Why does God allow people to be disabled / handicapped?

The man blind from his birth is no doubt a picture of Israel, and indeed of all mankind by nature. Of course the root of this is sin, but not, as the disciples supposed, some particular sin (v. 2). It is strange that they could think that one might have committed such a sin before birth as to render him blind when born! But sin, the root of sins, has infected the very nature that we all have as children of Adam. This is the reason for all sickness and for spiritual blindness from birth also.

But the supreme wisdom of God is above this, and He has decreed that this particular man should be born blind in order that the work of God in superior power should be manifested in him. Can we not say of every case of trouble or illness, that God has a special reason for allowing it? A submissive spirit will learn the reason, and be blessed, while insubjection will resist God's working and suffer the consequences.

John 9:2-3. The disciples, with their Jewish prejudices, thought that the blindness might have been inflicted anticipatively for some sin foreseen by God or as the result of the sin of his parents. In His reply the Lord shows that God can use affliction to make manifest the works of God. A life-long sickness is not necessarily the outcome of a specific sin, but may be allowed for the display of the grace of God.

The Saviour had just delivered Himself from the malice of His enemies, who took up stones to cast at Him because He declared Himself the "I am." As He passed by, He noticed a man who had been blind from birth (John 9). The disciples enquired whose sin was responsible for this affliction — the man's, or his parents'? They were as narrow-minded as Job's three friends, who regarded suffering as a special mark of divine displeasure, having no other thought as to it. The Saviour pointed out a higher purpose — "that the works of God should be manifest in him." The man's misery furnished occasion for the display of divine power and goodness.

John 9 opens with the case of a man that gives rise to a question from the disciples, in relation to the government of God in Israel. Was it his parents' sin that brought this visitation on their child, according to the principles God had given them in Exodus? Or was it his own sin, known to God though not manifested to men, that had procured him this judgment? The Lord replies, that the man's condition did not depend on the government of God with respect to the sin either of himself or of his parents. His case was but the misery which gave room for the mighty operation of God in grace. It is the contrast that we have continually seen; but here it is in order to set forth the works of God.

The question which the disciples raised may seem curious to us, but it expressed thoughts which were common among the Jews, finding their basis in Exodus 20:5, which speaks of the iniquity of the fathers being visited upon the children. The Lord's reply shows that affliction may come without there being any element of retribution in it, but simply in order that God's work may be manifested. It was manifested here in working a complete deliverance from the affliction. It may just as strikingly be manifested by complete deliverance from the depression and weight of the affliction, while the affliction itself still persists; and so it is often seen today. It was then the "day," marked by the presence on earth of "the Light of the world." Jesus knew that the "night" of His rejection and death was approaching, but until that time He was here to do the Father's works, and this blind man was a fit subject for the work of God, though he had made no appeal for it, as far as the record goes.

They had nothing better than Jewish thoughts about the case. But all through the gospel of John Christ is setting aside these thoughts on every side, whether in enquirers outside, or more particularly in disciples, who were under this pernicious influence like other people. Here the Lord answered, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents." The ways of God are not as man's; and their revelation stands in contrast with Jewish notions of retributive justice. The reason lay deeper than what his parents deserved, or the foresight of what he would do amiss. Not that the man and his parents were not sinners; but the eye of Jesus saw beyond nature, or law, or government, in the man's blindness from his birth. To divine goodness, the inner and true and ultimate reason, God's reason — if one may be permitted such a phrase — was to furnish an opportunity for Christ to work the works of God on the earth. How blessedly grace operates in, and judges of, a hopeless case! That it was wholly outside the resources of man made it just the occasion for Jesus, for the works of God. This is the point of the chapter — Jesus working the works of God in free unconditional grace. In John 8 the prominent feature is the word of God; here, the works of God made effectual and manifest in grace. "I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day." Therefore can one say, that it is unqualified grace, because it is not merely God mercifully answering man's appeal, and blessing man's work, but God sending, and Christ working. "I must work the works of him that sent me." What grace (save in Jesus all through) can be compared with this? Jesus, then, was doing this work "while it is day." Day was while He was present with them. Night was coming, which would be, for the Jew, the personal absence of the Messiah; indeed, such for any would be the departure of the Son of God. "The night cometh when no man can work." (Verse 4) Higher things might follow in their season, and brighter light suited to them when the day should dawn, and the day-star arise in hearts established with grace. But here it is the time of the absence of Jesus in contrast with His presence on earth as He then was. "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (Verse 5)

In spite of the miraculous signs Moses was given, he tried hard to excuse himself from a task for which he did not feel himself qualified. He protested that he was not eloquent, but was slow of speech (v. 10). This does not sound convincing in view of Acts 7:22, which tells us Moses “was mighty in words and deeds.” God's answer to him was sharp and penetrating, “Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?” God had made Moses just as he was, and had made him for the specific purpose of delivering Israel. Did God not know what He was doing? Were the thoughts of Moses more correct than God's thoughts? God allowed Moses no excuse. He tells him peremptorily, “Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you shall say” (v. 12). This was a clear, absolute command of God.

This objection shows most conclusively that self was the beam in his eye that obstructed the vision of faith. For was it his eloquence or the Lord's power that would effect the emancipation of Israel? He speaks as if all depended upon the suasive words of human wisdom, as if his appeal was to be made by human art to the natural man. How common the mistake, even in the Church of God! Hence eloquence is that which even Christians desire — giving it a place beyond the power of God. The pulpits of Christendom are thus filled with men who are not of a slow tongue, and even the saints who in theory know the truth are beguiled and attracted by splendid gifts, and take pleasure in their exercise apart from the truth communicated. How different was the thought of Paul. "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." And again, My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." (1 Cor. 2:1, 4.) It is on this account that God often uses the "slow of speech" far more than those who are eloquent; for there is no temptation in such cases to lean upon the wisdom of men, all beholding that it is the power of God. It is this lesson — a lesson which contains at the same time a withering rebuke — that Jehovah now teaches Moses. ""Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." (vv. 11, 12.) The servant could not require more; but the danger lies in forgetting that the mode in which the Lord may employ us may not bring honour to ourselves. On the contrary, we may be regarded as the apostle was, as weak in bodily presence, and in speech contemptible (2 Cor. 10:10); but what of this if we are made the vehicles of the power of God? The servant must learn to be nothing that the Lord alone may be exalted. But Moses evidently desired to be something, himself, and overwhelmed by the prospect, and, it may also be, borne down by the sense of his incompetency, notwithstanding all the grace and condescension of the Lord, he desires to be excused from so difficult a mission. He therefore says,

The Lord now saw him, though he could not see the Lord. And the disciples asked a question: "Master [rather, Rabbi], who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (2). To some governmental dealing on the part of God such an affliction was vulgarly attributed. Governmental dealing it might be, because of the parents' offences (Ex. 34:7); but rabbinical teaching carried the matter further, and maintained that one whilst in the womb could sin, grounding such a supposition, it is stated, on Gen. 25:22, where we read that the two children struggled together in Rebekah's womb. Every bodily affliction, however, is not sent in chastisement, though at times that may be the reason for it (1 Cor. 11:30; Mark 2:5-10). In the case of Lazarus (John 11:4), as in this, governmental dealing was the cause neither of the sickness nor of the blindness. We need spiritual discernment as to such dealing on the part of our God, men being too apt, like the friends of Job, to attribute God's hand on the individual as a token of Divine governmental dealing for some sin or course of evil.

Verse 2: "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" This question is so like the mind of man. Christ says, "I do not take it up in that light." He takes up God's side, showing that sorrow and privation are connected in God's mind with some work of power not yet brought out. It was as it were a spot in providence that this man was born blind. Christ says, "I am come into the scene where everything is out of course, to gladden hearts, and display the glory of God."