Does God permit or cause afflictions?
The story of Jesus healing the blind man in John 9 describes a precedent setting and spiritually insightful miracle. The healing is remarkable because no one “has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind” (John 9:30). Jesus says that he performs works (miracles) that “no one else” does (John 15:24). There is no recorded miracle in the Old Testament (OT) of a blind person regaining sight. In fact, blind people in the OT are restricted from experiencing temple or tabernacle life (Lev. 21:16-23; 2 Sam. 5:8). They are unfortunately marginalized within society and considered defective. However, there are many promises within the OT texts where God heals the blind (Ps. 146:8; Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). These texts point to healing from spiritual blindness and to a future when Messiah would physically open their eyes.
Prior to the healing account, Jesus is in the temple courts speaking to people and declaring who he is. He states a preposterous claim, “before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). He declares that he predates Abraham and self-identifies with the sacred name of God, “I Am” (Ex. 3:14). The Jews are outraged at his pronouncement and take up stones to kill him, but Jesus manages to slip away and then meets the blind man. By opening his eyes, Jesus performs a miracle never done by any OT prophet. This miracle not only benefits the blind man but also acts as a witness to the unbelieving Jews of who Jesus is. Furthermore, the miracle becomes a sign of judgement to the Jews who refuse to follow him. Jesus said, “For judgement I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind” (John 9:39).
Just as restoring sight to the blind is something only God can do, providing salvation and eternal life is also something only God can do. The blind man is excluded from temple life and is found outside the premises because of his blindness. The irony is that even after receiving his vision and removing the very obstacle that hindered him from entering the temple, he is barred from the synagogue community because of the miracle. After his exclusion, Jesus finds him and provides the ultimate healing, salvation. In scripture, physical blindness if often linked with spiritual blindness. Jesus reiterates this point at the end of the story by asserting that the Pharisees are blind. John 9 portrays Jesus as the best possible news and worst possible news. Jesus is good news because He opens physical and spiritual eyes. Jesus is bad news because those who reject his gift of sight are blind, guilty and will face judgement (John 9:39-41).
The disciples ask Jesus if the man’s blindness is the result of his or his parents’ sins (John 9:2). Jesus replies, neither, because his blindness is designed to display the works of God. One may wonder, is God the author of sickness? Can all physical deformities or defects at birth be used for God’s glory? Why are some people healed and others not? Jesus’ response does not focus on the origin of the blindness but points to what it will lead towards. He does not dwell on the past, but steers the disciples to the future. Jesus’ statement “so that God’s works might be revealed in him” builds two interpretational pathways (John 9:3). First, Augustine interprets the blind man to represent all humanity. Since all humans are born with a sinful nature, which he spiritually links to blindness, the healing or transformation of a sinner demonstrates God’s power and glory.[1]
The second pathway is to examine what Jesus’ statement means within the context of this story. The disciples’ inquiry into the origin of the man’s blindness is understandable. Previously in John 5:14, after Jesus heals the paralytic man, he tells him to “go and sin no more.” The disciples possibly create a correlation between healing and sins through this miracle. Are all sicknesses due to sin? No, but sometimes there is an association between sin and sickness in scripture (Ps. 38:3; 107:17; Hos. 7:1; Zeph. 1:17). However, the blind man’s infirmity is unique because it occurs from birth. Aquinas notes that he could not have sinned because no one can sin before they are born.[2] God says that children are not punished for the sins of their parents (Deu. 24:16). Yes, a child may suffer the consequences of a parent’s sinful or harmful habits. For example, a fetus may suffer birth defects as the repercussion of a parent’s excessive drinking, smoking or use of drugs. Furthermore, Jeremiah seems to express transference of guilt or negativity from one generation to another when he writes, “you [God] repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them” (Jer. 32:18). David also prays, “Do not remember the iniquities of our forefathers against us” (Ps. 79:8). Although a child is not held accountable for the sins of their parents, they may unfortunately endure the ramifications or consequences of their actions, decisions or sinful habits.
Aquinas proposes two forms of punishment: spiritual and bodily. He associates spiritual suffering with the soul and bodily suffering with the physical body. He notes that a child never suffers spiritual punishment because the soul does not originate from the parents but from God (Eze. 18:4). However, a child may suffer physically due to their parents’ sins, mistakes or indiscretions. For example, many judgement accounts in the Old Testament describe children being killed or destroyed because of the sins of parents or adults in the community. Babies and young children are presumably killed in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone (Gen. 14:1-17). In the conquest of Canaan, Israel destroys surrounding nations because of their wickedness and children are the unfortunate casualty of these wars (Deu. 7:1; 20:16-17). Even Israel suffers horrific punishment and judgment through the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities that also result in the deaths of innocent children.
Why are people punished for the sins of others? To use the word “punished” is inappropriate because it connotes that the judgement is a result of their own mistakes. Rather, using words like “harmed” or “suffer the consequence” reflect a clearer meaning. Aquinas describes two aspects of punishment: injury and remedy.[3] Although he uses the word punishment, the word “consequence” delivers a better interpretation. Aquinas uses medical terms to imply the necessity for physicians to cut off an inferior member of the body to save a superior member. He reasons that the soul is superior to the body and argues that no one suffers in his soul to save the body. Therefore, any harm done to the physical body to save the soul is necessary and legitimate.
When Jesus reveals that neither the blind man nor his parents have sinned, he is not stating that they have never sinned (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8), but rather explaining that the blindness is not a result of their sins.[4] One may ask, are blindness or physical defects from birth necessary to display God’s works? No, but God desires to display his glory and power through human infirmities (2 Cor. 12:9). Aquinas outlines how evil is two-fold: evil of fault and evil of punishment.[5] God does not cause the “evil of fault” but permits it in order for good to manifest from it. Augustine writes, “God is so good that he would never permit any evil to occur, unless he was so powerful as to draw some good from every evil.”[6] However, the “evil of punishment” is caused by God, but is also applied on the recipient for the good He intends. Hence, whether God permits or causes afflictions, it is ultimately for the good of the individual, city, nation or society. From this reasoning, one is safe to conclude that every disability, whether from birth or acquired thereafter can be repurposed by God for his glory and for the good of his people who love him and are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28).
To SUBSCRIBE to receive future BLOGS please click HERE
References:
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John (Lectures 1-3), Translated by Fabian R. Larcher (Albany, NY: Magi Books, Inc., 1998), 3.
[2] Aquinas, 4.
[3] Aquinas, 5.
[4] Aquinas, 6.
[5] Aquinas, 7.
[6] Aquinas, 8.