The Commentary | AdventAI

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Jun 24, 1886

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 24.

The Commentary.

NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.

Jesus and the Blind Man.

"REMEMBERING that the entrance to the temple or courts was then the chosen spot for those who, as objects of pity, solicited charity; remembering, also, how rapidly the healing of the blind man became known, and how soon both his parents and the healed man himself appeared before the Pharisees—presumably in the temple; we can scarcely doubt that the miracle took place at the entering to the temple, or on the temple mount."

"IT was the Sabbath—the day after the Octave [the eighth or last day] of the feast [Levit. 23:34, 39], and Christ, with his disciples, was passing—presumably going into the temple where this blind beggar was wont to sit. . . . But on the Sabbath he could of course neither ask nor receive alms, though his presence in the wonted place would secure wider notice, and perhaps lead to many private gifts. Indeed the blind were regarded as specially entitled to charity. As the Master and his disciples passed the blind beggar, Jesus 'saw' him, with that look which they who followed him knew to be full of meaning. Yet so thoroughly Judaized were they by their late contact with the Pharisees, that no thought of possible mercy came to them, only a truly and characteristically Jewish question, addressed to him expressly, and as 'Rabbi': through whose guilt this blindness had befallen him—through his own or that of his parents."

"THOROUGHLY Jewish, the question was. Many instances could be adduced, in which one or

other sin is said to have been punished by some immediate stroke, disease, or even by death, and we constantly find rabbis, when meeting such unfortunate persons, asking them how, or by what sin, this had come to them. But as this man was 'blind from birth,' the possibility of some actual sin before birth would suggest itself, at least as a speculative question, since the 'evil impulse' might even then be called into activity. At the same time, both the Talmud and the later charge of the Pharisees, 'In sins wast thou born altogether,' imply that in such cases the alternative explanation would be considered, that the blindness might be caused by the sin of the parents. It was a common Jewish view, that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear in the children. In fact, up to thirteen years of age a child was considered, as it were, part of his father, and as suffering his guilt. More than that, the thoughts of a mother might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring, and the terrible apostasy of one of the greatest rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the sinful delight his mother had taken when passing through an idol grove. Lastly, certain special sins in the parents would result in specific diseases in their offspring, and one is mentioned as causing blindness in the children. But the impression left on our minds is, that the disciples felt not sure as to either of these solutions of the difficulty. It seemed a mystery, inexplicable on the supposition of God's infinite goodness, and to which they sought to apply the common, Jewish solution."

"MANY similar mysteries meet us in the administration of God's providence—questions which seem unanswerable, but to which we try to give answers. But why seek to answer them at all, since we possess not all, perhaps very few, of the data requisite for it. All such evil consequences, from the operation of God's laws, are in the last instance to be traced back to the curse which sin has brought upon man and on earth. With these his laws, and with their evil consequences to us through the curse of sin, God does not interfere in the ordinary course of his providence. But there is another and a higher aspect of it, since Christ has come, and is really the healer of all disease and evil, by being the remover of its ultimate moral cause. This is indicated in his words, when, putting aside the clumsy alternative suggested by the disciples, he told them that it was so in order 'that the works of God might be made manifest in him.' They wanted to know the 'why;' he told them the 'in order to' of the man's calamity. They wished to understand its reason as regarded its origin; he told them its reasonableness in regard to the purpose which it, and all similar suffering, should serve, since Christ has come the healer of evil—because the Saviour from sin."

"SALIVA was commonly regarded as a remedy for diseases of the eye, although, of course, not for the removal of blindness. With this he made clay, which he now used, adding to it the direction to go wash in the pool of Siloam, a term which literally meant 'sent.' . . . Sight was restored by clay, made out of the ground with the spittle of him whose breath had at the first breathed life into clay; and this was then washed away in the pool of Siloam, from whose waters had been drawn on the feast of tabernacles that which symbolized the forth-pouring of the new life by the Spirit. And so what the Pharisees had sought in vain, was freely vouchsafed when there was need of it. With inimitable simplicity, itself evidence that no legend is told, the man's obedience and healing are recorded."

"THE formal question now put to Him by the Jews was as much, if not more, a preparatory inquisition than the outcome of a wish to learn the circumstances of his healing. He tells the facts truthfully, plainly; he accentuates by what means he had received sight. . . . Presently they bring him to the Pharisees, not to take notice of his healing, but to found on it a charge against Christ. Such must have been their motive, since it was universally known that the leaders of the people had, of course informally, agreed to take the strictest measures, not only against the Christ, but against any one who professed to be his disciple. The ground on which the present charge against Jesus would rest, was plain: the healing involved a manifold breach of the Sabbath law. The first of these was that he had made clay. Next, it would be a question whether any remedy might be applied on the holy day. It was indeed declared lawful to apply, for example, wine to the outside of the eyelid, on the ground that this might be treated as washing; but it was sinful to apply it to the inside of the eye. And as regards saliva, its application to the eye is expressly forbidden, on the ground that it was evidently intended as a remedy. There was, therefore, abundant legal ground for a criminal charge."

"ALTHOUGH on the Sabbath the Sanhedrin would not hold any formal meeting, and, even had there been such, the testimony of one man would not have sufficed, yet 'the Pharisees' set the inquiry regularly on foot. First, as if not satisfied with the report of those who had brought the man, they made him repeat it. The simplicity of the man's language left no room for evasion or subterfuge. Rabbinism was on its great trial. The wondrous fact could neither be denied nor explained, and the only ground for resisting the legitimate inference as to the character of him who had done it, was its inconsistency with their traditional law. The alternative was: whether their traditional law of Sabbath observance, or else he who had done such miracles, was divine. Was Christ not of God, because he did not keep the Sabbath in their way? But, then, could an open transgressor of God's law do such miracles? In this dilemma they turned to the simple man before them. 'Seeing that he opened his eyes, what did he say of him? what was the impression left on his mind, who had the best opportunity of judging? There is something very peculiar, and, in one sense most instructive, as to the general opinion entertained even by the best disposed who had not yet been taught the higher truth, in his reply, so simple and solemn, so comprehensive in its sequences: 'He is a prophet.''—Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah."