A voice of challenge from the margins.
Introduction
The idea of us is to promote the new understanding about the passage (Jn: 9: 1-34) in the perspective of Dalit and poor. It seems appropriate to explain in such a way to bring out the pain and experience of a marginalized person because of his/her physical lack. There is a great note registered by William Barclay in his commentary on John Gospel, i.e. this is the only miracle having the declaration that the particular affected person (Born blind) is a blind by his birth. Therefore the person was known to the disciples at the time and familiar to the public. This incident took place to promote the Old Testament idea whence the sin comes and the consequence of the original sin, namely inherited sin. The demythologization of fatalism or karma which was much focused on the Law code of Judaism which completely discriminated the fellow human beings (in Indian context the Dalits) is the intension of our paper.
The core idea of the reign of God
The core of our argument and perspective is mainly focused on the key verse of John 9: 3. “Jesus answered neither this man nor his parents sinned, he was born blind so that God’s work might be demonstrated in him,” this is the statement of Jesus which seems as a condemnation of the concept of Sin. Here he breaks the old ideas about the understanding about the original sin and its inheritance. Moreover the reign of God is present at the time and deeply the reign of God is understood by this miracle which performed among the marginalized. The goodness that happening among the Dalits is
The Re-reading of the text
This is a story of how a man who was poor and marginalised sat in the darkness was brought to see the light not only physically but in his discernment to identify the light of the world. During that time dalits are characterised by those who were ignorant of the law and physically challenged.
Jesus after leaving the temple left to the peripheries where the outcastes are situated. Unlike the common passages of healing, here Jesus takes the initiative to heal the blind man, on seeing him. The impulsive response of Jesus speaks us the concern and care Jesus have to the people left in the peripheries. And with this immediacy to restore the lost dignity of this man, Jesus heals this man without asking anything to him.
The question of the disciples is typical of the outlook of the ancient world. The Jews colligated sin and suffering as they worked on the assumption that wherever there was suffering, sin is the cause of it. ‘The sins of parents could “visit” on children’ is the maxim contained in the Decalogue as we see in Exo20: 5, 34: 7, Deut 5: 9. This view strikes one who has in mind the Indian philosophical thought of Karma and Samsara. A logical thought of Indian philosophy which triumphed for ages to legitimise the living conditions and poverty of weaker sections.
But the answer of Jesus not only had in view human suffering generally but also this particular individual’s life in relation to his mission. Affliction, sorrow, pain, disappointment, loss always are opportunities for displaying God’s grace. First it enables the sufferer to show God in action. For Jesus it is not the sins of the man or his parents. This stands true with the life stories of dalits. They have suffered in the past and continue to suffer in the present. This is not because of their own sins or the sins of their ancestors. So this need not or should not subscribe to any describe of Karma and Samsara. The response of Jesus assures their place in the God’s economy of Salvation. Among the different meanings given to the term Dalit is ‘Manifested’. This passage reveals how much a life of Dalit in Jesus’ times becomes the space of manifestation of God’s glory.
By touching the man’s eyes Jesus profoundly speaks to us in the context of our dalitness and the dalitness of all our brothers and sisters. The use of mud to heal the blindness makes us remember that all human beings are ‘muddish people’ build out of mud. The use of saliva, mud and the water of Siloam for healing by Jesus implicate the negation of Jewish community towards the people at margins. The contempt of this community expressed through Human saliva is used as tool of healing. A symbol creating derogation is made the symbol of life assertion. Similarly the pool of Siloam is a powerful symbol of purity and pollution. Jesus turns the waters of division into waters of life giving.
The neighbour’s disagreement about the blind man’s identity and his healing (vv. 8, 9) positions the healed man to serve as his own witness and to provide his own attestation to the miracle. In v. 9b the man is depicted as repeatedly identifying himself through keep on saying (elegen, the verb is in imperfect tense) as the former blind man. People never expected the work of Jesus on this blind man as they considered him as lacking everything for God’s manifestation of Glory. For them someone like him can never be a site of God’s revelation, which is why they consider that this healed man is not the one who begged whom they know. Though they were continuously negating his identity as the man whose sight is restored, he was crying out loud “I am the man” (V.9b). The people who questioned the identity of this man also question the identity of Jesus. Which is why “for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen” (I John 4: 20). Today also the God of Dalits is considered decrepit and their God concepts are infirm to the mainstream religious thought and particularly among Christians. Their voices are unheeded and their voices are despised, grounding them as irrational.
For the Jews the identity of this man is an unanswered question and so seeks the opinion of the parents of this man. When they respond to this pertinent question, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he see?” (v.19) they try to escape. They agree that the man as their son but fears to acknowledge the God’s glory manifested in him, because of their fear towards Jews who threatened to outcaste all who confess Jesus as the messiah (v.22). This forces us to think that these parents also identifies with the dominant ones and the dalitness of this man lies clearly on his infirmity and not on his lineage. Today the Indian church easily identifies with these parents to negate the glory of God revealed in their sons and daughters who are dalits. Church is ready to accept them as the part of their fold but fails to recognise their dire needs and respond to them with the mind of Jesus.
Twice in the interrogation scene (v.13- 34) the Pharisees hold their knowledge to the man and expect him to accept their positions (v. 24, 29). Each time however, the man counters with his own knowledge (v.25, 30-33). The fact that the man holds his ground in the face of the Jewish authorities gives this interrogation scene a markedly different cast from the preceding scene of interrogation of his parents (V. 18- 23). The law keepers try to intimidate this man with their status and knowledge but he will not be intimidated. This makes the man an epitome of Dalit confrontation and champion with stern discernments about what sin is and who Jesus, his liberator is. Twice he publicly confesses that Jesus as the prophet (v.17b) and as the man from God (v.33) which made him an outcast again (v.34b), though Jesus restored his physical infirmity, the cause of his first. Again Sin as the cause of his birth defect is reiterated in v. 34a and they still cast him out. Their arrogance prevented them to admit the truth revealed in him and finds it incomprehensible to accept his teaching.
So to view the blind man as the Dalit of Jesus’ time offers us the prospect to empower our Dalitness when we feel wretched in the double standards of society and church. The Hindu philosophical thoughts are still prevalent in the mindsets as to the play of Karma and Samsara. Often in the philosophy of Karma and Samsara we relate the negative acts with negative results and positive acts with positive results. But we have to see that the rich and affluence is the result of oppressing of poor and stuffing themselves through snatching the wealth belonging to the poor also. So the poverty interlinked with dalitness and the blindness to this reality is the original sin of Indian Church and society.
Two questions now also arise from the margins, though Jesus meets the man casted out and welcomes into communion; wasn’t not your eyes He opened? (17b). Do you also want to become His Disciples? (27b).
Conclusion
The Gospel should reach people and they should be benefited. It is only possible by the Re-reading of the scripture in means of contextualization. Therefore we need to have such a consideration on the process of interpretation of the scripture. Theology to be meaningful has to be contextual and relevant; its task is to address particular situation in the knowledge of the Christ’s event. In fact the Bible itself is a compendium of contextualized theologies. Dalit theology rightly understood is not communal. It does not seek to promote the liberation of Dalits alone, thereby putting the non-Dalits outside the place of salvation. Rather, it does seek to challenge the tendency to legitimize caste oppression of the Dalits but at the same time seek to include all the really converted non-Dalits within its purview.
It is a duty for theologians to address the problems of marginalized and poor with an understanding of the scripture, which is so. The comparative study between the texts and people in reality is to be needed for the better understanding and a great hope for the Dalits and poor. It is again a problem among us by dealing such understandings of scripture, into equality is somehow lacking. The discrimination is still prevailing in our Christianity in order not to accept others or tolerate others’ growth if she/he would have developed or increased in God’s blessing. This is really a Christian karma and inherited sin among us.
[Prepared by: Daiju K.Joseph, Dalvin Kristi Dass A, Prince John, V.Prabhakar, Remalia Hembrom , & Uttam Kumar Rathinayak, BD IV students of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai,India.]
