Is Jesus A Perfect Revelation of God’s Nature? Part III: Lies That Blind
John 9:3 (NKJV)
3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.
In these series of articles, we’ve attempted to defend the character of God using His revelation of Himself (Christ Jesus) as the absolute standard. By so doing, some issues might pose themselves in our way, most of which are Jesus’ statements and actions which seem to contradict the defense that God is 100% good and will not do nor permit ANY form of evil, whether actively or passively. We’ve been able to tackle a few in the preceding two articles and we would proceed to another in this article. The John 9 incidence is a unique one as it deals more with Jesus’ words than His actions. Many have attempted to use this narrative to insinuate that God would inflict just so He could heal and restore later. They say this because of Jesus’ reply to His disciples’ question: “..BUT THAT the works of God should be revealed in him.”
But if this is the case, then God proves to be very counterintuitive. To what end is making a man to be born blind just so He could heal Him later on and “get the glory.” It just doesn’t make sense! Hence, a proper observation of this text is required. Did God smite the blind man with blindness so that His so-called “works” could be revealed in Him later?
Let’s follow the narrative closely.
John 9:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 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.
First, notice that no sin on his part or his parents brought about his blindness, this is VERY key. We must stop this nonsense of linking people’s misfortunes to some mysterious “hidden sin” in their lives and hear Jesus! It’s an unscriptural act!
So, back to John 9:3. Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. The issue here, as is in most cases, is in a poor grammatical construction in the English from the Greek manuscript by the translators. Let’s go back to the original text in order to get a proper understanding of the construction there.
“But that” in the text under examination (John 9:3) is “hinaphaneroó” in the original Greek manuscript. Grammatically, it could be constructed as an imperative (a command): “Let the works of God be revealed in him!” The Contemporary English Version (CEV) of the same verse bears this up:
John 9:3-5 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
“No, it wasn’t!” Jesus answered. “But because of his blindness, you will see God work a miracle for him. God did not strike him with blindness. Jesus, in this scenario, is the Saviour and Healer not the afflicter!
Whilst God is passive in the man’s blindness, He is ACTIVE in healing him (John 9:6-12). His sickness gave God the opportunity to do what He does best — heal and deliver! That’s what Jesus meant in John 9:3. The fact that I happen to have some paracetamol on me for someone with a headache doesn’t mean I ACTIVELY brought the headache upon such a one. His having of a headache would make my possession of the medication VISIBLE and MANIFEST. That’s the case in John 9:3. Jesus is in NO WAY insinuating that God is responsible for the ill that came upon this man. The work of God done there is in healing him.
© Josh Banks Ministries. 2020.
