesus was the One “sent” by the Father.”[13] Our
Lord is the apostle of God, the sent of the Father (as Jesus notes in v. 4),
and this is a message that the sent Messiah who opens the eyes of the blind has
come. Because Jesus sends him, the man
must exercise faith, which ultimately brings about more glory; he won’t know
Jesus by sight yet, but through the questioning of others throughout this
chapter, he’ll come to believe in Him.
This
may also be a symbol here for the washing of water with the Word/Spirit. We all walk in darkness without Christ in
this world. Yet, once we experience the cleansing
of the Spirit in Christ, our spiritual eyes are likewise opened to the glory of
Christ. Just as the man doesn’t open his
own eyes but trusts the word of Christ, we too find the true source for
spiritual healing in Jesus Christ Himself!
V.
Conclusion
We read
about the compassion of Christ here, but there’s also a clear message. So many are just as willingly blind as the Pharisees
today. They cannot see the truth of God. Yet, He can give sight to the blind, if they
want it.
God
has a reason for continuing to allow evil to exist in this world, but He will
soon bring all of it to an end. That’s
both good news and bad. The ones who
embrace their sin will find themselves punished along with the evil to which they
cling. The ones who turn from evil
toward God, though, find forgiveness and cleansing now as well as a promise of full
physical healing in the resurrection.
Don’t
reject Christianity because you see the problem of evil and then refuse to hear
God’s Word on the matter. Don’t allow
heartache to close your eyes to the truth.
God has a purpose and a plan, though we can’t always know what it is. So, see pain and suffering as a chance to
turn to God, not as a temptation to remain in sin.
[1] Scott Christensen, What about Evil? A Defense of
God’s Sovereign Glory (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2020), 7.
[2] Ibid., 14.
[3] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne
House, The Nelson Study Bible: New King
James Version, (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Jn 9:1.
[4] As noted in Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray
Clendenen, Paul Copan, J. P. Moreland, and Doug Powell, The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger
Faith, (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1589.
[5] D. A. Carson, The
Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Leicester,
England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991).
[6] John F. MacArthur Jr., John 1–11, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody
Press, 2006), 391–392.
[7] John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Bible Software, 2010), 1:367.
[8] Carson, 363–364.
[9] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word
Pub., 1997), 1601.
[10] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1996), 25A:314.
[11] Edwin A. Blum, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 307.
[12] Matthew Henry, Matthew
Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume,
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1976.
[13]Blum, 307.
