Well... another Scripture often used by those who falsely claim that disease somehow brings glory to a Healer. I guess God must be schizophrenic or something. And I guess Jesus had a debate with God as to what would glorify Him in this situation. lol. I think the outcome is pretty clear as to what glorified God. For some reason, Jesus didn't leave the man blind. Hmm... Let's look at some great points...
John 9:1-4
"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 made 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."
Although Jesus did not answer the question "Who sinned?" He did make it clear that it was neither the man nor his parents. Furthermore, Jesus did not say that it was the work of God that the man was blind. In fact, Jesus emphasized that the will of God was to rectify the situation, which He then proceeded to do by healing the man.
Every student of Scripture should be aware that the theology and beliefs of the translators of any version of the Bible affected the way they translated it. Most Greek and Hebrew words have a range of meanings (just as most English words do) and can be translated several different ways. Furthermore, there was no punctuation in the early biblical manuscripts. All the words were run together without breaks between them and without periods, commas, etc. All punctuation was added by translators through the years, as were chapter and verse numbers.
Unfortunately, most translators through the centuries have believed that God is the cause of evil, sin and suffering. The punctuation that has been added to John 9:3,4 in the modern Greek texts, from which we get most of our English translations, reflects this. They do indeed make it seem as if God had made the man blind at birth so He could later heal him, but that would be like a car dealer selling a new car with broken headlights so as to later be able to show off the quality of its service department. The NIV translation is perhaps easier to understand, but is it accurate?
John 9:3,4
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work."
Look back at the KJV's rendering of John 9:3,4. In verse 3, we would put a period after the word "parents" and a comma after the word "him." Thus the text would read:
"Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.
But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of him that sent me..."
Religious tradition teaches that God is glorified when a believer nobly endures sickness or suffering. Jesus apparently believed that God is glorified by delivering people from such trauma.
If people are going to be delivered, someone must work the works of God. Neither the parents nor the man had sinned. Nor had God made the man blind just so that He could heal him later (after years of suffering). Jesus did not answer the disciples' question as to the cause of the problem. He did, however, show them, and the blind man, God's solution.
So what glorified God? the healing of this man or the disease? If the disease was glorifying God so much, then why on earth did Jesus heal him? Hello???
