absence; and by working a miracle, both softening their hard* ness, and proving His affections. And it is clear that He pro- ceeded intentionally to this work on leaving the temple, for it was He who saw the blind man, and not the blind man who came to Him."
Gualter observes, that this passage shows how the eyes of the Lord are in every place, and how He sees His own people, even when they think not of Him.
Alford thinks it possible that the blind man was constantly proclaiming that he had been born blind, to excite pity.
Burgon observes : " More of our Saviour's miracles are re- corded as having been wrought on blindness than on any other form of human infirmity. One deaf and dumb man is related to have had speech and hearing restored to him ; one case of palsy, and one of dropsy, find special record ; twice was leprosy, and twice was fever expelled by the Saviour's word; three times were dead persons raised to life ; but the records of His cures wrought on blindness are four in number, at least, if not five." (See Matt. xii. 22.) Isaiah seems to foretell the re- covery of sight by the blind, as " an act of mercy specially symbolical of Messiah's day." (Isai. xxix. 18 ; xxxii. 3 ; xxxv. 5 ; xlii. 7.)
I. — [And his disciples asked him.'] This expression seems to show that our Lord was surrounded and accompanied by His usual followers, and favours the idea that there was some break or interval between the beginning of this chapter and the end of the last. Though He by Divine power could hide Himself and go through the midst of His enemies, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that within a few minutes He would be surrounded again by His disciples. Yet it is of course possible.
[Master, who did sin, this man... parents... blind?'] This curious question has given rise to much unprofitable discussion. It is repeatedly asked, — Why did the disciple say this? What put it into their minds to start the inquiry?
(a) Some think that the Jews had imbibed the common Oriental notion of the pre-existence and transmigration of souls from one body to another, and that the disciples supposed that in some previous state of existence this blind man must have committed some great sin, for which he was now punished.
(6) Some think that the question refers to a strange notion current among some Jews, that infants might sin before they were born. In support of this view, they quote Gen. xxv. 22, and Gen. xxxviii. 28, 29.
(c) The most probable view is, that the question arose from a misapplication of such passages of Scripture as the Second Commandment, where God speaks of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, " (Exod. xx. 5,) and from a for-