Chapter 11
Man Born Blind
I have always been convinced that God did not allow Job to go through his ordeal without Job deserving it. So, as I talk these things over with people it always comes back to the verse about the man born blind (pasted below).
Joh 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
I would respond that my opinion was based on the concept of “reaping what we sow”. They would then say – well there are things that we just can’t know – or some such notion.
Holding to the premise that Job must have in His case been reaping what He had sown I would stubbornly cling to my original thinking. My thinking is that Job committed some type of disobedience that brought about the affliction.
In John 9:3 Jesus disciples similarly assumed that the blindness of a chlid born blind was due to sin, but Jesus said that the blindness was not a result of the man’s sin or the sin of His parents. The disciples were right to assume this – but it was not the parent’s sin or the Man’s sin, but Adam’s sin that brought about this blindness.
So, this is generally where the conversation would end, and both of us would politely agree to disagree.
We are all born spiritually blind.
We are not responsible for our spiritual blindness before we come to Christ, and our parents are not responsible for our spiritual blindness either.
The reason Jesus statement is true follows —
Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
The concept of reaping what a person sows is true and Jesus statement is true because “Sin is not imputed where there is no law” Rm 5:13.
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (KJV)
The blind Man’s parents were spiritually blind but the blind Man’s spiritual blindness was not their fault because they were not aware of and had not submitted to God’s law (they were spiritually blind).
Adam was not spiritually blind, therefore His sin resulted in my spiritual blindness before I came to Christ.
Now at this point in a conversation people would remind me that the sins of the Father are not communicated to the son’s.
However they would be wrong because sins are transferred to future generations.
Adam’s sin resulted in sin being communicated to all mankind (because He had the Law of God on His heart).
The real answer to the question about the Father eating our grapes and the son’s teeth being set on edge (Jer 3:29) is this.
God said that the proverb would no longer be quoted in Israel. In other words, the proverb would not be true among God’s people. However, it is still true before a person belongs to God because a person is spiritually blind (the result of Adam’s sin) before that person comes to Christ.
So Adam’s sin is a generational sin and the retribution for that sin (spiritual blindness) is only forgiven when a person comes to Christ, the veil is taken away in Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:14.
2Co 3:14 but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ. (ASV)
If a person does not accept Christ and allow God to write the Law on His heart they are not responsible for their sin and the resulting recompense. The recompense for that sin is not apparent in their lives (at least not like it is for Christians), because they do not know the Law of God and are not responsible for their disobedience.
That is why if a Christian sins, through say alcoholism, they will suffer affliction (meant for correction – 1 Cor 11:32).
However, an unsaved person can be an alcoholic and may not get the same consequences in their lives because unless the law of God is written on his/her heart they are not aware of God’s law. Since they are not aware of God’s law they are not responsible for keeping God’s law. In other words, where there is no law (which is the case with the unsaved person) there is no sin/violation of that law, Ro 5:13 and 1 Tim 1:13.
Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. (KJV)
The reason Jesus could say that the blindness was not the fault of the Man or His parents is because they did not have the Law of God written on their hearts. Their sin therefore was not imputed to them because the Law of God was not written on their heart.
I think I can say that the Law was not written on the parent’s hearts because of the following verse –
Joh 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
The parents did not have the Law of God on their hearts because they were loyal to the Jew’s instead of God.
So, the blindness was not their fault because they were not aware of the Law of God, but feared the Jews instead of God. Just as Paul in 1 Tim 1:13 they did so in unbelief.
1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
So again, if they were not aware of God’s law they were not responsible to keep it. In other words, they did not accept the covenant with God, so they are not apt to receive either the blessings or the curses of the Law. The curses were to alert a Christian person that they had violated the covenant and were are not keeping God’s Law, as 1 Cor 11:32 shows.