They can conceive of only two options for this condition: either this man committed sin during his
pre-birth life in the womb, or his
parents committed it before his birth. (NIV Bible Speaks Today: Notes [London:
IVP, 2020], 1454)
But here the question is, Whose sin accounts for the blindness of an
infant? The view that one can suffer the consequences of the sins of one’s
parents or ancestors can be found throughout the literature of the ancient
world. Later rabbinic commentary assumed that one’s disposition may already
have been fixed in the womb or that a fetus could commit idolatry if his mother
entered the temple of an idol. Such later views might explain the disciples’
question here.
Jesus does not explicitly refute the general connection between sin
and sickness, but he shifts the focus from consideration of what the man or his
parents have done to the works of God. Jesus’ statement that the man was born
blind “that the works of God might be
revealed in him” (v. 3; cf. 11:4) indicates that God’s work is not to condemn
people to darkness: it is to bring light to them, as the ensuing narrative
makes clear. The man was not born blind as a punishment for or as the result of
sin; the man’s blindness will show that God’s purposes are to bring light into
the darkness of human existence. (Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary [New Testament
Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015], 206)
9:2: Who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?
The question is rooted in the view that suffering is the punishment of
sin (see § Luke 13:2 for more details here). The disciples did not seem to
apply this principle well to innate suffering. Can a child in the womb sin such
that the physical infirmity it brings in to the world is considered to be a
consequence of previous transgressions? This is what they want to know. Hence,
their question to Jesus, in which they name not only the blind man but also his
parents, in order to indicate in which direction they themselves would seek the
solution to the riddle.—For the rabbinic scholars, the thought that a child
could sin in the womb was not unfathomable. However, the passages taught to
prove it are not sufficient.
a. Leviticus Rabbah 27 (125D): R. Judan b. Simeon (ca. 320) said,
“Like a widow who complained to the judge about her son. When she saw how the
judge sat and condemned her to hammering (according to the reading of Levy) and
flogging, she thought, ‘If I make my son’s offense known to this judge, he will
kill him now.’ She went back and forth until the judge was finished. When he
had finished, he said to her, ‘What has your son done against you?’ And she
said to him, ‘My lord, when he was in my body, he thrust (out like an unruly
beast).’ And he said to her, ‘Has he continued to do this?’ She answered, “No!”
Then he said to her, ‘Go, for there is no offense at all in that.’ ”—The
parable is far from attributing the mother’s discomfort during pregnancy to the
child as a moral fault. It states just the opposite; this is not an offense at
all.—Parallel passages can be found in Num. Rab. 10 (157A); Midr. Song 5:16
(121B); TanḥB אמור § 13 (46B); Pesiq. 76B.
b. Jerusalem Talmud Ḥagigah 2.77B.53 lists the reasons why Elisha b.
Abbuyah (ca. 120) became an apostate. It is said, “Some say that when his
mother was pregnant, she passed by idol temples and smelled a certain kind (of
sacrifice). And this smell penetrated her body like the venom of a snake.”—This
passage also says nothing of the guilt of the child in the womb. Instead, it
blames the mother who did not resist the poison of the idol sacrifice which was
the cause of her son’s later apostasy. This becomes even more apparent in the
two parallel passages in Midr. Eccl. 7:8 (34A) and Midr. Ruth 3:13 (135A),
where it is said that the mother was given something and she ate of it.
Remarkably, Weber also uses this passage as proof that, according to ancient
Jewish doctrine, a child can sin in the womb.
c. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 91B: (The emperor) Antoninus asked
Rabbi, “From when on does the evil urge reign in mankind, from the hour of
formation (of the embryo) or from the hour of leaving (at birth)?” He answered
him, “From the hour of education.” (The emperor replied,) “In this case, he
would bump against his mother’s insides and come out. Instead, (the evil urge
reigns in mankind) at the time of birth.” Rabbi said, “I learned this word from
Antoninus, and the Scriptures support him. For it says in Gen 4:7, ‘Sin is at
the door.’ ” The same is said in Gen. Rab. 34 (21A).—Obviously, the
thought of the evil urge working in the embryo or of the child sinning in the
womb had not yet come to Rabbi’s mind. Otherwise, he would hardly have given up
his thesis so easily to the emperor. For this reason, however, one must not
draw the conclusion from Rabbi’s thesis that it represented the general
rabbinic conviction.
d. What is completely irrelevant to our question is the reference to
the doctrine of the pre-existence of human souls. This doctrine is found among
the Palestinian scribes, who after all were the creators of popular religious
opinion, only since the middle of the third century in such isolated cases (see
§ John 1:1 A, C) that it is not even considered in Jesus’ time. The question of
the disciples certainly has nothing to do with the idea that a child is
punished for misdemeanors that his soul was guilty of during its pre-existence.
Nevertheless, there are some passages from which it is clearly evident
that the rabbinic scholars considered it quite possible that the child might
have sinned in the womb.
Genesis Rabbah 63 (39C): “The children struggled together within her
body” (Gen 25:22). R. Yohanan († 279) and Resh Laqish (ca. 250). R. Yohanan
said, “This one ran to kill the other, and the other ran to kill him.” Resh
Laqish said, “He annulled the commandments of the other, and the other annulled
his commandments.” (ויתריצצו
in Gen 25:22 is interpreted as a notarikon
= התיר צווי.) R. Berekhiah (ca. 340) said in the name
of R. Levi (ca. 300), “I do not mean that he (Esau) only took hold of him
(Jacob) after he had come out of his mother’s womb, but also that while he was
in his mother’s womb, his span (hand) was already stretched out against him,
which is what Ps 58:4 says, ‘The wicked זֹרוּ
from their mother’s womb.’ (R. Levi interprets זורו
[they are apostates] as זֶרֶת
span = ‘stretching out the span.’) ‘The children were hitting at each other in
her womb.’ When she (Rebekah) passed the synagogues and teaching houses, Jacob
twitched (fidgeted) to come out. This is what Jer 1:5 means, ‘Before I formed
you in your mother’s womb, I knew you.’ And when she passed houses of idolatry,
Esau ran and twitched to come out; Ps 58:4, ‘The wicked deviate from their
mother’s womb.’ ”—R. Levi’s remark is attributed to R. Berekhiah (ca. 340)
in TanḥB תצא § 4 (18A). Here, the following sentence
precedes: How has he (Esau) sinned against his mother?… R. Judah (ca. 150)
said, “When he came out of his mother’s womb, he divided his mother’s womb so
that she would not give birth (anymore). This is what Amos 1:11 means, ‘Because
(Edom = Esau) pursued his brother with the sword and destroyed his mother’s
womb (according to the Midrash).’ ”—This proposition is also in Pesiq.
23A.—Also Midr. Song 1:6 belongs as a part of this discussion (see § John
9:34).
The ancient Jewish scholars, however, were quite familiar with the
other idea that the physical infirmities of children were a result of the sins
of their parents.
A baraiata in b. Pesaḥ. 112B: Whoever serves his camp (i.e.,
performs sexual intercourse) under the light of a lamp gets epileptic children בנים נִכְפִּין. ‖ A baraita in b. Giṭ 70A: Whoever comes
from the lavatory should not serve his camp until he has waited as long as it
takes to travel half a mile because the demon of the lavatory is with him. But
if he serves his camp (before this time has elapsed), he will have epileptic children.
‖ Tanḥuma מצורע 158A: R. Aha (ca. 320) said, “If a man
attends to his wife during the days of her menstruation, his children will be
affected with leprosy.” ‖ Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 20A, B specifically refers
to the blindness of children: R. Yohanan b. Dahabai (= gold worker [ca. 180])
said, “The angels of service told me four things: Why do children become lame?
Because they (the parents) turn their table upside down (Rashi says ‘her on top
and him on the bottom’). Why do they become mute? Because they kiss that place.
Why do they become deaf? Because they speak during intercourse. They become
blind because they look at that place.” R. Yohanan († 279) has said, “These are
the words of R. Yohanan b. Dahabai, but the scholars have said, ‘The law is not
in accordance with R. Yohanan b. Dahabai. Instead, a man is permitted to do
anything he desires with his wife.’ ” ‖ In general, it says the following
in Tg. Yer. I Deut. 21:20: “(Parents who sue an unruly son before the elders of
their village) should say to the scholars of the city, ‘We have transgressed
the commandment of the Memra of Yahweh. For this reason, our son was born to
us, who is rebellious and unruly, disobedient to our word, a glutton for meat
and drunkard on wine.’ ” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul
Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash,
ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino;
Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:605-8)
