by Paul Coleman.
Disability and long-term illness are issues which effect every church in the UK and many disabled people have experienced harmful teaching related to disability. While there is a growing body of work and resources on the theology of disability this has not yet made its way into theological education and has had little impact on teaching in local churches. This blog explores three common models for understanding disability which are prevalent within the church and reflects on how they shape our reading of stories like John 9, “the man born blind.”
The medical model sees disability as a problem located within the individual, something to be treated, corrected, or cured through medical means. This perspective implies that healing equals wholeness and frames the blind man’s disability as something Jesus fixes. The problem to be addressed is his lack of sight rather than the way in which he is excluded from society.
The moral model interprets disability as a result of sin, divine punishment, or moral failing. This approach often leads to shame and exclusion. It places the problem within the individual, much like the medical model, but with a religious or ethical spin. The disciples’ question in John 9: v2, “Who sinned, this man or his parents?”, reflects this mindset. Although Jesus rejects this reasoning, the text still appears to suggest that the man’s blindness serves a divine purpose. The danger here is that the person becomes a theological object lesson rather than a subject with agency.
The social model, in contrast, sees disability as arising not from an individual’s body or mind but from societal barriers, physical, structural, and attitudinal. This shifts the focus from “fixing” the person to challenging systems that exclude. Read through this lens, the real issue is not the man’s blindness, but the way society treats him, and the assumptions made about him. The first question the disciples ask is essentially who’s fault is it that he is blind. There is no real concern for the man himself.
These models not only shape how we read scripture but also how we translate and interpret it. While my Greek is limited, I’m grateful to my friend and colleague Dr. Charlotte Naylor-Davis for sharing this approach to interpreting the story in John 9.
“‘neither this man nor his parents sinned’ Jesus said ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming when no one can work.’” John 9: 3-4 (NIV).
ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐμὲ εῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν·ἔρχεται νὺξ ὅτε οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι
One of the things we know about the Greek is that there is no punctuation and also none of the useful little headings which tell us what each story is about. So, breaking that down we get this:
ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς Οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν
Answered Jesus neither this man sinned
……………………………………………………………………..
οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ
nor/neither the parents of him
……………………………………………………………………..
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ
but so/in order that might be displayed
……………………………………………………………………..
τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι
the works of God in him we must work
……………………………………………………………………..
τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με ἕως
the works of him who sent me as long as
……………………………………………………………………..
ἡμέρα ἐστίν ἔρχεται νὺξ ὅτε οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι
day it is is coming night when no one can/is able to work
……………………………………………………………………..
Translators also add various other things, especially when translating the word ἵνα in verse 3, e.g.:
‘this happened so that’ (NIV, as above)
‘he was born blind so that’ (NRSV)
…whereas ‘ἵνα’ just means ‘so that/in order that’
Here’s what happens when we change the punctuation, or use ‘but’ as punctuation keeping the whole thing as one sentence, and not assuming the ‘so that’ clause refers back to being born blind, but instead points forward in the story to ‘doing the works of God’?
“Jesus answered ‘not this man nor his parents, (but) so that the works of God might be displayed in him we must do the works of him who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one is able to work.’”
In most bible translations Jesus answers their question with ‘it’s God’s fault he is blind so that a miracle can now happen’ (moral model). If the way the sentence is punctuated is changed, Jesus leaves the question of blame unanswered, but then says ‘However, in order that God’s work can be done, let’s look after this man.’
The healing is for the man, not for those who observe.
The man is centred, not the disciples’ question being answered.
This also fits better with the story in its narrative context. The story centres the man so much that Jesus says one of his ‘I am’ sayings, ‘I am the light of the world’ (John 9:5). Just a few minutes later when the man is asked if he is the person who used to beg, he uses the same words as Christ simply saying Egw eimi: I am (John 9:9).
Our bibles will have ‘I am the man’ (e.g. NIV) but in the original Greek ‘The man’ isn’t there.
Having at least a basic knowledge of disability theology allows us to interpret stories like John 9 very differently. When we interpret this passage in light of the social model of disability, we discover a story where disability is no longer stigmatised and disabled people are seen as whole, rather than as convenient sermon illustrations or opportunities to demonstrate God’s power.
Theology Everywhere 
When we hosted Chernobyl-affected children in the 90s and Noughties, they were amazed at the number of people in wheelchairs that they saw out and about on our streets. In their country, disabled people were hidden away, a source of family shame – or maybe it was too difficult to push a wheelchair on the muddy tracks that served as sideroads in their village. We have come a long way in our attitudes to, and treatment of, the disabled in recent decades. It is over a quarter of a century since Glen Hoddle, then England football manager, outraged people by suggesting that people born with disabilities were being punished for the sins of a former life. But most still consider the disabled to be somehow defective rather than differently abled.
When cochlear implants became available for deaf children, some in the deaf community were angry that children were being encouraged to leave their deaf community and what was seen as their heritage behind. They felt that it implied that being deaf was an inferior state.
LikeLike