Did God Cause a Man to be Born Blind?

[john6809]

Surely not, Paidion. Doesn't matter. Still was referring to doing it before it was too late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

I stand by my previous post, which does not appear to be refuted by the particular responses posted.

And I stand by mine, for the same reason.

[dizerner]

Sorry for my previous off-topic question.

To respond to the OP, I think it's a pretty plausible punctuation, but I don't see the original punctuation as indicating direct causation by God, as if God needed to set up his own magic trick. Always the Gospels blames these common evils on Satan. Compare the passage, "this woman whom Satan bound behold these 18 years." Could Christ have said "neither that woman sinned nor her parents, but so that the works of God could be displayed." The way I think that can be simply read is "suffering is just a problem I came to help fix, not always a personal judgment on sin." I think in our modern language we often draw causal implications very linear-like and in a strong fashion, however the ancient way of thinking was that the answer didn't always have to directly address the real question, as long as it told you what really mattered. However, it's hard not to read the rest of it as an answer to the disciple's question in some sense. In that sense paidion's emended punctuation probably helps modern culture get more the sense Christ meant it, but to me both ways sound without a significant distinction. It's still a good question whether most naturally the hina phrase qualifies what comes before or after it:

Neither this man nor his parents sinned <-- but that the works of God should be revealed in him --> I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day

[Paidion]

Thanks Dizerner, for addressing the main point of the OP.

Yes, I agree that the way most modern translations punctute the passage indicates to the modern mind that God caused the man's blindness. That seems sufficient reason to punctuate it as I suggested.

Of course, for those who think that God causing a man to be blind is in keeping with His character, it doesn't matter.

[Homer]

Well, if you regard God as universal Father, equally of all men, He allowed the man to be born blind, for His own reason, when He had the power to prevent it. And is this not actually the same as in the case of Job, where it is said calamity came from God indirectly and Satan directly?

God is sovereign - "not a sparrow falls apart from.....". I think in their theodicy some folks tend towards deism.

[Paidion]

Well, if you regard God as universal Father, equally of all men, He allowed the man to be born blind, for His own reason, when He had the power to prevent it. And is this not actually the same as in the case of Job, where it is said calamity came from God indirectly and Satan directly?

No, it is not the same. "Allowing" (that is, doing nothing to prevent) and "actively causing" or two very different matters.

The passage in question, in most translations, implies that God CAUSED the man to be born blind. Just look at it, in the NKJV for example:

2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3 Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
4 "I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.

According to this wording of the NKJV as well as most other modern translations, Jesus seems to have replied:
1. It wasn't this man's sin (supposedly in a previous incarnation, since in no other way could the man have sinned before he was born) that caused him to be born blind.
2. It wasn't the sin of this man's parents that caused him to be born blind.
3. Rather it was God who caused him to be born blind, so that His works might be revealed in him.

Also, as Jepne pointed out, why, in order to reveal His works in a man by healing him of his blindness, would God have to deliberately cause the man to be born blind? There are plenty of people who are born blind from "natural" causes in whom He could reveal His works by healing them of their blindness.

[john6809]

I am trying to keep learning and I had not known about hina phrases. Dizerner wrote:

Neither this man nor his parents sinned <-- but that the works of God should be revealed in him --> I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day

Are you saying that

<-- but that the works of God should be revealed in him -->

is a hina phrase? If so, does this alter the use of the word "but"? It seems that the word "but" places the statement after it in opposition to the statement before it.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

No, it is not the same. "Allowing" (that is, doing nothing to prevent) and "actively causing" or two very different matters.

The passage in question, in most translations, implies that God CAUSED the man to be born blind. Just look at it, in the NKJV for example:

2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3 Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
4 "I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.

What is there in the text that causes you to think it implies that God caused it rather than allowed it? Either way God is in control. Isn't this why we pray for protection?

[steve7150]

3,4 Jesus answered, "Neither this man NOR his parents sinned. But in order that the works of God might be revealed in him, it is necessary to work the works of Him who sent Me, while it is day; night is coming when no one can work.






Paidion,
If your translation is feasable it seems to make more sense since as Jepne pointed out God could have chosen from numerous blind people to have Jesus work a miracle rather then making someone blind from birth.
Of course God can do whatever he wants but this example is only about this particular incident.

[Paidion]

Thanks Steve 7150. But it isn't "my translation." It is my placing of the period in a different location. Since the writers of the New Testament didn't use punctuation (at least the 2nd century copists didn't) then its up to us the readers to decide where a period should be placed in order to make the best sense.