God takes credit for making people deaf, blind, and mute

In one of the most direct statements in the Hebrew Bible about the origin of disability, God claims personal responsibility for making people deaf, mute, and blind. The passage appears in Exodus 4, when Moses objects to God's command that he confront Pharaoh and demand the Israelites' release from Egypt. Moses protests that he is not eloquent, to which God responds with a rhetorical question that attributes all human abilities and disabilities directly to the divine creator.¹

The text of Exodus 4:11

After God appears to Moses in the burning bush and commissions him to lead Israel out of Egypt, Moses raises a series of objections. His fourth objection concerns his own perceived inadequacy as a speaker:

"But Moses said to the LORD, 'Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.'" Exodus 4:10 (English Standard Version)¹

God's response is emphatic and direct:

"Then the LORD said to him, 'Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?'" Exodus 4:11 (English Standard Version)¹

The New International Version renders the verse similarly: "The LORD said to him, 'Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?'"² The New Living Translation reads: "Then the LORD asked Moses, 'Who makes a person's mouth? Who decides whether people speak or do not speak, hear or do not hear, see or do not see? Is it not I, the LORD?'"³

Across all major English translations, the meaning is clear: God claims direct responsibility for creating people with and without disabilities. The passage does not say God merely permits disability or that disabilities result from human sin. It says God makes people deaf, mute, and blind.⁴

The Hebrew text

The Hebrew text of Exodus 4:11 is explicit in its attribution. The verse uses the Hebrew phrase "mi sam peh la'adam" (מִי שָׂם פֶּה לָאָדָם), literally "who set a mouth to man," followed by "o mi yasum illem o cheresh o pikke'ach o iver" (אוֹ מִי יָשׂוּם אִלֵּם אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ פִקֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר), "or who makes mute or deaf or seeing or blind."⁵

The verb "yasum" (יָשׂוּם) means "to set," "to make," or "to appoint."⁶ It is an active verb indicating causation, not permission. The word "illem" (אִלֵּם) means "mute" or "unable to speak."⁷ The word "cheresh" (חֵרֵשׁ) means "deaf."⁸ The word "pikke'ach" (פִקֵּחַ) means "seeing" or "having sight."⁹ The word "iver" (עִוֵּר) means "blind."¹⁰

The verse concludes with the rhetorical question "halo anokhi YHWH" (הֲלֹא אָנֹכִי יְהוָה), "Is it not I, the LORD?"⁵ The phrase "anokhi YHWH" uses the first-person pronoun "I" followed by the divine name YHWH, emphasizing personal agency. God is not distancing Himself from disability but claiming direct responsibility for it.¹¹

Context in Exodus

The passage appears at a critical moment in the Moses narrative. God has revealed Himself at the burning bush, disclosed His plan to deliver Israel from slavery, and commissioned Moses as His spokesman.¹² Moses responds with a series of objections: he questions his own authority, he asks what he should say when people question him, and he asks for a sign.¹² God patiently addresses each concern, providing miraculous signs and revealing His divine name.¹³

When Moses raises his fourth objection—that he is "slow of speech and of tongue"—God's patience begins to wear thin.¹ The Hebrew phrase Moses uses is "kaved peh ukhvad lashon" (כְבַד פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן), literally "heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue."¹⁴ The exact nature of Moses' speech difficulty is debated—it could refer to a stutter, a speech impediment, lack of eloquence, or simply lack of confidence—but the concern is clear: Moses believes he is not equipped to speak before Pharaoh.¹⁵

God's response in Exodus 4:11 is not primarily about Moses' specific concern but about divine sovereignty over all human faculties. God reminds Moses that the creator of the mouth is capable of enabling Moses to speak effectively, regardless of Moses' perceived limitations.¹⁶ The broader implication, however, is unavoidable: if God makes mouths, God also makes some mouths unable to speak. If God gives sight, God also makes some people blind. The text presents this as a matter of divine prerogative.⁴

Theological implications

Exodus 4:11 raises profound questions about God's relationship to disability and suffering. The verse explicitly attributes disabilities to God's creative action, presenting a view that sits uncomfortably with many modern theological and ethical frameworks.

The problem of evil and disability

The philosophical problem of evil asks how a perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing God can coexist with the presence of evil and suffering in the world.¹⁷ Disability, particularly when it involves pain or significant limitation, is often included in formulations of the problem of suffering.¹⁸

Traditional theodicies—attempts to justify or explain God's goodness in the face of evil—often attribute suffering to one of several causes: human free will and sin, the consequences of living in a fallen world, or divine mystery beyond human comprehension.¹⁷ Some theodicies argue that God permits evil but does not cause it, maintaining a distinction between God's active will and God's permissive will.¹⁹

Exodus 4:11 collapses this distinction. The text does not say God permits some people to be born deaf or blind. It says God makes them deaf or blind. The active causation is explicit.⁴ This presents a challenge for theological systems that seek to absolve God of direct responsibility for suffering while maintaining divine sovereignty.

Disability as part of creation

The verse also challenges theological frameworks that view disability as inherently a result of the Fall or of sin. Many Christian interpretations of Genesis 1-3 hold that God created humans perfect and without disability, and that all suffering, disease, and impairment entered the world through Adam's sin.²⁰ On this view, disability is a deviation from God's original design, a corruption of the created order.

Exodus 4:11, however, attributes disability directly to God's creative activity. God does not present deafness, muteness, and blindness as corruptions that entered creation through sin but as conditions that God Himself makes.¹¹ The verse appears in the context of God's sovereign power, not in the context of judgment or the consequences of disobedience. God is asserting His authority over all aspects of human existence, including the creation of people with disabilities.¹⁶

This has implications for how disability is understood theologically. If God makes people deaf, mute, and blind, then disability is not necessarily a departure from divine intention but may be encompassed within God's creative purposes.²¹ Some disability theologians have argued that viewing disability solely as a problem to be fixed or as evidence of the Fall devalues the experiences and identities of disabled people, who are created in the image of God just as fully as non-disabled people.²²

Divine sovereignty and moral responsibility

The passage also raises questions about moral responsibility. If God actively makes some people deaf, mute, or blind, is God morally responsible for the suffering that often accompanies disability? And if God has the power to create people without disabilities but chooses to create some with disabilities, what does this reveal about God's character?¹⁸

Defenders of the text's portrait of God might argue that God's ways are beyond human understanding, that finite creatures cannot judge the infinite creator, or that disabilities serve some greater divine purpose that humans cannot perceive.²³ They might also point to passages like John 9:1-3, where Jesus says a man was born blind "that the works of God might be displayed in him," suggesting that disability can serve to glorify God.²⁴

Critics, however, might question whether using people's suffering to display God's glory is morally justifiable. If God creates someone with a disability in order to later heal them and receive praise, the disabled person becomes an instrument for God's purposes rather than an end in themselves.²⁵ This raises ethical questions about divine agency and human dignity.

Disability theology and biblical interpretation

In recent decades, disability theologians have challenged traditional interpretations of biblical passages about disability. Nancy Eiesland's influential work "The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability" critiques Christian theology's historical treatment of disabled people and argues for a theological framework that fully affirms the dignity and value of disabled bodies.²²

Eiesland and other disability theologians criticize two common assumptions in popular theology: that disability is caused by sin, and that people with disabilities should expect healing if they have sufficient faith.²² Both assumptions, they argue, marginalize disabled people and imply that their bodies are defective or less valuable than non-disabled bodies.²⁶

Exodus 4:11 complicates both traditional and liberatory readings of disability in the Bible. On one hand, the verse does not attribute disability to sin, which might support a more affirming view of disability as part of natural human diversity. On the other hand, the verse attributes disability to God's direct action, which raises questions about whether God creates suffering and whether disability is part of God's good creation.²¹

Some interpreters in the disability theology tradition might argue that the verse reflects ancient cultural understandings of causation rather than theological truth—that ancient Israelites attributed all phenomena, including disability, to divine action because they lacked modern scientific understandings of genetics, development, and disease.²⁷ On this reading, Exodus 4:11 tells us about how ancient people thought about God and disability, not about the actual origin of disabilities.

Common apologetic responses

Christian apologists have offered various explanations to mitigate the theological difficulties raised by Exodus 4:11. Each response warrants careful examination.

The general causation argument

Some defenders argue that the verse speaks only in general terms about God's sovereignty over creation, not about God causing specific individuals to be disabled. On this reading, God is saying that He created the kind of world in which mouths, ears, and eyes exist, and therefore all variation in these faculties falls under divine sovereignty.²⁸

Scholar Terence Fretheim, for example, argues that the passage "does not imply that God picks and chooses which individuals will be deaf, mute or blind, as if God entered into the womb of every pregnant woman and determined whether and how a child would have disabilities." Rather, it means that "God created the kind of world where mortals may become disabled."²⁸

While this interpretation softens the text's implications, it does not align well with the grammatical structure of the Hebrew. The verse uses active verbs ("makes," "gives") in the present tense, indicating ongoing causation, not simply the establishment of general natural laws.⁵ Moreover, the context is God's ability to enable Moses specifically, which suggests God's involvement in individual cases, not merely general principles.¹⁶

The rhetorical question defense

Another approach argues that God's question in Exodus 4:11 is rhetorical, intended to emphasize God's power and sovereignty rather than to make a precise theological claim about the origin of every instance of disability.²⁹ The point, on this reading, is not to analyze the ultimate cause of deafness or blindness but to show that God is powerful enough to overcome any obstacle, including Moses' perceived inadequacy as a speaker.¹⁶

This interpretation has merit in understanding the passage's function within the narrative. God is indeed addressing Moses' objection and asserting divine capability. However, the specific content of God's rhetorical question still attributes the making of deaf, mute, and blind people to God. Even if the primary purpose is rhetorical, the theological claim embedded in the rhetoric remains: God makes people with disabilities.⁴

The Fall and natural law argument

Some interpreters argue that while God created the natural laws governing human development, disabilities result from the corruption of those laws through the Fall.²⁰ On this view, God did not directly intend for any individual to be disabled, but disabilities occur as consequences of living in a fallen world where genetic mutations, disease, injury, and environmental factors cause deviations from God's original design.³⁰

This explanation faces several difficulties. First, Exodus 4:11 appears long after the Fall narrative in Genesis 3, yet it makes no reference to the Fall or to sin as the cause of disability. Instead, it attributes disability directly to God's present action.¹ Second, the argument creates a theological tension: if God established natural laws that inevitably produce disabilities, God still bears ultimate responsibility for those disabilities, even if the immediate cause is genetic or environmental.³¹ Third, the explanation does not account for why a perfectly good and all-powerful God would create natural laws that produce suffering rather than laws that do not.

The higher purpose argument

A common response is that God creates or allows disabilities for a higher purpose—to display His glory, to develop character in the disabled person or those around them, or to accomplish divine purposes that humans cannot fully understand.²³ This argument often appeals to passages like Romans 8:28 ("all things work together for good for those who love God") or to the story of the man born blind in John 9.²⁴

While this may provide comfort to some believers, it raises ethical questions. If God creates people with disabilities in order to later heal them and receive glory, the disabled individual becomes a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.²⁵ Moreover, the claim that suffering serves a higher purpose does not explain why an all-powerful God could not achieve that purpose without causing suffering. If God's goal is to display His power or to develop human character, an omnipotent being could presumably accomplish those goals through means that do not involve creating people with painful or limiting conditions.

Disability in the broader biblical context

Exodus 4:11 is not the only passage in the Hebrew Bible that addresses the origin of disability. Several other texts provide additional context for understanding ancient Israelite views on the subject.

In Leviticus 21:16-23, God instructs Moses that descendants of Aaron who have physical disabilities—including blindness, lameness, disfigurement, or other impairments—may not offer sacrifices at the altar, though they may eat the sacred food.³² The passage presents physical wholeness as a requirement for priestly service, reflecting an ancient ritual purity system that associated physical perfection with holiness.³³ This raises questions about the status of people with disabilities in the religious community and whether their exclusion from certain roles reflects divine preference or merely cultural practice.

In the New Testament, Jesus challenges the assumption that disability results from sin. When His disciples ask about a man born blind, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answers, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."²⁴ Jesus then heals the man. This passage rejects the idea that the man's blindness was divine punishment for sin, but it still presents the disability as existing for a divine purpose—to provide an opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate God's power.³⁴

The question remains: if God is responsible for the man's blindness so that God's works might be displayed, was the man's lifetime of blindness justified by the eventual healing? Does creating someone with a disability in order to later remove it and receive praise reflect divine goodness?²⁵

Modern ethical and theological perspectives

Contemporary ethical frameworks, including human rights approaches and disability justice movements, emphasize the inherent dignity and value of all people regardless of physical or cognitive abilities.³⁵ The social model of disability, influential in disability studies, distinguishes between impairment (a physical or cognitive difference) and disability (the social disadvantages that result from how society treats people with impairments).³⁶ On this model, many of the challenges faced by disabled people result not from their bodies but from societal barriers, discrimination, and lack of accommodation.

This framework raises questions about theological approaches that frame disability primarily as a problem to be solved or as evidence of a broken world. If much of what makes impairment disabling is social rather than inherent to the body, then theological claims about disability need to account for the role of human social structures, not merely divine causation or the Fall.³⁷

Some theologians in the disability theology tradition argue for embracing disability as part of human diversity rather than viewing it solely through the lens of suffering or brokenness.²² They point out that people with disabilities often experience their bodies not as defective but as different, and that the Christian emphasis on healing can inadvertently communicate that disabled bodies are less acceptable to God than non-disabled bodies.²⁶

This perspective complicates the interpretation of Exodus 4:11. If disability is part of natural human variation, then God's claim to make people deaf, mute, or blind might be understood as God affirming diverse forms of embodiment. However, this reading still must grapple with the suffering that often accompanies disability, whether from the impairment itself or from social marginalization, and with whether a good God would create or allow such suffering.³⁸

Implications for understanding God

Exodus 4:11 presents a portrait of God that many modern readers, both religious and secular, find morally troubling. The verse attributes the creation of deaf, mute, and blind people directly to God, with no mention of sin, the Fall, or human agency as intermediate causes. God claims personal responsibility: "Is it not I, the LORD?"¹

This raises fundamental questions about the character of the biblical God. If God actively makes some people unable to hear, speak, or see, is God responsible for the suffering that often accompanies these conditions? If God has the power to create all people with full sensory and communicative faculties but chooses not to, what does this reveal about divine goodness?¹⁸

For believers who hold that God is perfectly good, loving, and just, the passage requires interpretation. Various theological strategies attempt to reconcile the text with a positive view of God's character: arguing that the verse speaks only generally rather than specifically, that it is rhetorical rather than literal, that disabilities serve higher purposes, or that human understanding is too limited to judge divine actions.^{23, 28, 29}

For skeptics, the passage provides evidence that the biblical God, as described in the text itself, claims responsibility for creating human suffering. Whether one views this as a reflection of ancient Near Eastern theology or as an accurate revelation of the divine character, the text's plain meaning is difficult to escape: according to Exodus 4:11, God makes people deaf, mute, and blind, and God expects worship and obedience from those He has made, regardless of their abilities or disabilities.⁴