Did God Cause a Man to be Born Blind?

[TheEditor]

The Lamsa Translation does agree with the possible rendering:

"Jesus said to them, Neither did he sin nor his parents. But that the works of God might be seen in him, I must do the works of him who sent me, while it is day; the night comes when no man can work."

In Egbert Nierop's Dutch Peshitta translation, there appears to be a similar reading:

"Yešúʿ zei tegen hen: "Noch hij of zijn ouders hebben gezondigd. Maar laat in hem de werken van God gezien worden."

It appears to place the punctuation before the word "but".

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

The OP asked, "Did God cause a man to be born blind?" Well we know The Man or his parents didn't. So that leaves us to find scripture that says, Yes or No concerning if God was the cause. So here's your answer:

Exodus 4:11, And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Where in scripture is it taught otherwise in order for us to manipulate scripture away from the answer given in Exodus, which is in harmony with the N.T. account?

God Bless.

[dizerner]

Well, classic Christian belief attributes suffering and evil to the original sin which brought a curse open creation. So that's the standard free-will defense.

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (source of all evil in Satan)
God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes. (Adam and Eve's original sin source of suffering and evil in this world by alignment with Satan)

Now Christ constantly confirms that God's enemy alone desires to steal, kill and destroy, but that he came with an opposite will and agenda, to bring life. Christ said a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Put that together and God can't be his own enemy, so Satan's will must differ from God's will. Christ attributes physical pain to Satan in origin (Luke 13:16) or else the fall of Adam (Genesis 3). God promises to make all things new and no longer have any pain (Revelation 21:1-5).

[robbyyoung]

Now Christ constantly confirms that God's enemy alone desires to steal, kill and destroy, but that he came with an opposite will and agenda, to bring life. Christ said a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Put that together and God can't be his own enemy, so Satan's will must differ from God's will.

Hi dizerner,

God can do far worse than what John 10:10 attributes to "The Thief" - Matt 10:28 say, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Therefore, this being a constant in God's "Ruling Kingdom" how is pain or death, both spiritual and physical, a division against Himself? IMO it's not, because God is soveriegn over all things, needing no counsel regarding His purposes.

Christ attributes physical pain to Satan in origin (Luke 13:16) or else the fall of Adam (Genesis 3).

Of course God can allow others to inflict all sorts of pain to people, however, He can also overule it as well (the firey furnance and the lions den). The fact is, He allows it or inflicts it Himself for His own purposes.

God promises to make all things new and no longer have any pain(Revelation 21:1-5).

I will refrain from answering this, else I'll be accused of injecting my 'hobby horse' eschatology into the fray .

God Bless.

[Paidion]

Thank you, Brenden. I wasn't aware that there were any translations which placed the period as I did.
Thank you, Dizerner, for upholding classic Christian beliefs (including those of Christ Himself) that attributed evil to Satan rather than to God.

It seems that the earlier Hebrews attributed both good and evil to God but later the Hebrews understood Satan as the author of evil.

David realized that He had sinned by numbering Israel, and asked God's forgiveness. But who had incited him to do so?

In 2 Sam 24:1, written about 1000 B.C., we read that it was God who incited David to number Israel.
But in 1 Chron 21:1, written about 550 years later, we read that it was Satan who incited him.

[robbyyoung]

David realized that He had sinned by numbering Israel, and asked God's forgiveness. But who had incited him to do so?

Hi Paidion,

God, that's who. Just like 2 Sma 24:1 says.

In 2 Sam 24:1, written about 1000 B.C., we read that it was God who incited David to number Israel.
But in 1 Chron 21:1, written about 550 years later, we read that it was Satan who incited him.

Are you so sure of yourself brother? Dave Curtis did an excellent study on this, which I will be quoting from. But I do encourage you to follow the link to review the study. Satan simply means "adversary or "challenger." Satan describes a particular action or role, often in the context of opposition or judgment, for one of many examples please note Numbers 22:21-22, "So Balaam arose in the morning, and saddled his donkey and went with the leaders of Moab. But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his donkey and his two servants were with him."

The word "adversary" here is the Hebrew word Satan. Who is called Satan here? Yahweh and the angel of Yahweh. So the very first use of Satan in the Bible refers to Yahweh!

Brother Curtis notes... Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. 1 Chronicles 21:1 NASB

You may be thinking, there he is, this is God's archenemy in this verse. Well the translators certainly thought so; instead of "adversary," they put "Satan." Let's look at the parallel passage to this event:

Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." 2 Samuel 24:1 NASB

Here Yahweh Himself prompts David to take the census; and contextual clues in 1 Chronicles 21:1 indicate that Satan is again the Angel of Yahweh and should have been translated: "the adversary." So these two passages can be harmonized, because in the Tanakh we often see Yahweh and the angel of Yahweh co-identified.

Here's his study in its entirety http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transc ... e-pt04.htm

God Bless.

[Paidion]

Brenden, after you displayed the two translations in which the period was placed where I put it, I did a search of many translations, but could not find any others in which this was done.

However, just now I discovered a commentary by Chuck Smith in which he indicated that he believed it should be so placed:

Now, I do not believe that it is proper to interpret this that God allowed this man this period of blindness just in order that Christ might do a work in him. In other words, that it was all preset by God in that sense that he was born blind in order that God might do a work of healing him. I think that is the wrong interpretation and that interpretation comes by the colon instead of a period. In the Greek text there are no punctuation marks. This the translators did in order to try to give us an understanding. And at this point, I would prefer to put a period after Jesus said, "Neither this man nor his parents" period. And then bringing in a new idea, "But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of the Father." "In order that God"s works might be manifested, I"ve gotta do the work of the Father for as long as I am in this world, you know, the night is coming, but while I"m here, I"m the light."

You can find this quote at this site:

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ ... bk=42&ch=9

[Jepne]

Someone else answered in this manner:

""Who sinned?"

"Nobody." [period]

Then Jesus, having concisely answered their question, went on to explain the forthcoming miracle."


Why not?

[steve7150]

Someone else answered in this manner:

""Who sinned?"

"Nobody." [period]

Then Jesus, having concisely answered their question, went on to explain the forthcoming miracle."







Why not indeed. They even believed at that time that the baby could have sinned in the womb and that's why he was born blind.

[Paidion]

Why not indeed. They even believed at that time that the baby could have sinned in the womb and that's why he was born blind.

Steve, are you sure they believed that?

There is some evidence that in those days the Jews believed in reincarnation.

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (Matt 16:13,14 NKJV)

All of the people who they thought Jesus was, had died. They thought He was one of those people reincarnated. You might wonder why anyone would think He was John the Baptist, since John was a contemporary of Jesus. But it seems they didn't think of that.

So I would say that the thinking of the disciples was that the baby may have sinned when he lived in the past in a different body.