King Solomon’s Wives (I Kings 11:3)

How many wives did Solomon have? Seven hundred (I Kings 11:3)

Known as the wisest man on the planet (I Kings 4:30), King Solomon is a successful ruler. The holdings of Israel’s kingdom reach their apex during his reign (I Kings 10:14-29). The modern adage “Go big or go home” would have been an apt motto for the ancient monarch as he seemingly accrues everything in warehouse club portions. In addition to wisdom and commodities, Solomon amasses an abundance of women: seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. (I Kings 11:3 NASB)

The number of Solomon’ wives is fantastic. Douglas Sean O’Donnell (b. 1972) relays:

In Mark Twain [1835-1910]’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck says to Jim that Solomon “had about a million wives.” A slight exaggeration—Solomon only had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He had a thousand, not a million (but still large enough!). (O’Donnell, The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy (Preaching the Word), 130)

Not surprisingly, Solomon and his wives have become fodder for humor. A.J. Jacobs (b. 1968) gibes:

Solomon holds the record with seven hundred wives...Solomon’s proverbs warn against adultery [Proverbs 2:16-19, 5:1-23, 6:24-29, 32, 7:5-23, 9:13-18, 22:14, 23:27, 30:20], which I find curious, since I can’t imagine he had any time or energy for other men’s wives. (Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Possible, 135)

Andy Stanley (b. 1958) exclaims:

Seven hundred wives! Think about that. Seven hundred mothers-in-law. What was he thinking? Apparently he wasn’t. (Stanley, The Principle of the Path: How to Get from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be, 92)

The note itself falls awkwardly into the narrative as it does not fit comfortably into its present context (I Kings 11:3). Percy S. F. Van Keulen (b. 1963) scrutinizes:

The position of the note in I Kings 11:3a is awkward. Materially, this note links up with the remark of I Kings 11:1 that Solomon loved many women. Its belated appearance at I Kings 11:3a is due to the circumstance that first the issue of the alien origin of Solomon’s wives is dealt with in I Kings 11:1b and I Kings 11:2. However, at I Kings 11:3a the note interrupts the logical sequence between I Kings 11:2b and I Kings 11:3b; the latter verse notes the fulfillment of the prediction made at I Kings 11:2b that foreign nations could turn the heart of the Israelites away behind their gods. (Van Keulen, Two Versions Of The Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry Into The Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11, 208)

The Septuagint reorganizes the passage to accentuate the bevy of marriages. Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) footnotes:

The Septuagint...rearranges I Kings 11:1-3 to emphasize Solomon’s many wives followed by his love for foreign women and apostasy: “And King Solomon was a lover of women. And he had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines. And he took Gentile women, and the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabites, Ammonites, Syrians, and Idumeans, Hittites and Amorites, of the nations concerning which the L-rd said to the sons of Israel ‘You shall not go into them, and they shall not come in to you, lest they turn away your hearts after their idols.’ To them, Solomon clung in love” (see Heinrich Hrozný [1879-1952], Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern 70-72; Gottfried Vanoni [1948-2006] 24-57). (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 153)

Solomon is said to have seven hundred “wives” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “women” (MSG). These are distinguished from his additional three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

The sheer volume is staggering. Solomon tends to do everything extravagantly and marriage is evidently no different. He has far more wives than anyone else in the Bible.

Gene Rice (b. 1925) compares:

As Solomon’s building program, wealth, and fame were on a grand scale, so was his harem. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines are not unprecedented [I Kings 11:3], but never before or after did an Israelite king have so many wives. The next largest harem was Rehoboam’s eighteen wives and sixty concubines (II Chronicles 11:21). David had at least eight wives (II Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13-16, 11:27; I Chronicles 3:1-9) and some ten or more concubines (II Samuel 15:16). Only one of David’s wives in known to have been a foreigner (II Samuel 13:37; I Chronicles 3:2). (Rice, 1 Kings: Nations Under God (International Theological Commentary), 86)

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) illustrates:

It would seem that Solomon conducted his sex life on the same unmatchable scale that he did everything else...In fact, it is scarcely possible to conceive a sex life on this scale. In 1921 the Yiddish writer David Pinski [1872-1959] tried, undertaking an audacious attempt to describe all 1,000 of Solomon’s wives, but though he worked for fifteen years he managed to complete portraits of only 105; there were just too many to handle—and he was merely writing about them. Solomon seems to do everything in multiples of thousands—40,000 stalls for his horses [I Kings 4:26], 180,000 laborers to build the Temple [I Kings 5:13-16]; a sacrifice consisting of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep [I Kings 8:63; II Chronicles 7:5]—but no figure in I Kings has impressed itself on the imagination, or strains it, quite like the king’s 700 wives and 300 concubines. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 150-51)

Given the outlandish figure, many have seen the record as employing hyperbole. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) considers:

Not for the first time in the Solomon story (cf., e.g., I Kings 4:26), we may suspect that the number (a round 1000) is not meant to be taken literally. The point is that everything Solomon did, he did in a big way! Song of Solomon 6:8-9 contrasts the one true love of the king (Pharaoh’s daughter? cf. Victor Sasson [b.1937], “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” Vetus Testamentum 39 [1989], pp. 407-14) with his 60 queens and 80 concubines—a more modest number, though not in itself unimpressive, particularly when combined with “virgins beyond number [Song of Solomon 6:8].” (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 93)

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) discounts:

The number of Solomon’s wives is said to be one thousand; as usual, this is probably an exaggeration, and the number has no significance for the course of the narrative. It only matters that his love for the women causes Solomon’s heart to turn away from Yahweh as the only God [I Kings 11:3-8]. The Deuteronomistic Historian firmly roots Solomon’s idolatry in his biography. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 131)

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) pronounces:

His alleged marriages to 700 foreign princesses...is considered historical by some in spite of I Kings 11:3’s obvious hyperbole and literary function...John Gray [1913-2000], 1 & 2 Kings, pp. 274-75, for example, asserts that although “historical fact has been magnified and stylized” in I Kings 11:3, there is still a “historical basis” to Solomon’s diverse harem; while John Barclay Burns [b. 1943], “Solomon’s Egyptian Horses and Exotic Wives,” Foundations & Facts Forum 7 (1991) 33, admits that the “exaggerated numbers of wives and concubines would not have appeared in any formal chronicle” yet goes on to argue that “nonetheless, it is conceivable that Solomon wed foreign princesses to weave a strong web of alliances.” (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “A Wealth of Women: Looking Behind, Within and Beyond Solomon’s Story”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 436)

Not all agree that the number is figurative. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) defends:

While the daughter of Pharaoh held a special position as the number one wife of the king, I Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon also had 699 other wives as well as 300 concubines. The fact that this number far exceeds the typical harems of other contemporary monarchs should not cause a problem with credibility, since Solomon diligently competed to exceed the other nations in every way. He had accumulated greater wealth, wisdom, and power than all others; and since virility was supposed to be an indicator of royal greatness in that day, he wanted to surpass them in this category too. Some interpreters who doubt the accuracy of the number in I Kings 11:3 point out that in the Song of Solomon 6:8 Solomon speaks of only “sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number.” But the supposed discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the “virgins without number” could have brought the total to a thousand. It can also be explained by reckoning that the number listed in the Song of Solomon may have come earlier in Solomon’s reign before he had accumulated the full number in this chapter. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

There are parallels to Solomon’s polygamy in other cultures. John Monson (b. 1963) correlates:

In addition to being a status symbol, the royal harem maintained close ties to Solomon’s constituents through marriage into families of varying clans, tribes, and social classes, including wives of higher status who were counted among the royalty. Counting royal women by the hundreds was not unusual during the Iron Age. Assyrian wine lists from Nimrud indicate that as many as three hundred women of various ranks lived at that palace. Extensive harems produced a large pool of heirs to ensure the enduring strength of the dynasty. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 50)

Solomon is the poster child for polygamy. Surprisingly, polygamy is not explicitly outlawed in the Bible. The Torah does mandate that the king “shall not multiply wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17 NASB) and the rabbis capped the number of marriages at eighteen (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4). The marriages themselves, however, are not the source of Solomon’s criticism.

Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) comments:

Polygamy in ancient Israel was apparently permitted, even though it obviously contradicted God’s ideal of one man for one woman for life. Most of the biblical patriarchs had numerous wives. David had fifteen. Abijah had fourteen [II Chronicles 13:21]. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, had eighteen wives and sixty concubines [II Chronicles 11:21]. So except for the unprecedented number, Solomon’s marital situation was not unusual for the historical period. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

The harem was likely a source of pride for the king. Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) informs:

If the historical Solomon really did have a large harem, he was probably quite proud of it. Biblical family values allowed a man to have multiple wives and concubines (it was only in the Middle Ages that Jews embraced monogamy as the ideal), and a large family was considered a mark of virility, wealth, blessing—evidence that a man was favored by God. In the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopian version of Solomon’s story, the king’s motive for marrying so many women is a pious one; he wants to fulfill God’s promise to Israel of many descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky [Genesis 15:5, 26:4; Exodus 32:13], and there seemed to him no better way to bring this about than to have sex with as many women as possible. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151)

While polygamy is not expressly forbidden, intermarriage with those of other religions is (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). This tenet is also sustained in the New Testament where the apostle Paul instructs, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (II Corinthians 6:14 NASB).

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) notices:

We are told virtually nothing about Solomon’s wives as individuals—only one is given a name, Naamah, the mother of Solomon’s successor Rehoboam, and only because she was the mother of a future king [I Kings 14:21, 31; II Chronicles 12:13]. What I Kings does make a point of revealing, however, is the ethnic background of these women—they were Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites [I Kings 11:1], non-Israelite peoples who lived within or on the borders of the land of Canaan—and that is what doomed Solomon’s marriages from the start. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151-52)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

Solomon’s many foreign wives...provide the focus for the description of his unfaithfulness (I Kings 11:1-8). But it is not Solomon’s polygamy per se that centers the account, but disloyalty to God that follows therefrom. Deuteronomic law had prohibited marriage with the peoples of Canaan because of the danger of being led astray to serve other gods (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; see Exodus 34:16; Joshua 23:12-13). Such intermarriage, in fact, had taken place early in Israel’s life in the land (Judges 3:5-6). That law, paraphrased here (I Kings 11:2), is interpreted to apply to other non-Israelite peoples as well. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 63)

Solomon, it appears, is exercising a loophole in Deuteronomy’s prohibition (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) observes:

Throughout Kings, the worship of foreign gods is repeatedly linked with the influence of foreign women. Solomon’s wives’ seductive powers extend outside the matrimonial realm to the religious, where they “turn his heart” to the gods of their homelands [I Kings 11:3, 4, 9]. According to I Kings 11:1, the peoples represented in Solomon’s marriages include Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites. Notably, this list does not correspond to the book of Deuteronomy’s injunction against intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:1-6), even though the narrator seems to be invoking that prohibition. Marvin A. Sweeney [b. 1953] notes that Solomon’s list corresponds instead to alliances and conquests made by David, and that the invocation of Deuteronomic law was probably a later reaction to make Solomon’s actions fit it, rather than having composed Solomon’s list in light of the Deuteronomic prohibitions (Sweeney, 155). (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 169)

Solomon certainly has a problem. Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) critiques:

How many women did he “love” [I Kings 11:1]? At least a thousand, which was a thousand times too many! The king was living so large that even his sin was super-sized: “He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines” (I Kings 11:3). (Ryken, King Solomon: The Temptations of Money, Sex, and Power, 176)

The Message paraphrases, “King Solomon was obsessed with women.” (I Kings 11:1 MSG). Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) condemns:

The number of wives, “seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines” (I Kings 11:3), even among ancient practices and even assuming some hyperbole, is unconscionable. It bespeaks an excess of one who has lost touch with reality and with relationships. Here, no prospect of human relationship or care exists. Women have been reduced to a commodity to exchange and possess. The iteration of his love for foreign women (I Kings 11:1-2) in such numbers does not convey intimate caring but a recalcitrant attachment to these women as possession and obsession. Moreover, the unimaginable number of wives coincides with behavior patterns well established through his lifetime. Excess has defined this king’s ambitions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 109)

Seven hundred wives would produce a logistical nightmare. This is seen in the fact that the wives remain nondescript, nameless and devoid of character. Stuart Lasine (b. 1945) attends:

In spite of his thousand wives and concubines, readers do not witness any illuminating exchanges between the king and his famous loves, as one is allowed to follow David’s interactions with Michal [I Samuel 19:11-17: II Samuel 6:16, 20-23; I Chronicles 15:29], Abigail [I Samuel 25:2-42], and Bathsheba [II Samuel 11:2-27; I Kings 1:11-31]. None of Solomon’s wives is said to love him as David was loved by Michal [I Samuel 18:20]. None pursues and flatters Solomon as did David’s wife-to-be Abigail [I Samuel 25:18-35]...In fact, of Solomon’s one thousand wives and concubines only Pharaoh’s daughter receives any attention at all in I Kings 3-11, and remarkably little is said about her or about Solomon’s alleged love for her [I Kings 3:1, 7:8, 9:16, 24, 11:1]. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon and the Wizard of Oz: Power and Invisibility in a Verbal Place”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 379-80)

Sadly, it is doubtful that Solomon had much more of a relationship with his wives than does the reader.

There is also implicit condemnation of Solomon’s serial polygamy. Adele Reinhartz (b. 1953) surmises:

The negative judgment of the narrator upon Solomon for loving foreign women, expressed explicitly in I Kings 11:1-3, is also conveyed by silence regarding the offspring of these unions. That there were offspring is indicated in the formulaic reference to Naamah the mother of Rehoboam (I Kings 15:21) and the naming of several daughters of Solomon who married his prefects (I Kings 4:11-15). This silence regarding Solomon’s offspring is emphasized by the reference to the son of his archenemy, King Hadad the Edomite (I Kings 11:14). In some respects, Hadad is the mirror image of Solomon. Like Solomon, he married a close relative of the Pharaoh, and an anonymous one at that (I Kings 11:19). But unlike Solomon, Hadad is portrayed as the father of a son, Genubath, borne of the Pharaoh’s sister-in-law and raised in the Pharaoh’s palace (I Kings 11:20). It is a mark of Solomon’s disgrace that his adversary is accorded the kind of conventional treatment by the narrator that Solomon himself is denied. (Reinhartz, ”Why Ask My Name?”: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative, 26)

The text categorically states that “his wives turned his heart away” (I Kings 11:3 NASB). They evidently exercised more influence on him than he them.

David C. Hopkins (b. 1952) accounts:

The narrative of Kings reports Solomon’s seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3) and suggests their influence upon their husband was both considerable and pernicious. Any influence in reverse escapes mention; the disproportionate numbers undoubtedly weighed against Solomon’s potential sway. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “The Weight of the Bronze Could Not Be Calculated: Solomon and Economic Reconstruction”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 301)

Seven hundred wives coupled with three hundred concubines is a formula for disaster. With one thousand women of varying religious affiliations it is not surprising that Solomon has divided loyalties. The text notes that the predicament finally gets the better of him in his old age, as if his senescence mitigates his fall (I Kings 11:4). He acquiesces and erects idols to placate his pagan wives (I Kings 11:4-8). In appeasing the women, he alienates God (I Kings 11:6). The king does what many do: he makes the mistake of tending to the interests of the immediate, temporal issues which surround him instead of the transcendent, eternal deity which sustains him.

What does the number of his wives say about Solomon (I Kings 11:3)? Is the mandate against intermarriage primarily a warning against foreign women or foreign gods (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)? Would you pursue a relationship with someone who practiced a different religion? What is the most spouses you have heard of someone having? What did you think of that person? Why does the Bible not expressly condemn polygamy? Are there any biblical instances where polygamy “works”? In addition to marriage partners, when is less more? Does Solomon have any influence on his wives? How much influence does your significant other have on you; how much do you exert over them? Who would it grieve you more to displease, your loved ones or God?

The note regarding King Solomon’s wives is a precursor to the account of the division of Israel’s kingdom in the next chapter (I Kings 12:1-24). I Kings 11:1-13 braces the reader for the fall of Solomon’s empire.

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

The long narrative preparing the division of the empire is not a unified whole but was assembled from several single pieces to arrive at its current form. After giving the basic reasons for the events in Solomon’s wrong behavior in I Kings 11:1-13, the narrative moves on to depict Jeroboam as a renegade and unlawful usurper in I Kings 11:26, 40. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 130)

August H. Konkel (b. 1948) classifies:

This section [I Kings 11:1-13] has been characterized as a theological review. It contains offenses and judgment statements that evaluate the king according to prophetic orthodoxy. The prophetic indictment is given as a word from Yahweh without any specification as to the occasion or manner in which that word is delivered. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary), 219)

Despite elevating Israel to unprecedented heights, the mighty king will fall. The seeds for this demise have long been evident. Lissa M. Wray Beal exposes:

The initial verses (I Kings 11:1-8) reveal Solomon’s heart and the reasons for YHWH’s judgment. With I Kings 3:1-3 they bracket Solomon’s narrative and negatively characterize the king. In Kings 3 Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter; the closing bracket now includes other foreign women. In I Kings 3:3 Solomon ‘loves’ YHWH; the only other place where Solomon ‘loves’ is in I Kings 11:1 – but now the ‘love’ is for these foreign women. In I Kings 3:1 the king’s intention to build the temple is mentioned...in I Kings 11:7-8 the temple project is denigrated as Solomon builds temples to foreign gods. Finally, I Kings 3:3 records the king’s positive attitude towards torah obedience, obedience explicitly compromised in I Kings 11:10. (Beal, 1 & 2 Kings (Apollos Old Testament Commentary), 168-69)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concurs:

The narrative turns from Solomon’s love for the Lord (I Kings 3:3; see Deuteronomy 6:5), as God had loved him (II Samuel 12:24), to his love for his foreign wives (I Kings 11:1-2); these two references bracket the reign of Solomon. This is a love story gone awry. God’s continuing love does not overwhelm Solomon’s decision to turn his love toward that which is not God, to violate his own call for complete devotion to God (I Kings 8:61). (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 62)

Solomon’s plight is foreshadowed in the preceding chapter as well (I Kings 10:1-29). Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) catalogs:

The praise for Solomon is not undiluted, since the narrator records that Solomon violates the laws of kingship by multiplying gold and weapons. Gold is mentioned some ten times in this chapter [I Kings 10:1-29]...Solomon has so much gold that he uses it for drinking vessels [I Kings 10:21] and for ceremonial shields [I Kings 10:16-17], and the abundance of gold drives the value of silver to nothing (I Kings 10:21). This seems a further encomium to Solomon, but Deuteronomy 17:14-17 specifically forbids Israel’s kings from multiplying gold and silver...Solomon also gathers horses and chariots [I Kings 10:25-29], again in violation of the rules of Deuteronomy 17:16, and even imports them from Egypt [I Kings 10:28], the very place that Israel was forbidden to go for horses and chariots. These violations prepare for the climactic violation in I Kings 11, the multiplication of wives, who seduce Solomon into idolatry [I Kings 11:1-13]. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 81)

In recounting Solomon’s reign, the text saves the worst for last. A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) reveals:

The most trenchant criticism of Solomon is left to the end of the report. We have sensed at various points in the previous chapters an undertow of critique; but now it is on the surface and in the open. (Auld, I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible), 80)

J. Maxwell Miller (b. 1937) detaches:

I Kings 3-11 presents Solomon the faithful ruler who achieved the golden age, then I Kings 11 presents a later Solomon led astray by foreign wives and struggling to maintain the secularity of his kingdom. This is an artificial arrangement; the compilers separated out and placed at the end of Solomon’s reign the items which conflicted with their notion of an ideal Solomonic era. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Separating the Solomon of History from the Solomon of Legend”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 16)

Paul S. Evans concurs:

Beginning in I Kings 10:26 there is a clear bent to present Solomon’s shortcomings. Describing his direct violations of the law regarding chariots (from Egypt no less—explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:16) and amassing of wealth (forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:17). This undercurrent of negativity in this otherwise lionizing description of Solomon has been noted by many. See Richard D. Nelson [b. 1945], First and Second Kings (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 66-67; and Jerome T. Walsh [b. 1942], I Kings (editor David W. Cotter; Collegeville, Minnesota; Liturgical, 1996), 137-38. This aspect is surprisingly overlooked by many. E.g., Burke O. Long [b. 1938] (1 Kings, 120) notes this section’s intention as to “glorify Solomon” and does not note the overt (or subtle) critique when read in light of Deuteronomy 17. Curiously, Martin J. Mulder [1923-1994] (1 Kings [Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; translator John Vriend [1925-2002]; Leuven; Belgium: Peeters, 1999], 542) notes the Deuteronomy 17:17 connection only to support the idea that “Egypt was famous for its horses.” (Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18-19, 149)

Israel Finkelstein (b. 1949) and Neil Asher Silberman (b. 1950) characterize:

The Biblical Solomon is haunted by a great contradiction. In I Kings 3-10, he is the great successor of David, a larger-than-life ruler who builds the Temple in Jerusalem and who provides the standards of wisdom and opulence that countless later kings would attempt to achieve. Yet in I Kings 11:1-13 he is little more than a senile apostate, who is led astray by the charms of his many foreign wives. (Finkelstein and Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, 179)

The downfall of a nation in conjunction with an idolatrous queen will recur in I Kings. Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) studies:

Taking on a sardonic tone, the narrator remarks of Ahab, “And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, he took as his wife Jezebel daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshiped him.” [I Kings 16:31] The marriage was surely a political move, creating an alliance with the Sidonians, that is, the Phoenicians, whose kingdom was just north of Israel. Solomon had employed the same strategy hundreds of times, to the disdain of YHWH and the Deuteronomists, though with great political effect. In the eyes of the narrator, it is as if Jezebel herself is capable of more harm than Solomon’s seven hundred foreign wives and three hundred concubines put together. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 172)

Despite the influence of his pagan wives, when Solomon’s kingdom falls, Solomon himself is to blame. Gary N. Knoppers (b. 1956) clarifies:

One may observe that the topos of mixed marriages explains a reversal in the course of Solomonic rule, but it does not excuse it. Solomon’s foreign wives catalyze his decline, but YHWH becomes enraged with Solomon and not his wives, “because he turned...his heart from YHWH, the God of Israel” (I Kings 11:9). Similarly, the judgment oracle of I Kings 11:11-13 accuses Solomon and not his wives, of malfeasance. The refusal to excuse Solomon underscores the force of the prohibitions he violates. In his dotage (I Kings 11:4) Solomon flounders because he flouts established divine commands. Under the rule of law even one of Israel’s most distinguished monarchs can be judged and found wanting. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 398)

John W. Olley (b. 1938) examines:

According to the practices of the ancient Near East all was praiseworthy, showing a mastery of international politics and diplomacy...The biblical writer however saw a sign of weakness and failure for it contradicted the Deuteronomic warning (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). It could be said that Solomon trusted in political alliances, sealed by marriages, rather than wholeheartedly in Yahweh, a negation of “be strong” of I Kings 2:2-3. In fact, the warning became reality as his wives turned his heart after other gods (I Kings 11:4). While this statement has been read as blaming the wives, just as Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12), God places the responsibility squarely with Solomon (I Kings 11:9-10; cf. Genesis 3:17-19). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 115-16)

Solomon is clearly not discriminating in his marriages and various explanations have been posited for his excessive polygamy. Gerhard Langer (b. 1960) recounts:

Rabbi Jose ben Halafta [second century CE] (Canticles Rabbah 1.1.10) is of the opinion that Solomon took these women in order to win them for the Lord, to convert them to the true faith. Other Rabbis opine that Solomon was seduced to sin and sexual deviance. According to Rabbi Eleazer ben Rabbi Jose ha Gelili [second century CE] , Solomon had intercourse with these women during their menstruation period. (Joseph Verheyden [b. 1957], “Solomon in Rabbinic Literature”, The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect, 130)

Though he is said to have “loved many foreign women” (I Kings 11:1 NASB), many assume that there are political motivations behind Solomon’s marriages. Richard D. Patterson (b. 1929) and Hermann J. Austel (1926-2011) suspect:

Though Solomon may originally have taken foreign wives for the cementing of diplomatic alliances, I Kings 11:2 states that he “held fast to them in love.” This speaks of strong emotional attachment, which is normal and desirable in a husband. But because Solomon was attached to the wrong women, he was led astray. The seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, though perhaps adding to the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom, were his downfall. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 728-29)

Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) appraises:

What the modern reader may see as the necessary political reality of intermarriage between allied royal families and what the ancient person would have normally interpreted as a witness to Solomon’s glorious potency as a ruler (cf. I Kings 11:4), the narrator evaluates single-mindedly as a violation of the law of God (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). It is not the fantastic number of these wives which is presented as the problem; it is their nationality and religion and Solomon’s accommodation to it. Even though Solomon himself did not worship their gods (I Kings 11:8b, note the plural), it was enough that he had been lured into building places of sacrifice for them. Just as the construction of the temple is presented as the acme of his piety, so these high places are sufficient evidence that “his heart was not wholly true to Yahweh his God” (I Kings 11:4). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 69-70)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) supports:

The choice Solomon made again and again over the course of his life is clear. The final assessment that unfolds in these verses (I Kings 11:1-8) is less about breaking one law of Deuteronomy as it is about his repeated choices that now culminate in comprehensive waywardness. Polygamy itself is not the issue. That was a common and accepted practice in the ancient world. Failure to trust in the Lord is the crime here. The involvement with women from Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite kingdoms indicts Solomon. Such intermarriages grew out of international alliances and treaties by which nations secured themselves before enemy threats. Solomon’s guilt lies in placing his trust in the power of others rather than in God. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 108-09)

Though Solomon’s many lovers facilitate his downfall, the fact that he enters into these unions is evidence of his proneness. His political allegiances demonstrate a lack of trust in God. Like Adam who is with Eve when partaking of Eden’s forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6), the great king is culpable in his kingdoms demise despite his wives’ influence. The root of the problem lies in Solomon, not the women or their gods. God is to be his true love and as such, all of the women and idols become little more than “the other woman”.

Where is Solomon’s legendary wisdom when consenting to his marriages? When have you seen the worst of a person revealed at the end of her life; when has the worst been saved for last? Who is most to blame for the fall of the united kingdom of Israel? Who do you know whose downfall was closely connected to the opposite sex? Do you most rely upon divine guidance or human ingenuity? Where does God rank among your loves?

“I found out a long time ago
What a woman can do to your soul
Oh, but she can’t take you any way,
You don’t already know how to go.”
- The Eagles, “Peaceful Easy Feeling” (1972)

What Did He Do To Deserve This? (John 9:2-3)

In John 9, why was the man born blind? That the works of God might be made manifest in him.

In passing, the Gospel of John records that Jesus crosses paths with a “man blind from birth” (John 9:1). The unnamed man is evidently familiar to Jesus and his disciples as they are aware that his sightlessness is congenital (John 9:2). Intrigued, the disciples ask their teacher who is to blame for the man’s lack of vision.

And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. (John 9:2-3, NASB)

Jesus refuses to be encumbered by the disciples’ limited options and offers an alternative explanation (John 9:3-5) before repairing the man’s vision (John 9:6-7).

This incident is found only in John’s gospel. Its setting is vague with no mention of a concrete time or place. The passage maintains only a tenuous connection to the preceding material.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) notes:

There is no time note. John does not relate this incident to others in his story, and we are left to guess at its place in the sequence. Sir Edwyn Hoskyns [1884-1937] says that the incident took place on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, but this is pure assumption. It is likely that some time has elapsed since the attempt on Jesus’ life (John 8:59), but more than this we cannot say. John simply tells us that Jesus passed by (where?) and saw a man blind from birth. Nothing is said as to how Jesus knew that the man had been blind from birth, which argues that he was a well-known figure. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 424)

The story is rooted more in theological argumentation than in time and space (John 9:1-5). This conversation, with its emphasis on the blindness emanating at birth, prepares the reader for a more incredible miracle. Being blind from birth is, biblically speaking, highly unusual. Outside of the gospels only one blind person is healed in the Bible (Acts 9:1-19) and this is the only miracle in the gospels where the sufferer is said to be afflicted from birth (Acts 3:2, 14:8).

It will not be this chance encounter but rather the disciples’ question that triggers the story’s action. The disciples, reappearing in John’s narrative for the first time in two chapters (John 6:70), are fascinated by the blind man (John 9:2). Their instinct is not pity or compassion but curiosity. The blind man’s condition poses a theological dilemma and as such, the disciples do not see a human being but a theological case study, a strawman to be blown down. Like many who have followed, they are haunted by the question of why, a problem theologians label theodicy.

The disciples rightly seek the insight of their “rabbi” (John 9:2) but they attempt to set parameters on his response, choosing to explore the relationship between sin and tragedy. John Chrysostom (347-407) argues that their question is prompted by John 5:14 (Homily 56.1). Whatever their motivation, it is clear that the disciples are operating under a system characterized by a tight cause-and-effect relationship; they assume that there is a direct correlation between suffering and sin. Theirs is a basic and ancient mind set, exemplified in the Book of Job (Job 8, 15, 18). On this point, the disciples have not progressed beyond Job’s ineffective “comforters”. Later in the chapter, the Pharisees will employ the same argument, only more forcefully (John 9:34).

Daniel J. Harrington (b. 1940) explains their rationale:

As an explanation for suffering, the law of retribution focuses principally on the victims. Of course, one might attribute the suffering to the wrath of God against human sinfulness or to demonic forces having power over humans. But most religious people take for granted the omnipotence and the justice of God. It is these assumptions that are examined critically in what is the fullest biblical investigation of the mystery of suffering—the Book of Job. (Harrington, Why Do We Suffer?: A Scriptural Approach to the Human Condition, 28-29)

For the disciples, the man’s condition is indicative of sin. Gail R. O’ Day (b. 1954) and Susan E. Hylen (b. 1968) clarify:

In the Fourth Gospel, “sin” is not a moral category about behavior but a theological category about one’s response to the revelation of God in Jesus...Jesus’ subsequent actions are a response to the disciple’s perspective on sin as well as to the condition of the blind man himself. (O’Day and Hylen, John (Westminster Bible Companion), 98)

From their perspective, the disciples’ question is perfectly logical as they present Jesus with the only two plausible explanations: Either the man somehow sinned at or before birth or his parents did. There is some Old Testament basis for blindness being the direct result of sin (Genesis 19:11; Exodus 4:11; II Kings 6:18). The more general connection between sin and ailment is exemplified by Job’s counselors, especially epitomized in Eliphaz’s opening argument (Job 4:7).

Given this tradition, it has been posited that the disciples are echoing conventional wisdom. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) locates:

The disciples’ statement can be placed squarely within the context of contemporary rabbinic views. Underlying the disciples’ statement is the concern not to charge God with perpetrating evil on innocent people (cf. Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 281)

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) expound:

The notion that sin caused suffering was common in the New Testament period...Stereotypical thinking at the time would have Israelites perceive that given the justice of God, suffering could only be the result of some sin, whether conscious or unconscious. As the later Pharisaic tradition [Rabbi Ammi (ca. 300)] put it, “There is no death without sin and no suffering without iniquity” (b. Shabbath 55a). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 169-70)

Blindness in particular was often examined in this light. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) relays:

Blindness was often associated with sin; in many cultures it is natural to associate another’s affliction with a specific avoidable cause to prevent anxiety on the part of those who speculated about the causes (cf. Job 6:21). Thus one source suggests that a person was struck blind because he failed to perform sacrifices properly, though some thinkers did object that blindness could happen to anyone. Jewish literature provides many examples of the connection; one who saw a blind, lame, or otherwise seriously afflicted person should praise God as the righteous judge. (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 777)

Though some obviously held a close connection between sin and affliction, this belief was not universal. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) cautions:

One should not infer from the disciples’ question that blindness was automatically equated with sin in Second Temple Jewish societies. This story stands between evidence to the contrary. Tobit (ca. third century BC) is the tale of a man whose blindness is an accidental result of his righteous actions (Tobit 2:7-10). A review of later rabbinic literature reveals that the blind were categorized with the destitute and those incapable of being valid witnesses and not with sinners. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 153)

Regardless of how widespread this conviction was, the disciples take it for granted and the fact that the man’s condition existed at birth poses a unique theological dilemma. They presume that suffering is the direct result of sin and therefore if suffering is evident sin must be also. To justify this belief, the sin must be uncovered. So they offer Jesus the only two possibilities which they can see.

In doing so, the disciples provide overly facile answers to a complex question. Bruce Milne (b. 1940) reviews:

For the disciples...the answer is simple. Personal suffering of this nature is due to personal sin. The only uncertainty concerns who is directly responsible. Since the sin concerned must have been congenital, the options were either that this man committed it during his antenatal life in the womb, or his parents had committed it before his birth. While the Bible allows a general relationship between suffering and sin, due to the fall (cf. Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12ff), it refuses to permit the principle to be individualized in every case. Sin has produced a suffering world, but an individual’s personal suffering is not always attributable to his or her personal sin. Sometimes of course it may be...But Scripture refuses to universalize such instances. That was the issue between Job and his friends, and the lesson of the book of Job is God’s dismissal of that simplistic theology of suffering. It is here dismissed by Jesus...The simplistic view is met today however, in much ‘popular religion’ which lives in fear of breaking the rules lest some punishment be visited. Specifically it is expressed in Hinduism with its doctrine of karma, the notion that the immortal soul has to go on working out, in a whole series of lives, the consequences of its actions, so that good is rewarded by a ‘higher’ life in the next reincarnation, and evil punished by a ‘lower’. Hindu thought would therefore offer a further possible answer to the implied question in John 9:2: ‘Did he sin in a previous life?’ This eastern idea has permeated the West through the New Age movement, which in many of its popularizers embraces the idea of multiple lives, and links what happened in previous existences to problems faced in the here and now. The Bible fundamentally rejects such notions. (Milne, The Message of John (Bible Speaks Today), 137)

The disciples’ first suggestion is that the man himself sinned prenatally. There is later rabbinic reflection on prenatal sin (Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932], Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 2:527-29).

J. Ramsey Michaels (b. 1931) explicates:

Behind the disciples’ question is not only the biblical notion that children are sometimes held accountable for the sins of their parents (e.g., Exodus 20:5; discussed and countered in Ezekiel 18:1-32), but the view proposed by certain rabbis that a child in the womb was already involved in sin (see, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 63, 6...based on Genesis 25:22 and Psalm 58:3). It is unlikely that Hellenistic ideas about the pre-existence of the soul contributed to the raising of the question. There is little evidence that such ideas were widely held in Judaism (cf., perhaps, Wisdom of Solomon 8:20) or that they were used to explain physical misfortune. (Michaels, (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 163)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) speculates:

How could the man himself have previously sinned if he was born blind? Some interpreters said that one could sin pre-natally in the womb. (Remember Jacob and Esau struggling with each other in the womb of their mother Rebekah, Genesis 25:22 and Genesis 25:26, and the womb-knowing Lord of Psalm 58:3 and Jeremiah 1:5). (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 564)

Though not prevalent, this belief still has advocates. Some contemporary Christian counseling training courses espouse that people may suffer because of sins committed in utero.

The disciples’ other alternative is that the parents are at fault for their child’s blindness. There are several rabbinic passages which speak to this possibility (Canticles Rabbah 1.6§3; Ruth Rabbah 6.4; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deuteronomy 21:20). For instance, if a pregnant woman worships in a pagan temple her unborn fetus was regarded as participating in the pagan rite (Canticles Rabbah, I.6,§3).

Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) investigates:

Like the disciples, the rabbis normally would have argued from their texts the basic thesis that an individual’s burden of sin (cf. Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Jeremiah 31:29-30) was the cause for illness. Such a view would relate personal distress to a person’s own acts of transgression, particularly if the person was an adult. In the case of children the issue was not totally clear, but the Palestinian Targum (on Deuteronomy 21:20) would seem to argue that it was the duty of parents to confess their transgressions for deviations of children. But that perspective was not fully determinative among the Jews. (Borchert, John 1-11 (The New American Commentary), 313)

A contemporary scientific example of a parent’s indiscretion resulting in the blindness of a child is the case of chlamydia conjunctivitis or trachoma, a leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide. A mother having the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia can infect her child’s eyes as the baby traverses the birth canal resulting in congenital blindness. While there is no cure for this condition, if the mother is given antibiotics prior to giving birth, the occurrence is preventable.

While some Scriptures appear to support the belief that congenital illness is the result of parental transgression, other passages in both the Old Testament and Second Temple literature strongly challenge the notion that children suffer for their parents’ sin (Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:1-32; Tobit 3:3).

Beauford H. Bryant (1923-1997) and Mark S. Krause (b. 1955) document:

While it is correct that Scripture draws a connection between sin and physical suffering (see Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 28:15; Ezekiel 18:4), it is incorrect to conclude that each and every instance of physical ailment or disability is the direct result of sin. We know from our own experience that sinful lifestyle choices may lead to disease...but that certainly not all disease may be traced to sinful behavior...We all suffer because of our own sins, and because of the general sinfulness of our culture, but this does not mean that degree of disability or illness is a measure of a person’s moral failure. To hold such a view is a way to justify a lack of mercy and compassion to those who are suffering, since it assumes they suffer justly because of God’s punishment of sin. Elsewhere, Jesus refuses to accept such a theology of sin and suffering (Luke 13:2-5). (Bryant and Krause, John (The College Press NIV Commentary), 214)

Craig Groeschel (b. 1967) distinguishes:

Just because God can use what happens doesn’t mean he causes everything. God does cause some pain (Hebrews 12:7-11 talks about God “disciplining” his children), but much pain—especially that caused by the sins of other people—is not caused by God. He may allow it, but he doesn’t cause it. That’s an important distinction. Recognizing this fact might still leave us angry with him (and I’m guessing he probably understands when it’s a person in pain). We learn to overcome this anger as we get to know God. And as we do, we learn how to trust that he is still good, loving, and wise in everything he does, even if we don’t know why things happen. (Groeschel, The Christian Atheist: Believing in God but Living As If He Doesn’t Exist, 106)

Both of the disciples’ solutions carry implicit problems which may be why they felt the need to consult the rabbi. Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) critiques:

Their reaction is a question of theodicy that assumes the dogma of direct relationship between sin and sickness (and misfortune in general). Naturally, in the case of a man born blind, that belief was problematic. For who then was the guilty party? Was there a way in which the man could be responsible? Just how that could be the disciples do not say. Perhaps that is precisely the subject on which they wanted Jesus’ opinion. Or were the parents guilty of sin and hence punished in their son? Apparently both possible assumptions produced problems in the minds of the disciples. Whether with these questions they intended to challenge the entire matter in which the rabbis made a direct connection between sin and sickness (and the like) is something we cannot say. But for the disciples of Jesus that would not be so strange. (Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, 332-33)

In asking this question, the stakes are high. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) unravels:

In this view such suffering appears to be a punishment, part of a process which seems implacable, even vindictive. What is at stake ultimately is the entire problem of evil, a problem which, insofar as it consists of sin, had just been attributed to the human will and then, even more fundamentally, to an underlying diabolical force (John 8:44). In that case Jesus had not denied the reality of sin and its diabolical roots, but he had gone on to set the evil in a positive context; he had moved from a negative emphasis to an emphasis on sinlessness and God (John 8:45-47), and so in a certain sense the image of evil was swallowed up in the image of a greater good...To a significant degree, that is what Jesus does here also. The issue now...is suffering rather than sin...He discounts the sin theory of the disciples, and he accepts the reality of the suffering in a positive context, a context wherein the virtually lifeless man is to reveal the works of God (John 9:3). (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 346)

Thankfully perspectives on illness have changed. Gerard Sloyan (b. 1919) cautions:

Great delicacy is required in preaching on this chapter effectively because the world of the first century was not alerted to the physically handicapped in the same way ours is. Using the blind and leprous as examples of the morally culpable or the spiritually insensitive may have been usual in those days. It is intolerable today. At the same time, the confusion over physical impairment and moral fault characteristic of that age still lingers. This means that this major theme of John 9 can be put to pulpit use with ease only by the exercise of consummate skill. (Sloyan, John (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 113)

While attitudes toward the disabled have changed, many religious people today hold similar beliefs, albeit often tacitly. This often comes out as people attempt to make sense of the world around them and utter some variation of the question, “What did I do to deserve this?”

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) relates:

Thinking like this is a way of trying to hold on to a belief in God’s justice. If something in the world seems ‘unfair’, but if you believe in a God who is...all-powerful, all-loving and all-fair, one way of getting round the problem is to say that it only seems ‘unfair’, but actually isn’t. There was after all some secret sin being punished. This is a comfortable sort of thing to believe if you happen to be well-off, well fed and healthy in body and mind. (In other words, if nobody can accuse you of some secret previous sin.) (Wright, John For Everyone, Part 1: Chapters 1-10, 133)

D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) augments:

The belief that illness or misfortune is the result of sin (John 9:2-3) is an ancient one (cf. Exodus 20:5; Luke 13:1-5), and dies hard: “What did I do to deserve this?” It is important to maintain the moral balance of one’s personal universe. Jesus, however, rejects the notion that the man’s blindness is the result of sin (John 9:3; Luke 13:1-5; but cf. John 5:15; Mark 2:5, 9). But Jesus’ explanation for its existence is scarcely more acceptable to modern sensibilities (cf. John 11:4). (Smith, John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 191)

The disciples view the blind man through old lenses and consequently their eyes are clouded by ancient religiosity. Their question about the man’s blindness reveals their own spiritual blindness. Lest we feel superior, we must remember that we are all blind to something and are in need of opening our eyes that we might see more clearly.

Is the disciples’ question unreasonable? Who is most blind in this passage? Which kind of “blindness” is harder to correct, physical or spiritual? When you see tragedy is your instinct to care or condemn? How are you blind; what notions do you have that could be incorrect? Why was the man born blind?

Jesus responds to the disciples but rejects their assumption and refuses to enter into such futile discussion. He evades generalities and instead speaks to the specific case at hand. After all, that is what they ask about (John 9:2).

The disciples, like many believers who have followed them, have framed their petition to Jesus poorly. Jesus refuses to confine his answer to their box. His response exposes the fallacy of their false dilemma. This is not an either/or proposition. They have neglected the tertium quid; there is another option. In bypassing their limitations, Jesus exonerates the man and his parents.

Instead, Jesus posits that through man’s condition, the “works of God” might be “displayed.” Stephen D. Renn defines “displayed”:

The verb phaneroō occurs about sixty times with the consistent meanings of “reveal” (i.e., cause to appear), “appear” throughout...The passive sense “to be revealed” is found in a number of places, occurring with reference to God’s work in the lives of human beings (cf. John 9:3); the righteousness of God (cf. Romans. 3:21); the love of God (cf. John 4:9); eternal life through God’s word (cf. Titus 1:3); the life of Jesus in the bodies, lives of believers (cf. II Corinthians 4:10ff; Colossians 3:4); and the mystery of Christ and the gospel, communicated to the saints (cf. Colossians 1:26; I Timothy 3:16; II Timothy 1:10; I Peter 1:20; I John 1:2). The revelation of Christ to Israel is indicated in John 1:31; and to the world at large at the end of the age in I Peter 5:4; I John 2:28, 3:2). (Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts, 47)

The translation of Jesus’ phrasing is highly problematic. The man’s blindness happened “but that” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV), “so that” (HCSB, NIV, NASB, NRSV) or “so the” (NLT) workings of God might be displayed (John 9:3). The nuance makes all the difference; from the causal “so that” to the more purposeful “but that”. “So that” could imply that God subjected a bystander to years of blindness for the sole purpose of producing later divine glory. The varying thoughts also shift the underlying focus from predestination to opportunity.

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) delineates:

Jesus’ answer is different depending upon the punctuation preferred. (a) “It was neither this man nor his parents who sinned, but that the works of God might be manifested in him. It is necessary for us to work the works of the one who sent while it is day. Night is coming when no one is able to work.” Here the blindness is not due to human sin, but it exists to heighten the glory of God’s acts (e.g., Exodus 7:3-5; John 11:4). Given this purpose, Jesus needs to do the works of God. (b) “It was neither this man nor his parents who sinned. But in order that the works of God might be made manifest in him, it is necessary for us to work the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one is able to work.” Here blindness is not due to human sin, but no other explanation for it is given. Since the problem exists (for whatever reason), there is a divine necessity for Jesus to do God’s work so that it may be manifest in the man...Either way, the text does not function as Jesus’ exclusion of sin as a cause of suffering in all cases...Only in this particular case is sin as a cause excluded. The major difference is that the first option gives an alternative explanation for the cause of the blindness, while the second does not. (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and Johannine Epistles, 164)

Linguistically, both are viable possibilities. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) asserts:

The question to be raised about John 9:3 is whether we are being told that the man was born blind for the purpose of revealing God’s work in his life, or that he was born blind and the result of this is that God has chosen to reveal his work in this man’s life. I suspect the latter, which is grammatically quite possible, is meant here, in which case we are not being told that God caused a person to be born blind just to use him as an illustration of divine power later in life. The man’s blindness will be made to serve God’s larger purposes; it will be the occasion for God to reveal his works. One should compare what is said of the case of Lazarus in John 11:4. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 182-83)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) determines:

Most English translations invite gross confusion with Jesus’ answer. The NIV reads: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” It hardly takes a careful reader to see the theological implications following this line of thought: God brought suffering to this man so that he might glorify himself in his healing. While a sound theology cannot doubt God’s sovereignty to do as he pleases, thoughtful Christians may see this as a cruel fate in which God inflicts pain on people simply to glorify himself...However, the “purpose clause” of John 9:3b (“so that the work of God...”) can just as well be applied to John 9:4, and no doubt it should. Such clauses (introduced by Greek hina) may begin the main sentence rather than follow it. Of eleven uses of the Greek all’ hina (“but so that,” John 9:3b) in John, four of them precede their main sentence (John 1:31, 13:18, 14:31, 15:25). If John 9:2-4 follows this pattern, we may translate it as follows: “‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus. ‘But so that the work of God might be displayed in his life, we must do the work of him who sent me while it is still day.’”...The purpose clause now explains that Jesus must work so that God’s work may be displayed in this man’s life. God had not made the man blind in order to show his glory; rather God has sent Jesus to do works of healing in order to show his glory. The theological nuance of the two translations cannot be more different. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 272-73)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) concurs:

The clause ‘that he should be born blind’ has in Greek the form of a purpose clause (hina with the subjunctive) but the sense requires us to take it as a clause of result. On the other hand, the clause in Jesus’ reply, ‘that the works of God might be manifested...’ (again hina with the subjunctive) is a clause of purpose in meaning as well as in form...The purpose of his blindness was that a divine work should be wrought in him and the divine glory be revealed (as it is revealed in all the ‘signs’ of this Gospel). This does not mean that God deliberately caused the child to be born blind in order that, after many years, his glory should be displayed in the removal of the blindness; to think so would again be an aspersion on the character of God. It does mean that God overruled the disaster of the child’s blindness so that, when the child grew to manhood, he might, by recovering his sight, see the glory of God in the face of Christ, and others, seeing this work of God, might turn to the true Light of the World. (Bruce, The Gospel of John, 209)

Theologically, the differing translations transition from what Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976) classified as the “intentional will of God” to the “circumstantial will of God”: God uses a negative situation for God’s purposes but did not originally plan for the situation to exist.

Regardless of one’s interpretation of the purpose clause, Jesus’ retort disconnects the man’s blindness from sin. Jesus, however, does not claim the man is without sin or that there is never a connection between sin and suffering.

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) clarifies:

Although Jesus does not disavow the generalizing connection between sin and suffering, he completely disavows a universalizing of particular connections. In this instance, he insists that neither this man nor his parents sinned. Rather, this happened so that the work [literally ‘works’] of God might be displayed in his life. Formally, the concluding clause could be taken as a result clause (‘with the result that’) or a purpose clause (‘in order that’); either way, John certainly does not think that the occurrence of blindness from birth was outside the sweep of God’s control, and therefore of his purpose. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 362)

Jesus’ response turns the disciples’ attention from the blame game to God’s creative work, from the blind to the One who gives sight.

Gail R. O’ Day (b. 1954) observes:

Jesus’ answer indicates that the disciples’ question is not the right way to see what is before them. The disciples ask about the cause of the blindness; Jesus answers about the purpose. (O’Day, The Word Disclosed: Preaching the Gospel of John, 67)

Anthony J. Kelly (b. 1938) and Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) appraise:

Jesus refuses to accept their theological judgment of the situation, with its easy imputation of guilt to the sufferer and of vindictive justice to God. He brings his disciples back to the fundamental truth of what the Father is doing. The true God does not legitimate negative judgment on a suffering human being. The God of salvation is at work within the darkness and blindness shrouding the human condition. In what Jesus will do, God is revealing himself (John 9:3). God’s works are not aimed at judgment, but to bring healing, enlightenment, and new birth into the otherwise hopeless situation of the sufferer. Despite the darkness gathering around him, and the obscurity that will inevitably affect all human beings, Jesus, “the light of the world,” associates his disciples with him in his light-giving mission to the world: “We must work the works of him who sent me.” (John 9:4). (Kelly and Moloney, Experiencing God in the Gospel of John, 206)

Rodney A. Whitacre (b. 1949) applies:

We should not be concerned with assigning blame. Trying to figure out the source of suffering in an individual’s life is futile given our limited understanding, as the book of Job should teach us. (Whitacre, John (IVP New Testament Commentary), 236)

As usual, Jesus serves as a model. Max Lucado (b. 1955) applauds:

What a perspective! The man wasn’t a victim of fate; he was a miracle waiting to happen. Jesus didn’t label him. He helped him. Jesus was more concerned about the future than the past. (Lucado, A Gentle Thunder: Hearing God Through the Storm, 160)

In doing so, Jesus removes all dichotomic categories by which the disciples attempt to understand their world (e.g. righteous/sinner, insider/outsider, etc.). Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) discloses:

Blindness is connected in the minds of the citizens of this community with sinfulness. Blindness is a manifestation of sin, so the blind man is more than just a “blind man”; he is the community’s “designated sinner.”...Even Jesus’ disciples accepted this moral world...What Jesus said points not just to a different attitude but to a different moral world, and what happened next is astonishing. Like God in Genesis, Jesus bent down and took mud and created a new world and a new humanity. (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], Preaching John's Gospel: The World It Imagines, 55)

The disciples see only a blind man and wonder why he is blind. Jesus sees the same man and envisions ministry and a way to glorify God.

David Rensberger (b. 1948) concludes:

Theodicy here is the disciples’ interest, and Jesus’ answer says that it is the wrong one. Grammatically, he changes the man’s blindness from a result to a cause. The disciples’ question, and the viewpoint behind it, are rejected altogether. They see suffering as an occasion for moralizing about the victim. Jesus sees it as an occasion for doing the works of God, that is, for relieving the suffering. John refuses the question of technical theodicy and points instead to the need that the works of God should be “made manifest,” that they should appear, and therefore that what they are should also appear. The “work of God,” it turns out, is not punishing sinners with suffering but overcoming suffering. (Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community, 44)

Jesus gives sight to the blind and ensures that darkness and blindness do not get the last word (John 9:6-7). As the light of the world (Matthew 5:14) and Jesus’ representatives on earth, it is the job of Christians to similarly counter suffering in the world. A good way to start is to view everyone we encounter as nothing less than a miracle waiting to happen.

How do you explain prenatal maladies? When something horrible happens, do you try to assign blame? Is their always a connection between sin and suffering? When have you asked a misguided question? When have you been so blinded by your religious understanding and traditions that you missed a ministry opportunity? Are you cooperating with God so that his works might be displayed in you?

“Judgments prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances.” - Wayne W. Dyer (b. 1940)