Disease, disabilities and God
Moses said, "I don’t want the job! Besides I’m not a good speaker." And God said, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or [tongue-tied]? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go..." (Exodus 4:10-12)This section (and verse) functions in numerous ways. First, I think, it functions to defend Moses whose leadership is always under attack. The first record of it was forty years earlier when he tried to bring peace between two Israelites, "Who made you ruler and judge over us?" (Exodus 2:14) the man wanted to know. We hear it again from his brother and sister in Number 12:2, "‘Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?’ they asked. ‘Hasn’t he also spoken through us?’ " We hear it again in Numbers 16 from Korah and his whole company, with nearly fifteen thousand that sympathised with Korah (16:41,49). But these are only samples. This kind of opposition dogged Moses his whole career and you hear it implied when Israelite leaders say about him (Exodus 4:1; 5:21; 16:3; 32:1 and note 4:24-26 where Moses’ life is under threat; click here). And note that the phrase "as the Lord commanded Moses" occurs seventeen times in the concluding two chapters of Exodus. The almost tedious repetition makes the point that the entire worship structure came from God and not from Moses. This too makes the point that Moses was not speaking or acting on his own authority. It's clear from this section that Moses wasn't grabbing for authority—the opposite is true.
Secondly and immediately related, this section that includes Exodus 4:10-12 is there to stress the sovereignty of God who will see to it that his overarching purpose will be completed. The limitations of his instruments are irrelevant. The biblical witness, and the Pentateuch in particular, is saturated with that truth. In the process of making that point, God makes the claim of 4:11 and since he is the one that controls the development of the human condition then the existence of elements within the human condition cannot thwart his purposes. For example, some claim that since man has free-will God cannot really be in control of history. God would want to know that since man’s free-will is his will, how could it thwart his purposes—he chooses it to be so?
And God said, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or [tongue-tied]? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"
So what do we make of that text? We know it’s something of a rebuke to Moses and an assertion that God is capable of bringing his purposes about despite the limitations of his servants. But notice the form his claim takes. He says being deaf or blind or tongue-tied cannot thwart my purposes because I am the one that brought these conditions about! Now, look away from the text and focus on someone blind! As you look, hear the text again, "Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"
Let’s suppose we take the passage at face value and say, "Exodus 4:11 teaches that wherever there is blindness it is to be attributed to God," what then? Should we say that God starts off the morning thinking, "Well, let’s see who and how many I will blind today"? Let’s suppose we grasp the nettle and hold that where blindness is it should be laid at God’s feet. If we then asked, "Why this one and not another, why him and not her?" that would change nothing. If we never knew the reason why this person and not that one—it would still be true that blindness is to be attributed to God.
Suppose we take the passage at face value and say that wherever there is blindness it is to be attributed to God what are we to make of the fact that blindness is the result of numerous physical and "natural" causes? That would be no difficulty if we believed that God almost always uses what we call "natural laws" to accomplish his purpose. In the plagues on Egypt a wind brings the locusts and takes them away, electrical storms burn up crops and ulcers afflict animals. Natural laws aren’t God’s enemies they are his servants (see Palms 148).
Suppose we take Exodus 4:11 at face value and say that wherever there is blindness it is to be attributed to God does that mean that everyone that’s blind has been individually selected for punishment because they or some relative of theirs did evil? It does not! John 9:1-3 makes that clear. Innocent babies are born blind and innocent children are made blind by parasites and malnutrition and so forth.
No, we should link Exodus 4:11 with the original curse in Genesis 3, which means that innocent individuals in every generation bear and share the judgment, brought on by the guilt of the human family as represented by Adam and Eve.
Should we say, "What a horrible God he must be if he is responsible for all these things"? I think not! If it’s the case that God means to redeem the human family and offer them life that is rich and abundant then his actions must be interpreted in light of his character and purpose. We can all imagine situations where some are sacrificed for the greater good. In wartime some are "left behind" so that a mission can be accomplished. In a sinking ship doors are closed on a few to save the many. Construct your own illustration—they’re not hard to come up with.
We’re not unhappy to believe that some really evil person "gets what’s coming to him". We’re not unhappy to think that God is responsible. The Bible gives us illustrations of calamity that are specifically said to be judgments against evil. Noah’s flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would illustrate. The innocent died in those judgments but no one with sense believes that God was punishing newly born babies. Nevertheless, they died in the judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment