Of Sin and Sickness

This morning I am reading from Matthew 9:2-8 NIV:

[2] "Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

[3] At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

[4] Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? [5] Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? [6] But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” [7] Then the man got up and went home. [8] When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man."

And contrasting this verse with John 9:1-7 NIV:

[1] "As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. [2] His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

[3] “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. [4] As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. [5] While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

[6] After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. [7] “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing."

As I read these two sections, the question of whether sin causes sickness rises up. In both texts, we do not see this correlation. It was a common thought among the Jews that sin caused sickness, hence the questions from the disciples in John 9. Jesus clearly states that in this situation, that is not the case, neither the man, nor his parents had sin that caused his blindness.

In the first story from Matthew, we often times assume that the forgiveness of sins was tied directly to the healing, but all the commentators I have read make a point of saying this is not the case. Rather, the healing proved the validity of the earlier statement of Jesus, that He had authority to forgive sins. This situation had nothing to do with a correlation between the man's sin and sickness, but was rather a point of Jesus authority, given Him by the Father, to do both, forgive sins and heal and work miracles. The focus of this section was not the man, but rather Jesus.

In neither section is there a clear statement that sin causes sickness, or the opposite. There is clearly a case for sin causing sickness, for example in the case of sexual immorality being the cause of a sexually transmitted disease, or of the sin of gluttony being a potential cause of type 2 diabetes, or the case where persistent drunkenness causes liver failure, but this is not the rule by any means.

The truth that sin opened the door for sickness and disease to enter the world is conveyed to us in the book of Genesis, and as such it is proper to draw some correlation, but not of the personal level of responsibility, that many are quick to draw. If you were to read the teachings of men who had great healing ministries, like John G. Lake or Smith Wigglesworth, you would find that both of them believed the majority of sickness had to do with the work of the evil one and not people's sinfulness. We find ample scriptural basis for this perspective, and their experiences gave them reason to believe this was the case. We also have plenty of scriptural examples of healing that mention nothing other than the healing of the person or people who are sick. Developing a theological perspective that is heavily weighted around sin as the cause of sickness would be very short sighted and unbalanced.

Rather than trying to afix blame, let us instead pursue the glorification of God in healing and miracles, and let Him be the judge of people hearts and lives. Let us point to, and run to Jesus who has authority to forgive sins and bring healing of all diseases.