John 9 and God's decree

[Troy]

As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” 3 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.

Does God truly ordain blindness? Is not this an aspect of evil? What does this tell us about God here?

[mattrose]

I think part of Jesus' point, here, is that we should not put our focus on the BLAME or cause of the bad circumstance. Instead our focus should be on how God may use that circumstance.

Of course, there must be an answer as to the cause. My own thought is this. Since God is ultimately sovereign over creation (including over Satan), He may legitimately be spoken of as the cause of a bad circumstance (as He is here) due to the fact that in His sovereignty He chose to ALLOW it.

I think the man's being born blind was the result of The Fall. It was a specific manifestation of the general problem of sin. The man himself was not directly at fault (though he was obviously a sinful man). Nor was God the direct cause (though He obviously allowed the blindness to occur).

So I would answer your questions as follows...

Does God truly ordain blindness?

Sometimes God may directly CAUSE blindness (as a judgment) and sometimes God may indirectly ALLOW blindness (because He sees a purpose in allowing it).

Is not this an aspect of evil?

It is not evil for God to CAUSE blindness as a judgment (since He is a just Judge) and it is not evil for God to ALLOW blindness (because He has set up the world in such a way that sin has consequences of which we were warned and because He has our best in mind through these allowances).

What does this tell us about God here?

This story seems to suggest that God is sovereign and, here, in His sovereignty chose to allow blindness from birth in order to serve the higher purpose of revealing Himself in Jesus. The story tells us that God sees reconciliation with Him as more valuable than ease of life. The story tells us that pain may often have a worthwhile purpose.

[steve7150]

What does this tell us about God here?
This story seems to suggest that God is sovereign and, here, in His sovereignty chose to allow blindness from birth in order to serve the higher purpose of revealing Himself in Jesus. The story tells us that God sees reconciliation with Him as more valuable than ease of life. The story tells us that pain may often have a worthwhile purpose.




John did'nt say God allowed the blindness, rather it sounds like God ordained it for a greater good.

[benstenson]

This has nothing to do with moral evil. An unborn baby does not have fully developed eyes until it is 23 weeks old or so (roughly). It is not moral evil to be without eyesight. If God saw fit to grant one man's eyesight after 23 years or 230 years it makes no difference morally because God always has pure intentions and He is wise enough to know what things fit His intentions and what don't. It would not be wrong if God caused the man to be born blind. That does not mean that God has no moral obligation at all though.

[mattrose]

John did'nt say God allowed the blindness, rather it sounds like God ordained it for a greater good.

My point is that the Bible sometimes speaks of God as directly doing something that He actually only allowed. It does so because ultimately God is sovereign. I suggest that this may be just such a case. Being born blind is a fallen condition that God could have prevented from happening, but allowed to happen in this man's life because He saw a good purpose in doing so.