The Pulpit Commentary — Mark — Volume 1 — Section 367

ordinary medical application in such cases. We are rather inclined to adopt the view of variation, for the purpose of proving independence of any specific or stereotyped mode in euch miraculous performance. ,vith respect to the progressiveness of the cure a similar diversity of opinion prevails. Theophylact attributes it to the imperfect faith of the blind man himself, and of those who brought him to the Saviour; others imagine that on a sudden recovery of sight the man would have been unable to distinguish objects from ench other. But to this latter, which proceeds on the assumption of his being born blind, it is sufficient to reply (1) that this man had not been born blind, as is implied in the word A,,-oKcrrEll'rdEN,-he was restored to or reinstated in his once normal condi- ·tion; and (2) he was able to discriminate trees from men, so that he must have seen both before this blindness supervened. Before Berkeley's time visual distance was traced to an original law of our constitution, and considered an original perception; but the bishop proved, as is very generally admitted, that our information on this subject of the distance of objects is acquired by experience and association; while, if we judge of the distance of objects solely from the visible impressions on the retina, we fall into great mistakes. The case, too, of Cheselden, who had been born blind, appeared to confirm the theory of Berkeley, for when couched he at first had no correct notions of distances, but supposed all objects to touch and to be in close contact with the eye. It was gradually he corrected his visible by his tangible impressions, and gained a correct understa.nding of the situation of the objects that surrounded him, as well as of their shape and size. Had the blind man in this passage been thus born blind, we could readily concede the necessity of a gradual operation-first to get his eyes opened, and secondly to gain correct notions of the objects about him. No gradual miracle of this sort was required in the case of this man, because he had originally possessed the sense of sight and lost it. The true cause appears t.o be either an evidence on the part of the Saviour that he is not tied down to any particular mode of operation, but manifests his mercy in divers ma.nners, according to his sovereign good pleasure; or, if this theory be not accepted, the cause ma.y be assigned to the symbolic nature of the miracle, as exhibiting the gradual recovery of spiritual eyesight, the removal of spiritual blind- ness being, for the most part and with some rare exceptions, gradual and progressive. IV. EXPLANATION OF TEnMB WITB DIFFERENCES OF READING, 1, Our Lord led the blind man out, having taken him by the hand, which is a very expressive action, for it is a guide which the blind, whether physically or spiritually, so much need; and this is just the kind of guide here mentioned-a Divine and therefore infallible Guide. This guidance is expressed in the received text by 1(-/ryci.,,u,, though some critical editors prefer 1(-li.,rr••", equivalent to" conveyed out;" while in both the phrase" out of" is strongly expressed by the preposition in composition with the verb and the separate l!"'- 2. The reading of the common text is properly rendered,' I see men as trees, walking; " that is to say, he saw men, but so indistinctly and at first apparently motionless, that they seemed more like trees; but then he saw them walking, and so discriminated them from trees. The expression is rather abrupt, but most accurate in describing the three stages indicated. The reading of the critical editions is different, and is rightly repre- sented by the following rendering:-" I behold men, because as trees I see [them] walk- ing." Even according to this reading the expression is abrupt, as significant of sudden and joyful surprise; as if he said," I see men not much differing in shape and form from trees; but I know they are men, and not trees, for I see them in motion." 3. Succeed- ing this is the expression, he" made him look up," not" see again "-a signification of the word quite admissible, yet not in accord with the sense here; but for this whole phrase Tisch.eudorf Tregelles and Alford read llle/3J\.E1f•", "he saw clearly," that very instant (aorist); then, after restoration, he saw all things or all persons plainly-rather, continued looking on ( 1.,{13M.,,,.,, imperfect, instead of l11l/3>..<,j,E, aorist) all things with clear vision. 4. The word ..-71>,.civy&.s, from T;j>..E, at a distance, and c i ~ , equivalent to "bright light," " radiance," and in the plural " beams of the sun," signifies generally "far-shining" or " far-seen;" but here, from shining in the distance, " far-sightedly," "clearly," "plainly." 5. An important distinction is made between 6µµ,t1 and o,p9aJ.µb$ in this passage, the latter being t~e organ of sight, and _as such used by p~ose-writers, the former or more poetic word berng here the sense or mner power of seemg ; and so the latt.;,r is the instrument employed by the former. V. The ~pitting and the aD~lication of the hands denote, according to Theophylact, t1R. vm. 1-38.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S'f. MARK. 36&