The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 3

edr,o," and mointained with freat and The supposition of some (Tholuck), that the pousionato e11rnestnese, "The sou that sin- d_iRciples ma.y have thought that the man's neth, it shall clio." This m11y h11ve led the ems were foreknown, e.nd that the blindness clisciples to put the conjectural solution, was pnnishment beforeh11nd, ia so abhorrent Did this man sin 1 le there 11ny way or to any notion of the justice of Gori, that we sense in which the m11n'e own sin could be cannot suppose that it ever entered into the oi~use of so great a calamity? It seems their inquiry. The fact that no fewer than entirely gratuitous to derive from this passage five distinct hypotheses as to the possibility any flual conclusion os to the method in of culpe.bility before birth haviu" bar! sumo whioh they supposed it possible that the place in Hebrew a.ncl contempon~y tbonght, mcm's personality preceded his birth, or any is an adequate explanation of the fact that certain conviction that they meant more by they should have put tliis ever.recurring their question than this-if sin is the cause problem of evil in the particular form in !If such fearful privation, it must either be which we find it. the man's parents' or his own. It could Ver. 3.-leeue uewered, Neither did this not have been bis own; was it then his man sin, nor his parents (that he should be parents'? There was sufficient discussion born blind). There was no immediate cou- of the problem among the J ewe for one nection between the special sin of the parents or more vague o.nd unsettled opinions to and this particular calamity. Our Lor,l does be floating in their minds. (I) It cannot not assert in these words the sinlessness of be proved that the doctrine of metempsy- these people, but severs the suppcsed liuk chosis was ever held by the Jews. The lan- between their conduct and the specific afflic- guage in which Josephus refers to the views tion before them. But (he was born blind) of the Pharisees is ambiguous (cf. 'Bell. that the work& of God should be made mani- Jud.,' ii. 8. 14; 'Ant.,' xviii. I. 3). The fest in him. The disci pies will soon see in view held by them was simply that " the the hlstory of this man the meaniug of immortal souls of the good ( only) pass into his lifelong blindneBB. In the mau himself another body," are raised into a new life; the grace of God will work mightily, both a "but that the souls of the sinful a16/'f' .,.,µ.c.,plq bodily and spiritual illumination. Evil in ,coll.a(,u8a,, are afflicted with eternal punish- this case is to redound to greater good. This ment." This differs profoundly from the Ori- provides no opportunity for any to fasten on ental, or Pythagorean, or Pie.tonic doctrine one or another some charge of special trans- of transmigration. (2) The Jewish specula- gression, but, e.s e.ll evil ought to do, it pro- tion of the pre-existence of souls has some vides opportunity for the redeeming work countenance from Wied. viii. 19, 20, where which Christ ea.me to accomplish, and which the pseudo-Solomon says, "I was a witty he permitted his disciples to share. child, and ... being good, I came into a body Ver. 4.-We I must work the works of hi:n undefiled," modifying somewhat the Platonic that sent me,' while it is day. The emen- iden of a harmony between the pre-existing dation of the text certainly throws much soul and the body (eeeGrimm,•Exeg. Hanclb.,' beauty into the statement. Christ identifies in loc. ; Bruch, ' The Pre-existenoe of the himself with his disciples. They are pledge,! Soul,' freely translated; American ' Biblio- by accepting his call,and he has been himself theoe. Se.era:' 1863); but beyond this there charged by his own sublime mission to work is no sound indica.tion that the Jewish mind while it is called day. The sun Wal! going had oocepted the doctrine which played so down ovor the holy city on that sabbath great a part in the la.tar discussions as to the day, and Jesus will not wait, nor lose the views of Origen. (3) Lightfoot (' Horm opportunity of doing the merciful will of Hebra.icm,' in loo,) thinks "the dogma held the Father. He did not say, " Him that by R. Akiba., commenting on Ecoles. xiii. I, sent us" (as Tischendorf 1 roads), for ".ls to \he effect that "in the days of Messiah the Father had sent him, so he seut them." there will be neither merit nor demerit "-i.e. But he adds, The night cometh, when no that neither 1nerit nor demerit of parents will me.u can work. The materialistic interpre- be imputed to posterity-may acoount for the query of the apostles. (4) The idea. of the 1 'Hµils is here read by Tregelles, Tischen- poSBible sinfulneBB of the child while in dorf (8th edit.),R.T., Westcott and Hort, and the womb of its mother-a. theory based upon Meyer, with ~, B, D. L; although .a, C, :X, the supposed moral activity of Jacob and N• orb, and many others retain tl1e ,µ.,, on Esau in the womb of Rebecca (' Bemidb11r the ground the.t it is more probable that Rab.,' fol. 230. 2), e.nd the statement that the latter was a correction to bring it into John the Baptist leaped in the womb of his harmony with~µ• in the latter part of the sen- mother Elisabeth (Luke i. 41)-may ho.vo tence, than the reverse. Tischendorf (8th co-operated with other vague views floating edit.) rettds -i)µils also after 1r,µ,f,anos, in in their minds with suflioient intensity to whioh WcstcoU and Hort and R.T. do not explain the first pa.rt of their question. (5) follow him.  THE GOSPEL AOOORDING TO ST. JOHN. [oH, IX, 1-41,