Does God Cause Sickness? An alternate reading of John 9:1-8

An alternate reading of John 9:1 – 8

Some take the view that this passage of text supports a view of God I think is erroneous and unhelpful. Some contend that God was, and is, active in causing illness for ‘higher’ or ‘greater’ purposes that are redemptive or educative. The view that God caused the blindness of the man in this passage is supported, some say, by the nature of the response Jesus made as recorded and translated. I believe this reading is fallacious for the following reasons:

(1) The passage itself does not, on its face, give clear indication that Jesus believed this blindness was caused by God,
(2) A reading of Jesus’ other teachings does not support the view,
(3) All of Jesus’ actions contradict such a reading,
(4) Jesus words seem to contradict the belief,
(5) There is an alternate reading of the passage (from other translations) that is more congruent with a reading of the entirety of the Jesus narrative.

The bible passage reads as follows:

1 And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.

2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?”

3 Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor that his parents, but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.

4 We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work.

5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,

7 And said to him, “Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is translated ‘Sent’ or ‘Commissioned’). And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing.

When we read this or any other passage we must employ principles of interpretation (which I previously posted) to understand it fully. We need to read the passage while being cognizant of its location in the book of John; we must be mindful of the dualism of the gospel of John, a dualism seen even in this brief story. We must consider Jesus’ warfare teaching in the synoptic gospels and bear it in mind when we read. We must also be mindful of the culture and beliefs commonly held at the time. Given that this passage is unique in what it appears to suggest, we might study the translation itself to explore whether or not what is recorded is accurate. Going back to the grammar of the text may shed light on the meaning of the passage.


Reading the passage in the context of other documents:

I suggest that a reading of the synoptic gospels reveals Jesus’ teaching that illness, disease and sickness are, either directly or indirectly the works of the Adversary, not God. (God at War, Boyd, p.231). I mean to say that we are in a war torn world in the grip of principalities and powers long since banished from heaven and we are suffering the consequences of the fall of humankind. I suggest that some terrible things happen … by accident … but of this one can never be entirely certain.

Jesus everywhere opposes illness and disease and worked to reclaim what had been lost of God’s original intention. Jesus is quite clear about this matter in His teaching and in the example of His life. He taught the disciples to pray that it would be ‘on earth as it is in heaven’. Jesus everywhere responded to illness and disease by eradicating it and even reacted emotionally to sickness at times. I should also point out that in John 10 Jesus is recorded as saying, “A thief does not come except to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they might have life, and have it abundantly.” In this passage Jesus reiterates the essential teachings recorded in the other narratives.

Reading the passage for an understanding of the language, grammar and usage:

1.It is interesting that one of the names of Satan, Apollyon, means the ‘destroyer’ and shows up in John’s gospel. Everywhere we read in John’s work we see the binaries – good & evil, light & darkness, Reclaimer & Destroyer. There does not seem to be any middle ground in the dualism of John’s thinking and writing.
2.Looking at the grammar and word usage of the passage makes the meaning and message of the discourse very clear. We should first look at a literal translation of the words and compare the use of the words in this passage with what was the common usage of the words in other passages in the scripture. In brief, there is evidence to suggest that the passage should read differently to reflect Jesus’ invalidation of the question. Here is the passage as translated by Turner in Grammatical Considerations, who employed several of the hermeneutical principles I presented in an earlier post.

a.The original verse does not say: “he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed.”
i.The Greek has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo (“to manifest”). The hina here should be taken as forming the imperative, not a purposive clause. This can or should be translated as, “But let the works of God be manifested.” (As in Mark5: 23, Eph. 5:33, 2 Cor. 8:7 and as is likely the case in Mark 2:10, 5:12, 10:51)

b.What is important here is that the translation of this passage we normally read doesn’t seem to follow the pattern of usage in countless other biblical passages, or the Septuagint, or in other post-apostolic writings. The question then, is, why is this the case? I suggest that the translators have made a translation based on theological assumptions and doctrinal positions. In other words, the translators made the text fit their beliefs rather than translate the language as written and commonly used. If, as a translator I already believe that God causes sickness for some redemptive purpose and/or to ‘glorify His I might, if I am not careful, translate the language to match my beliefs. What ought to be the norm of the translator is to let the words, grammar, and common usage of the readers and writers of the time shape my beliefs. This may result in my modifying beliefs I held. Now, having said all this, I would however NOT suggest that there was anything sinister in this … it is what people do; we want to make people, events and ideas fit into a view of the world that we hold.

c.The alternate translation of the text seems to suggest that Jesus, while correcting the disciples on the view that blindness was caused either by the sin of the person or his parents – as punishment – also said simply that the blindness should be cured and that He would be glorified in the healing. There is no suggestion that the whole thing was planned and caused … so that … He could be glorified.

Reading the passage with an understanding of the ‘mindset’ of the hearers:

The message of the passage seems clear enough; the disciples believed the man’s blindness was a consequence or judgment for the sins the man or his parents committed. The question itself is interesting because the narrative is clear about the fact that the man had been blind from birth so it could not have been the sins of the blind man that resulted in his blindness. A theologian (Albert Barnes) from another era writes that some Jews at the time had come to believe in the transmigration of the soul. It was believed by many that souls of the unborn pre-existed and could sin before entering a body. There were also beliefs that the ‘sins’ of the parents could be passed on to the unborn child at or before birth. Now ... it is entirely unclear that those (including the disciples) who heard Jesus at this time held these beliefs however, it is interesting to know that the ideas seemed to be ‘current’ at the time.

It was not uncommon to believe that the evils that befell people were, in some sense, an expression of God’s displeasure with the individual. Jesus’ response was unequivocal. Yet, …we wonder. If the blindness was not the man’s sin, and it wasn’t his parents sin, and if Jesus didn’t blame Satan, it must have been as a direct result of the action of God, who, we conclude, would only have done this for the grander reason of ‘glorifying Himself’. Now, if this were true, it would also be true the life long suffering endured by this man should be accepted as OK because God ‘got something’ out of it. Some might say: ‘well, the man was instantly healed and made well. What’s the problem?’ The problem for me of course is two fold. First, the specific text and the general message of scripture do not support this interpretation and second, God’s appears to me to be at best capricious … at worst … unkind and self-serving.

What about children who are born physically damaged?

It is actually the case that children can be unwitting recipients of harm and illness caused by parental choices (I think of FAS or FAE for example). It is also the case that children can bear in their bodies and minds the unintended consequences of genetic damage carried in the DNA of parents that is passed along unwittingly. These instances are tragically unfortunate and certainly not intentional on the part of the parents.

This feature of the ‘fallenness’ of the world troubles, pains, and angers me more than others. It is particularly painful and confusing to parents of children born with difficulties that are genetically transmitted. I surmise that there may be instances of these sorts of things recorded as general observations by writers of the biblical texts as they struggled with making sense of seeing children born with abnormalities. There are two approaches to making sense of this. The first is to suggest that God caused it for redemptive purposes and the second is to say that it is a consequence of fallenness or warfare. When I suggest that this sort of thing is a consequence of warfare I would want to caution any reader from seeing every instance of this sort of thing as a peculiar and specific act of war on the individual. Rather … these sorts of things may be the consequences of hundreds and thousands of years of accumulated fallenness. (Some suggest, for example, that when the flood occurred there was a catastrophic shift in the ecology of the earth, the consequences of which we are experiencing today.)

I have heard, but have no first hand knowledge, that children born with Down’s Syndrome have been healed. To hear this … gives me hope and raises my faith relative healing for the ‘tough’ cases. I have tried to get perspective on this by reminding myself that Jesus raised several people from the dead in his day AND that His people, today, are doing similar things. This may the sort of thing that “comes out only be prayer and fasting.”

I long to see the healing of all who suffer … regardless of the causes of the damage that result in suffering. I also long to hear an end to the case against God made by people, not yet believers, whom claim my God does not love because He either causes or gives permission for people to be harmed. And, while I know of many who, through their own sickness or the sickness of others draw upon God for consolation and strength, I cannot agree that God causes all things ‘bad’ so that He can work it all together good. I think that in our attempts to make sense of evil, sickness and the suffering of the innocent we must lay blame where it belongs; it is in the rebellion of the Adversary and the others, the rebellion of mankind, and it is in the consequences of fallenness and warfare the extent of which we see but the complexity of which we do not understand. Then we must believe that God wants to reign here and then we must contend victory on earth.

With thanks to Greg Boyd and Michael Saia.