Bible Contradictions About Eating Pagan Sacrifices

Answering a question on Quora:

Does 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 contradict 1 Corinthians 8:4-13?

The two passages reveal overlapping principles in different contexts. They do not contradict.

Before continuing, follow the first rule of Bible interpretation: Never read a Bible verse; read it in context.

• 1 Corinthians 8 NASB
• 1 Corinthians 10 NASB

Note that if you continue reading after 10:22, the meaning of that passage becomes clearer. So always read at least one previous paragraph, the current passage, and one following paragraph when somebody gives you a passage to read. Preferably more.

As a brand new Christian I drove a girl named Wanda home from a youth activity. I offered to turn on the radio to fill the silence. I would have put it on the station that played “adult” music of the 50s and 60s. It was tamer than “easy listening” is today. But she said “No, I don’t listen to that kind of music.” I looked up to her, so for a long time, I listened only to classical or Christian music.

However, she did something that created cognitive dissonance for me. We happened to attend the same Grad Night at Disneyland. When I saw her a few days later, she expressed delight about the Olivia Newton-John concert, which I had avoided. She had set my standards high and then undermined them.

That incident gnawed at my conscience. After a few years, I started listening to instrumental rock. Gradually, that bar lowered to classic rock, and then only restriction was a matter of taste. After somebody has set a high standard for you, it doesn’t take much of a poor example to erode that standard until you drop it altogether. 

In the Hellenic culture of the ancient Greeks and under Roman rule, much of the food was presented as sacrifices in the pagan temples and then sold in the market places. In some places it was difficult to find food that had not been dedicated to idols. Additionally, on some occasions, traditions such as civic ceremonies required eating in the temples. This posed a practical problem for new Christians who feared that eating such food would bring a curse on them. It also posed a problem for recent converts from the pagan religions who might be tempted to return to worshiping idols.

Many of the Corinthian believers used to be worshipers of the Hellenist or Roman gods. In their minds, eating sacrificed foods, especially in the temples, meant sharing in the sacrifices. That would tempt them to return to their previous pagan cultures. So the passage in Chapter 10 begins by warning young or weak Christians not to take part in pagan sacrifices, especially in any ceremonies that constitute worship of the pagan gods. Then the chapter goes on to teach something for more mature Christians….

Both chapters state that any dedication to the idols holds no actual effect. In chapter 8, the apostle wrote that sacrificed food “will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat” because “we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.” So not only did the sacrifice not do anything, but even the temple and idol had no power of their own.

Chapter 10 agrees, saying, “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? Rather [meaning “no”]…. All things are lawful, but not all things edify” (10:19–20,23b).

Since the sacrifice of food to an idol does nothing to the food, both passages allow eating such food. A Christian even had the freedom to eat it in the temple. However, both passages command that out of love, the strong Christian with this freedom should abstain from eating such food if it will cause somebody to stumble.

Chapter 8 focuses on avoiding offending weaker Christians who would be upset to see Christians they looked up to eating in temples. Such weaker Christians might see that as an endorsement of the pagan religion and return to it. Chapter 10 teaches a parallel principle but instead focuses on avoiding offending unbelievers.

The principle taught in both is that it does not matter that I know the sacrifice has no effect; if the other person believes the sacrifice has power, then I must set aside my right so they do not stumble.

Can you see how the prime principle is loving others? Can you think of other issues that might have similar applications? Imagine how much better society would be if we all were willing to give up our rights for the sakes of others.

Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please don't offend me by forgetting to give credit where credit is due.

I was forgiven. I need forgiveness. Contradiction?

The Bible teaches that salvation means you have been forgiven; yet it also teaches a continuous need for confession and forgiveness. Skeptics twist that into a contradiction. Arminians and Wesleyans twist it into "proof" that salvation is conditional and not secure. Both reflect a need for greater understanding. 

Forgiveness or being forgiven means either an action or a state. The word forgiven has more than one meaning.

• Past participle of the verb to forgive — You were forgiven, meaning, God forgave you.
• Adjective — You are forgiven, meaning, since you were declared forgiven, now you are in a state of forgiveness; it is one of your attributes.
• Present participle — You are forgiven, meaning, I forgive you.

I forgive

Before discussing forgiveness in the spiritual context, we need to recognize a practical context. Sin affects everybody.

• My sin affects me because it has consequences for me.
• It affects God because it desecrates His creation, it is an affront to His holiness, and it rebels against His sovereignty.
• Some sins directly hurts others.

So if somebody says, You are forgiven, they might mean that, assuming you have obeyed the gospel, God has forgiven you. However, they might mean that they forgive you for what you did to them.

God forgives

The state of forgiveness cannot be reversed. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1, NASB).

This is because Christ fulfilled the Law — the Old Testament commandments that condemned us. God God reckons Christ’s death and payment of the debt to our accounts, so in the new birth, we died to the Law of Condemnation and were born into a Law of love.

Romans 7:1–6 uses marriage as an analogy. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. When one spouse dies, the other is free from that first commitment and free to marry another. Similarly, when Christ’s death is imputed to us, it’s like we’ve died to the Law of Condemnation, and God places us under a new law, the Law of Love. So the passage concludes in verse 6,

• But now we have been released from the Law [of commandments that condemn], having died to that by which we were bound [the Law and our guilt], so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter [the Law].

Because God remakes us as His children, His role in relationship to one whom He remakes into His child changes from Judge to Father. Formerly, His end role was to pronounce guilt, hand down the sentence, and execute justice. Now, His role is to train us; and by being trained, we can bring more honor to Him, earn rewards, enjoy fellowship with Him, and become more of a blessing to those we encounter. His end role will be to judge our performance and give rewards rather than to condemn.

On the other hand…

All this means that sin cannot condemn us, but it does not mean that sin does not hurt is. Sin still

• brings embarrassment to God’s name
• wastes rewards
• interferes with our fellowship with God
• interferes with our fellowship with others
• makes us a hindrance to others instead of a blessing
• weighs us down with guilt

Even though we have been forgiven by our Judge so that no penalty of condemnation remains, we still seek forgiveness from our Father because a penalty of lost joy and usefulness weighs us down.

Whereas the book of Romans focused on judicial forgiveness, the book of 1 John focuses on daily life.

• [I]f we walk in the Light… we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin…. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7–9, NASB)

This passage would seem self contradictory. “He forgives us of all sins, yet we need continued forgiveness?” This is resolved if you recognize the difference between forgiveness by our Judge and forgiveness by our Father.

Again, judicial forgiveness cleanses us from all our sins — past, present, and future. But within that state of forgiveness, we still need that cleansing of conscience and restoration of fellowship with our Father.

That’s why we should, even though our sins are forgiven, live in a continual state of repentance, confession, and attempted reform.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Parallel Passages Strengthen the Bible

Someone asked, "Aren't parallel passages in the Bible redundant?"

First, let’s define parallel passages as texts that discuss the same subject. A subset of these includes passages that contain similar or identical wording; and a further subset includes passages that use the same words, especially (but not necessarily) with reference to the same subject.

Passages that discuss the same subject may approach it from different perspectives and provide different, complementary details that would be tedious to read if combined. Parallel passages can provide emphasis to a point, too. The third type is useful because reading a word in a different context can help define it.

Old Testament

Several major examples of parallel passages exist in the Old Testament.

Genesis contains two accounts of creation. One focuses on chronological order at a high level, and the other focuses on the creation of humans. Skeptics say that this means there are two authors, but repetition, parallelism, and restatement of ideas from different perspectives are staples of Hebrew literature.

The Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, contains repeated passages. For example, first God might say something, then Moses conveys it to Israel, and then, years later, Moses reminds Israel and appends details. Repetition emphasizes the message.

One group of parallel passages is in the histories presented by 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles. After the reign of kings Saul, David, and Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judah to the south. 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings cover the history of Israel leading up to the split and the histories of both after the split. In contrast, 1 & 2 Chronicles repeats much of that history but focuses on Judah, omitting many details already covered and adding other details.

The two perspectives serves a purpose. First Israel, and later Judah, were conquered by other nations and their citizens were deported. Later, Israel remained scattered, but Judah was returned to the land.
According to Stephen Bedard,

Samuel/Kings was written at the beginning of the exile. It was a time of repentance and reflection of how they had come to that terrible situation. Chronicles was written after the exile was over and the Jews were trying to re-establish themselves…. Chronicles was written for a Jewish people who needed encouragement and strengthening. (What is the Difference between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles?)

The presentation of different perspectives sometimes gives the appearance of contradiction, but the contradictions can always be resolved. For example, according to 2 Samuel 24:1, God caused David to count the people of Israel and Judah, whereas in 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan caused David to conduct the census. If you have read Job carefully, however, you realize that for a higher purpose, God sometimes tests or allows the devil to tempt, and God takes responsibility for the things that happen under His control. What happens behind the scenes is much more complicated that simplistic "contradictions," and we don't always have need-to-know. 

New Testament

The most obvious case of parallel passages is among the Gospels. They serve several major purposes.

• In Jewish law, establishing a fact required the testimony of two or three witnesses. Three of the gospel authors were eye witnesses to the events in Jesus’ ministry. So at least three gospels were needed to establish their truthfulness, and then needed to have coincident accounts — yet not so much coincidence that one might become considered redundant, and not so much word-for-word agreement that they presented the appearance of collusion between the authors.
  
  
• Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all have different literary styles that present a different focus. Whereas Matthew focuses on Jesus's teachings and presents Him as King, Mark is action-oriented and presents Jesus as the perfect Servant to a Jewish audience, Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Man to a Greek audience, and John focuses on theology and presents Jesus as God. A single, combined account could not have conveyed the various messages effectively.
  
  
• In The Life of Christ in Stereo: The Four Gospels Combined As One, Johntson Cheney resolved all the so-called contradictions and weaved the four gospels into a single book. I read the book once. Borrr-ringg. Combining all the parallel passages makes for excessively long, complicated sentences, and it obscures the messages of the authors. It’s a valuable aid when putting parallel passages together. Movie-makers ought to use such harmonies of the gospels instead of basing them on a single gospel. But if you try to read such books, you will learn to appreciate the value of four Gospels instead of one.
  
  
• Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain a lot of nearly identical text. Contrary to the speculation of “scholars,” Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not need to copy from a hypothetical document called Q. When a group of disciples witness the same thing, their notes tend to match up. When they preach together, their accounts dovetail even more. Moreover, Mark reputedly became a disciple of Peter and included much of Peter’s preaching in his gospel. Luke was a disciple in the early church and, besides recording much of Peter’s preaching, interviewed many other eyewitnesses to verify and fill in details. So the agreement is not a matter of copying, but of sharing experiences and recall.

In General

Whenever the same points need to be addressed to multiple audiences, parallel passages can result. This is handy because you get to read a point from different perspectives. Different details get addressed whereas compressing all the details into a single passage would make for tedious reading.

• Citing other passages creates parallels. For example, Jesus’s teachers are saturated with citations of Old Testament passages. When He quoted a portion of a passage in Genesis, he probably wanted readers to find the passage and get more background to understand what he was teaching.
  
  
• Skeptics like to point out passages that supposedly disagree with each other. Usually, however, the “contradictions” merely reflect differing perspectives. When you read about a supposed contradiction, remember that if an explanation is possible, then it is dishonest to say with certainty that there is a contradiction. This simple logic usually escapes skeptics who must discredit the Bible in order to evade accountability for their broken relationship with God.
  
  
• Skeptics contradict themselves when they complain that there are too many similarities and also complain that there are differences between the similar passages!

This answer is not complete. It could use specific examples, but the major points have been made, and you will recognize those points as you read through the Bible. Like a combined version of the four gospels, any more would make it even more tedious that it already is.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Bad Logic and Errors of Those Who Reject the Trinity

Denial leads to further denial.

One non-Christian belief holds that Christ Jesus is not God the Word come in the flesh (John 1:1, 2, 14). One symptom of this is the denial that their Jesus took part in his resurrection. They hold that their Jesus was entirely passive. Conceding that Christ had a part in raising Himself would imply His deity. Therefore, they must contradict the evidence.

My convention: The human Jesus of the deniers of Christ is he. The Christ Jesus of the Bible is He.

He really did say it.

Christ claimed to have the power to rise from the dead (John 10:17-18). Before the fact, He demonstrated the truth of His claim by raising others from the dead. This is crucial to us because Christ promised that He would raise believers from the dead in the Last Days. 

If Christ lacks such power, then He is a liar. Even worse, He is a blasphemer because He promised to do what only God can do. But if Christ can do what God can do, then He must be God. This is the truth that anti-Trinitarians must deny.

In Mark 8:31, Mark 9:9, John 2:19, Christ used active voice, meaning that he would do the raising -- I will rise or I will raise; and in Luke 18:33, He used middle voice, meaning that He would perform the raising on Himself -- I will raise myself. (1) 

One cannot deny that Christ Jesus said He would raise Himself without either treating the gospels as unreliable and non inspired or else contradicting Him. And one cannot contradict Christ without implying that He was a false prophet who did not keep his word. 

Non-Trinitarians would not openly call their Jesus a false prophet. They would not openly call the gospels non inspired. But their doctrine requires either one or the other.

If God says I will, does He need to say I did?

They argue that nobody in the New Testament says, after the resurrection, that Christ had an active role in raising Himself. This is false both factually and logically. 

It is true that throughout Acts and the epistles, the authors do not use active voice (He rose). They usually state that God raised Christ from the dead. Grammatically, however, this is not a solid claim. Many occurrences of the verbs are ambiguous; they could be translated as either passive voice (He was raised) or middle voice (He raised Himself).

To a Trinitarian -- or to a Jew -- the statements that God the Father raised Jesus illustrate the Father's seal of approval on the Son. Christ stated that the Holy Spirit bore witness to His identity through the miracles He performed. Similarly, the Father's involvement in Christ's resurrection validated Christ's identity, so a Trinitarian expects many references to the Father's involvement. Congruent actions of Christ and the Father give evidence of Christ's divine nature. Admitting to this would undermine the non-Trinitarian view, so they must deny it.

Factually, Mark wrote that Christ rose (active voice in Mark 16:9), and the resurrected Christ Jesus Himself explained to the disciples that the Old Testament prophesied that the Christ would rise out from the dead (active voice in Luke 24:46; see also John 20:9). If only the Father were involved those sentences would all have used the passive voice (he was raised).

Logically, if Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6), then He cannot lie; neither can He prophesy falsely. If He said something before the resurrection, it stands, regardless of whether somebody else later confirmed that He kept His word. To say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar, to call Jesus a false prophet, or to deny the reliability of Mark, Luke, and John.

Pitiful Logic

Another facet of their contradiction of what Christ said points to the many statements in Acts and the epistles that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. According to their faulty reasoning, if God the Father raised Jesus, then Christ did not. 

Such pitiful logic follows an either-or relation and rejects, without justification, an either-or-and relation. In logic, or does not preclude the possibility of both propositions being true. (If one and only one out of two alternatives can be true, it is call an exclusive or.) Their reasoning is like looking at a quarter and concluding that it either has the face of George Washington or it has the image of an eagle, but it cannot have both. Their logic is faulty because both descriptions are true.

A Trinitarian can reconcile saying both that Christ does something and that God does it because Christ is God the Son. God the Son can raise Jesus' body from the dead, God the Father can, and the two Persons can do it cooperatively. Thus, Trinitarians do not have to attack the character of Christ or the gospels, nor do they have to use faulty logic as the non Trinitarians do.

Warning

Christ's involvement in His resurrection has an importance greater than that regarding the future resurrection of believers. According to 1 Corinthians 12:3, one who does not confess, Lord Jesus -- which implies His deity -- does not have the Holy Spirit. Rather, according to 2 John 1:7, the person who denies that Christ Jesus came in the flesh -- which is meaningless if we do not accept His pre-existent deity -- is guided by antichrist. 

Beware Unitarians, liberal mainliners, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other theological cult that denies the deity of Christ. You don't want to follow that spirit.

Copyright 2015, Richard Wheeler

Can you let go of bad evidence?

I often think of some verse to support a point I want to make, and when I look it up, think, "Oh, shrubbery! That wasn't what it was talking about!" And then I have to look further to see whether what I want to say is really supported. I sometimes have to abandon things I was going to say. 

Nobody expects an ironic exposition!  

In a Facebook discussion, a lady wanted to show an example of a Christian apologizing to others. She gave as an example, (2 Corinthians 12:13)

"For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!"

Nobody expects irony in the Bible. Read it again. During his mission at Corinth, supported himself, working (according to tradition) as a tent maker. In the context, Paul supports his apostolic authority and his sincerity by reminding the Corinthians that he worked with his own hands so he would not have to ask them to "send in your tithes and offerings." Paul was not apologizing. Rather, he was using irony -- more specifically, sarcasm, a form of irony. To support his sincerity (and to break the pride of his audience), he was using mild sarcasm. Yes, sarcasm has its place.
To further show the need for forgiveness, the lady also cited Matthew 6:14-15.

"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."

The Jews thought they could earn salvation through self-righteous works: the Ten Commandments, plus another 600-plus commandments in the Old Testament.

Jesus often used irony to bring religious Jews to repentance. 

• "Forgive, or you won't be forgiven;" but nobody is perfect in forgiveness. 
• "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect;" but nobody can be perfect. 
• "If your eye offends you (causes you to sin), pluck it out;" but is it really God's will that we should destroy every offending member of our bodies? 

Very quickly, we would run out of hands with which to cut off our other members.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...." But "we love God because He first loved us." We should forgive, but God first forgave us.

See the pattern?

The Law says forgive to be forgiven, but God's mercy says receive forgiveness and then forgive because you have been forgiven.

So the message here is, watch out for irony, especially in teachings that took place prior to the cross. You don't want valid points attacked just because you used the wrong verses to support them.

Contradiction between John 3:17 and John 9:39

Dec 21, 2009

What do you make of John 9: 35-41?  In lots of other places in the Gospels, Jesus said He has not come into the world to condemn the world but to save the world.  In vs 39 He says for judgement He has come into the world....

The short answer lies in judgment being a process that includes the violation of a law, identification of the violation, indictment, conviction, sentencing, and execution of the sentence.  Christ's first coming served not to condemn the world, but to identify our guilt.  By providing a means of redemption, however, Christ also established a final standard -- faith -- that determines whether we go on to damnation or salvation.

Because the world has violated the Law of God, the world's guilt already condemns it.  God will sentence the world in the final judgment, but Christ did not come into the world to execute conviction and sentencing in His first advent.  Christ came, rather, to announce our state through his words, his actions, and the world's response to Him, so that we might turn to Him for salvation.  While Christ did not come into the world to condemn it, His coming does play a pivotal role in our judgment.

To set up the long answer, let's review Salvation 101.

In John 9:39, Jesus says,

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

This seems to contradict John 3:17:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.

The gospel states that God removes us from the darkness and places us into the light when we place our faith in Him and in what He has done for us through His Son.  That requires a context:  Without this good news, all stand condemned before God.  Christ did not need to condemn the world because the world was already condemned.

Natural man responds to The Law -- or to the natural law that, according to Paul, lies within each of us -- in either of two ways.  One group is in a burning building but fail to realize it:  Even if they knew about the fire escape, they see no need to use it.    This self-righteous group misses the point of this law and interprets it as a path to righteousness, missing the unrighteousness that it reveals.  They fail to see themselves in the context of reality, a context that gives the gospel its value to them.

The other group knows that the burning building entraps it, but they have yet to trust and utilize the fire escape.  People in this guilty-conscience group see themselves honestly; they see that they live in condemnation.  Their dilemma provides the context for the gospel.  They accept their condemnation but have not yet taken the next step, consenting to God's provision of salvation.  These people, as Paul argues, stand closer to receiving salvation than does a pious Jew or Christian.

Let's look again at 3:17 with more context:

17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 9:39 (For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind) aligns with 3:18-19.  In order to save us, God must first reveal to us the state of condemnation in which we stand.  For the two groups, we see four results:  Members of the first group, who consider themselves enlightened, either continue in the darkness of self-righteousness or step into the light that reveals their unrighteousness and, as a result, join the second group.  The second group likewise has options either to continue in faithlessness or to trust God for rescue from their condemnation.

Between all these options, Jesus focused narrowly on two results:  Those who cling to self-righteousness continue in condemnation; and those who recognize their condemnation can receive justification.

Between the two passages, we have three closely related Greek words centered on the topic of condemnation:  krima, krino, and krisis.  All have wide ranges of meanings, yet they retain distinctions of judgment, condemning, and verdict.

Krima, used in 9:39, denotes the decision or the process leading to the decision.  The Bible often calls the Old Testament the judgments of the Lord, referring to God's pronouncements concerning sin.  For example, God condemns the unjust balance and a lying tongue.  Moral law is like physical law:  If you try to violate such a law, you will suffer predetermined consequences.  In one case, the enforcement comes from gravity; in another, it comes from God's justice.  Judgment, then, refers more to the substance of the pronouncement.  The verse could be paraphrased,

I am come into this world to reveal man's condition relative to the Law, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.

Again, this is consistent with with 3:18-19.  The natural man stands condemned not because Christ condemned us, but because we have violated God's Law.  Christ came into the world to shine light on all of us, revealing the dark path of the proud and lighting the path of those who acknowledge their need and consent to the rescue.  God desires to save the world with the result that men see the condemnation under which they stand and turn to the Light for remption.

Krino in 3:17 and 18 denotes the action of convicting or sentencing.  (The possible meanings are wider than that, but the context narrows the meaning down to just this one sense of the word.)  Whereas krima in 9:39 is like a man who has just thrown a hamburger wrapper out the car window and then sees a traffic sign that says, $250 Fine for Littering, krino in 3:17 is the judge issuing the fine. 

The noun krisis (condemnation) appears in 3:19 and refers to the result of the the action, krino (condemn), in 17 and 18.  If we read all four paraphrased verses together, their blending becomes obvious:

17  God sent not his Son into the world to damn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18  He that believes on him is not convicted: but he that believes not is convicted already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19  And this is the conviction, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

39  I am come into this world to reveal man's condition relative to the Law, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.

 Before concluding, I'd like to toss in an unlikely interpretation of 9:39.  W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states that the meaning would appear to be, 'for being judged' (as a touchstone for proving men's thoughts and characters)....  If the declension of krisis indicates such, then couldn't the word refer to the speaker rather than to the world?  Look at this fit between 3:16-17 and 9:39 with such an interpretation:

39  I am come into this world to be condemned, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.
16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17  For God sent not his Son into the world to convict the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

God sent His Son into the world to save the world; He gave His Son to be convicted and sentenced for our sin.  His teaching and actions expose the lost and enlighten the humble so that whosoever -- not just those among some chosen or pious group -- through faith in Him, might be saved from perishing and might have everlasting life.  The commentators I checked did not get this meaning out of 9:39, but in its favor, the Scriptures often have multiple correct meanings (especially in Proverbs), and this interpretation fits beautifully with established doctrine.

I hope I didn't hide the answer in all my verbosity.