The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 2

were still the lhC'mc uppormost in his own less ihnn the typo of n cona-enito.l bio.s to ruirnl. We know tlint the discourse, etc., took evil, of herc<litnry ,lnnll\go d~me to hum"u place on a sol,lmth, and the result of the nature. Unless Christ con pour li"ht upon hcnling relRtes itsdf most closely to the dis- those who aro 1,orn blind, he is b not the Saviour the world needs. cussion ,yhioh followed tho henling of the . Ver. 2.--:--And ~is diaoip~es asked him, say- irnpnteut mnn in oh. v. and vii. ing, Rabbi. Tins hononfio appellntion is Ycrs. 1-7.-(S) T?ie Lorcl confirms 1,y a found in eh. i. 38, 49 ; iii. 2 ; iv. 31; vi. 25 • sign the dedaration that 1ie is tlw Li_qht of 1/,e xi. 8; but very rarely in the other Gospel~ teorld, l,y giving eye;:ight as ,oell as light. It is applied to John the Baptist (eh. iii. 26) That which had been proclnime<l ns R great The question seems to denote o. very dit; forent frame of mind from tho.t with which truth of Lis Being and mission, viz. that he the previous chapter termino.ted. Who did was the LigLt of the world, was now to be sin,'thia ma.n, or his parents, that be should e.stablished a.nd confirmed to the disciples be born blind! It was the current idea. o.nd by a signal miracle. The "higher criticism" popular doctrine, not only tlrnt all suffering finds explanation of this and other similar in this life had its origin in sin, and was a. witness to the dnmage done to our nature miracles at Bethsaida and Jericho, in the by sin, by tho disruption of our normal re- prophecy of Isa. xiii. 19; xliii. S; xxxv. 5; 111.tions with tho living God, but further- xxix. 18. Vol.1..-mar holds that the story of more that every peculiar disaster pointed to ZaccLreus is thus rewritten! Thoma thinks some special or particular sin. Doubtless that we have a spiritualization of the the Book of Job wo.s a formal discussion of the question. The writer of that work re- " miracle " on Saul of TarBus. It would pudiates the right of any onlooker to infer be waste time to point out the differences special sins from peculiar pWllsbi;ne:p.ts. which a.re pa.tent to the simplest criticism. Jesus, moreover (Luke xiii. 1-3), had re- peatedly discouraged the tendency to judge,· Ver. 1.-And-the ,et,./ suggests relation but be did this by the still more solemn both in subject-matter, in time, place, occa- assurance that all men deserved the special sion, and theme, with that which had pre- fate of some. St.ill, the calamity of con- ceded-as .TesUB was passing by, going a.long genital blindness, with all its hopelessness, his way, he saw & m&ll blind from birth (cf. provided a very apt occasion for raising £IC ,co,:>..!as /1.T/-rpos a:v-roii, Acts. iii. 2; xiv. 8). the question, '' Who did sin, this mau, or He was obviously a well-known beggar, who his parents?" It is and always will be had often proclaimed the fact that he was difficult to say whether the disciples thought blind from birth (see ver. 8). Such a con- that they had exhausted the alternatives,. or dition and history rendered the cure more believed that they had plausible reasons for difficult and hopeless in the view of ordinary thinking either alternative possible. Some professors of the healing art, and the juxta- have argued that they bad Scripture ground position of Sllch e. symbolic fact with the for the second of the suppositions, that the nee.r activity of those who were boasting sin of the parents of the blind man was the of their Abro.hamie privilege and their real ea.use of the blindness of their son. • na.tioDJ1l and mere hereditary adve.nta.ges, is Thus (Exod. xx. 5) the idea is embedded in or.e of the instances of the UDconscious poesy the Decalogue, and it is repeated in Exod. of the gospel history. There he sits, the xxxiv. 7 and Numb. xiv._ 18, that the very type of the race which says, ",ve ~ee," iniquities of fathers are visited upon their but which to Christ's eye was proclaiming children. The forty years in tho wildel"Iless its utter helplessness and blindness, not was a case in point (Numb. xiv. 83, 34; asking ernn to be illumined, and revealing Jcr. xxxi.i. 18), a.nd uumerollB examples may the fundamental injury done to the very be given of the punishment descending from r.we and nature of man, and calling for all pa1·ont to child ; e.g. upon the house of Ahab, the healing power that be bad been sent and on the sufferers from exilo in Babylon. into the world to dispense. The man who Compare the continuous threatening of ven- had been struck blind, or whose eyesight had geance for unfaithfulness upon the genera- been slowly closed by disee.ee, became the tion to come. The argnmentma.yhave been type of the effect of special sins upon the strengthened by observation of t!Jo lot of oLaro.eter and life; thus e.g. 'Danity conceals men who have brought poverty, disease, and radical defects and weaknesses; pride hides disgrace upon their unborn children. Eze- from the sinner's own view his own trans- kiel had deliberately repudiated the infer- gressions ; temporary blindness to great ence that Israel had drawn from their faults is one of the symptoms of gross sin like Scriptures, in the dictum or proverb (xviii. David's, and prejudice is proverbially blind 2) that " the fathers have eaten sour r.n<l d~f; bui here ii! a. mau who ia nothing grapes, and the children'B ~eeth are ijet oo OR, IX, 1·-41.] THE GOSPEL AOCORDING TO ST. JOHN. 3