Two blind men followed Him, crying, *Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.' Jesus seems unwilling at first to grant their request, as we are told that it was not till they had entered the house with Him that He turned a favourable ear to their entreaty. Satisfied of their faith, and of the spirit in which they approached Him, He pronounced the word of heahng.
In St. Mark (S-'f-) another miracle of restoring sight to the blind is recorded which has features oi its own.
havmg spit upon his eyes, touches them. Sight is only gradually restored, as at first he sees men like trees walking. This is one of the many instances of the realism of St. Hark. Probably it is a reminiscence of the well-known difficulty experienced by the blind-bom, to whom sight has been given through a surgical operation, of adjusting the knowledge acquired by the new faculty with that derived through the other avenues of sense-perception.
The story of the blind man or men at Jericho is recorded in all three Synoptics (Mt 20="-, Mk lO*''-, Lk IS^'"'-). It has also features in common with the incident narrated in Mt 9-''.
St. Mark and St. Luke speak of only one blind man, St. Matthew has two. All three give the words of healing differ- ently. There ha\e been many attempts made to h,armonize the various accounts,* but the necessity for making such attempts arises out of a mechanical theory of inspiration which is difficult to maintain. Is it not enough for all practical pur- poses to hold the substantial accuracy of the Evangelic narrative without troubling ourselves about those minute divergences which occur in different versions of the same event narrated by the most trustworthy witnesses ?
The miracles recorded in Mt 12=2 and Jn 9 stand by themselves as having a very close relation to the teaching of Jesus which follows. St. Matthew tells us that there was brought to Jesus one pos- sessed with a devil, blind and dumb ; and He healed him, insomucli that the blind and dumb both saw and spake. This gave rise to the charge of the Pharisees, that the miraculous power of Jesus was not a God-given, but a devil-given power. 'This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.' To the clear moral vision of Jesus the attitude implied in this objection showed a radical depravity of nature, an inability to dis- criminate between fundamental ethical distinctions. ' A house divided against itself cannot stand.' If Satan, inspires to deeds of beneficence, tlien he ceases to be Satan. He who does good is inspired of God, and the measure of the good he does is the measure of his conquest over Satan. It is in this connexion that Jesus utters the remarkable refer- ence to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as the unforgivable sin. See art. Blasphemy.
The other instance where the miraculous cure of blindness is made a text for the most characteristic teaching of Jesus is that recorded in Jn 9. Here it is a man blind from his birth that Jesus cures. And when the Pharisees seek to persuade him of their peculiar theological tenet that the power of Jesus IS derived from Satan, the man has strength of mind enough to fall back on that primary moral instinct to wliich Jesus always appeals. ' Whereas I was blind, now I see. This man has done good to me, and for me, therefore, he is good. It is not the function of the prince of darkness to give sight to the blind.' He cannot, therefore, accept their theory of the source whence Jesus derives His power.
This leads us to a predominant feature of the teaching of Jesus — His presentation of the gospel as vision. Jesus claims to be the Light of the world. Light to those who see is its own evidence, aud
*For a St. Luke,'
of these see PUimmer, 2nter7iat. Crit. Com.,
214
BLOOD
BLOOD
Jesus, therefore, in making tliis claim can desire no recognition other than that spontaneously made by the soul when purged from the sinful passions that ohscure or deflect its vision. To secure effective vision there must he not only light, but also a healthy visual organ. Blindness may arise from the absence of light, from mere functional derange- ment of tlie organ of vision, or from some fatal organic defect in tlie organ. It is to those whose lilindness comes from either of the first two causes that Jesus appeals. He comes as Light, strength- ening the visual faculty, dispelling the darkness that envelops the soul, and revealing to it the spiritual realm. ' I am come into this world that they which see not might see' (Jn S**). This pre- .sentation of Jesus as Light appealing to the organ of spiritual vision and vindicating empirically His unique Divinity dominates the whole of the Fourth Gospel. But the principle is as clearly enunciated in the Synoptics. It is the pure in heart who see God (Mt 5*), because the pure heart is the organ of the God-consciousness. In the great confession of St. Peter the real point of our Lord's com- mendation lies not in the clear enunciation of the Messiahship and the Divine Sonship of Jesus, but in the manner in wliich the profoundest of all spiritual truths has been reached. ' Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona : for llesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven ' (Mt W').