Objection: The Man in John 9 Was Born Blind, and That Was God’s Will

John 9:1-7:
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be manifest in him.
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: The night cometh, when no man can work.
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.)  He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Jesus declared, “The works of God should be manifest in him” (verse 3).  He then proceeded to do “the works of God” by anointing the man, who followed Jesus’ instructions and was healed.

What was “the work of God” in this man’s life?  His healing.  His blindness was not referred to as the work of God because it wasn’t – it was the work of Satan.

The objection here is that God supposedly made the man blind so that Jesus could heal him and show off His power or deity.  This does not make the least bit of sense, but neither do most objections to divine healing.  The idea that God would cause someone to be blind for years just so that He could do a miracle in his life to show off His power is an insult to Him, a denial of His compassion and slander of His character.  Jesus was motivated by compassion, not by a desire to show off power, as evidenced by the fact that He told many of the healed people not to tell anyone what had happened.  He healed people because God wants to heal people, not because He wanted to show off.

Since Jesus declared that healing was “the work of God” in this man’s life, it is preposterous to think that “the work of God” earlier in his life was making him be born blind.  Jesus did not attribute this to God (read the verses carefully!) and neither should we.  God does not have two wills concerning healing.  He is “The Lord our Physician” but not “The Lord our Sickener.”

This is first and foremost another account of Jesus healing someone, and it is silly to try to use it as an excuse why God “wants” some people to be born with birth defects.  Even the ignorant folks who lay the lie on us that children with birth defects are “God’s special children” given to “special parents” should have to admit from these verses that God wants to heal birth defects.  He does not simply want to give everyone in the family special grace to deal with the birth defects!

Also, notice a possible grammatical problem with verse 3.  Taken alone, this does not seem to make a rational sentence: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”  You would expect a comma, not a period, at the end of this phrase, followed by an explanation of what Jesus would do.  If you continue to verse 4, this alternative punctuation seems to me to fit better: “But that the works of God should be manifest in him, I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.”  It is likely that the Greek text (which we must remember was not punctuated at all in the original manuscripts) was simply mispunctuated by the translators here, and verse 3 should end with a comma.  Interestingly, I have never seen a Bible that used a comma there, but all punctuation has to be added based on the translators’ best efforts.  Of course, you should ask whether it is just the English text where the order is ambiguous or the original Greek text as well.  The ambiguity is identical in both languages.  I checked this one out myself with a Greek Interlinear Bible.

However, I am not fond of making points exclusively with Greek punctuation issues.  I maintain that there is enough in this passage to overcome any objection without having to resort to discussions of Greek punctuation.  The works of God were healing.  The works of God today to anyone with birth defects should be healing also.  That was the will of God then and that is the will of God now.

Even if Jesus meant that the man was born blind so that the works of God would be manifest in him, this would have to be taken in the same light as his comment two chapters later that Lazarus’ sickness was for the glory of God.  He did not say that God made Lazarus sick for His glory, nor did He say that God caused the man to be born blind.  If you believe that God did it, you are reading something into these verses that is not there.  God was glorified when the works of God (healing) were manifested in the lives of the blind man and Lazarus.  That is the point.  Jesus did not attribute their original problems to God.

In fact, Jesus would have had to undo the works of God to heal anyone that God had made sick.  Jesus said that He was doing the works of God (verse 4 in the passage in question), not undoing the works of God!  The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), not the works of God!  The fact that Jesus destroyed the work of sickness in these lives and others should be proof enough to you that sickness is the work of the devil, not God.

If that’s not enough for you, read Acts 10:38.  Jesus healed those who were oppressed by the devil, not oppressed by God!  Sickness is attributed to the devil, not God!