John 9:2 Ulasan

After Christ's departure out of the temple, in the close of the foregoing chapter, and before this happened which is recorded in this chapter, he had been for some time abroad in the country, it is supposed about two or three months; in which interval of time Dr. Lightfoot and other harmonists place all the passages that occur from Luk 10:17 to Luk 13:17. What is recorded in ch. 7 and 8 was at the feast of tabernacles, in September; what is recorded in this and the following chapter was at the feast of dedication in December, Joh 10:22. Mr. Clark and others place this immediately after the foregoing chapter. In this chapter we have, I. The miraculous cure of a man that was born blind (Joh 9:1-7). II. The discourses which were occasioned by it. 1. A discourse of the neighbours among themselves, and with the man (Joh 9:8-12). 2. Between the Pharisees and the man (v. 13-34). 3. Between Christ and the poor man (Joh 9:35-38). 4. Between Christ and the Pharisees (Joh 9:39 to the end).

And as Jesus passed by,.... The word "Jesus" is not in the Greek text, but is rightly supplied by us, as it is in the Vulgate Latin, and as the word "Christ" is in the Persic version; for of his passing from the temple, and by the multitude that were there, and on his way to the place he designed to make to, is this said, as appears from the close of the preceding chapter; though some think this is to be understood of his passing by at another time and place, since the preceding fact of the woman's being taken in adultery, and the discourse of our Lord with the Jews, were quickly after the feast of tabernacles; whereas the following ones, both in this, and the next chapter, seem to be at the feast of dedication, Joh 10:22, which was some months after: but it may be, that the parable of the sheep, though it runs in connection with what is said in this chapter, might be delivered then; or what follows, Joh 10:22, might be said at the feast of dedication, when the parable, and what is related here, might be delivered before, seeing there is so very strict a connection between this, and the preceding chapter; and the Ethiopic version is very express, rendering it, "and departing from thence"; that is, from the temple, at that time when the Jews took up stones to stone him: he saw a man which was blind from his birth; which man was an emblem of God's elect in a state of nature, who being conceived in sin, are transgressors from the womb, and so are alienated from the life of God through their ignorance and blindness: they are blind as to any true and spiritual knowledge of God in Christ; as to any true sight of sin, or sense of their own estate and condition; and with respect to Christ, and the way of peace, righteousness, and salvation by him; and as to the Spirit, and the operations of his grace, and with regard to the Scriptures, and the doctrines of the Gospel: and as Christ saw this man first, and not the man him, for he was blind, so Christ first looks upon his chosen ones with an eye of love and mercy, as he passes by them, and both enlightens and quickens them, Eze 16:6. He saw Matthew the publican first, as he passed along, and called him from the receipt of custom to be a follower of him, Mat 9:10.

And his disciples asked him,.... It may be that some of the twelve apostles, or others of his disciples, might put the following question to him on sight of this blind man, who by some means or another knew was born blind: saying, master, who did man, or his parents, that he was born blind? the first of these questions, whether the man himself had sinned before he was born, which might be the occasion of his blindness, proceeds not upon the doctrine of original sin, though the Jews then believed that; See Gill on Rom 5:12; since that was common to all men, and therefore could not admit of such a question; but either upon the notion of transmigration of souls into other bodies; and so the disciples might ask whether this man had sinned in a pre-existent state when in another body, which was the reason of this blindness, or of his being put into a blind body. This notion, Josephus says (a), was embraced by the Pharisees; though, according to him, it seems, that they only understood it of the souls of good men; and if so, this could lay no foundation for such a question, unless these disciples had given into the Pythagorean notion of a transmigration of all souls, which was to be known by defects, as blindness, &c. (b); or else this question proceeded upon a principle received by the Jews, that an infant might do that which was faulty and criminal, and actually sin in the womb; of which Dr. Lightfoot has given instances: the second question proceeds upon the methods which sometimes God has taken with men, by visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children; or, as the above learned writer observes, upon a notion the Jews had, that a child might suffer for what the mother did whilst it was in the womb; or on another, which prevailed among them, that there should be neither merit nor demerit in the days of the Messiah; that is, that neither the good deeds, nor bad deeds of their parents, should be imputed to their children, neither the one to their advantage, nor the other to their disadvantage: and therefore since he the Messiah was come, they ask, how this blindness should come to pass? what should be the reason of it? (a) De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 14. (b) Sallust. de Diis, c. 20.

Yet in the beginning of the world men lived long, and had no diseases. But when through carelessness they neglected the observation of the proper times, then the sons in succession cohabiting through ignorance at times when they ought not, place their children under innumerable afflictions. Whence our Teacher, when we inquired of Him in regard to the man who was blind from his birth, and recovered his sight, if this man sinned, or his parents, that he should be born blind, answered, 'Neither did he sin at all, nor his parents, but that the power of God might be made manifest through him in healing the sins of ignorance.'

"Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" A mistaken question, for how could he sin before he was born? and how, if his parents had sinned, would he have been punished? Whence then came they to put this question? Before, when He healed the paralytic, He said, "Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more." They therefore, having understood that he was palsied on account of sin, said, "Well, that other was palsied because of his sins; but concerning this man, what wouldest Thou say? hath he sinned? It is not possible to say so, for he is blind from his birth. Have his parents sinned? Neither can one say this, for the child suffers not punishment for the father." As therefore when we see a child evil entreated, we exclaim, "What can one say of this? what has the child done?" not as asking a question, but as being perplexed, so the disciples spake here, not so much asking for information, as being in perplexity.

(Tr. xliv. 1, 2) Rabbi is Master. They call Him Master, because they wished to learn: they put their question to our Lord, as to a Master.

That not from sins of the soul prior to birth do bodily sufferings befal any, nor yet does God bring the sins of their fathers upon any, punishing those who have nothing sinned, but brings righteous doom upon all. Being desirous (and not without good reason) that the mystery should be explained, or rather being Divinely guided, the most wise disciples were urged to ask instruction on the subject. And they are inquisitive with profit, by this means furnishing an advantage not so much for themselves as for us. For we are benefited greatly both by hearing the true explanation of these things from the Omniscient, and in addition also by being warned off from the abomination of effete doctrines. These errors not only used to exist among the Jews, but are also |2 advocated now by some who are insufferably conceited in their knowledge of inspired Scripture and seem to pass for Christians. Such persons of a truth delight too much in their own sophistries, indulging their private fancies, and not fearing to mingle Greek error with the doctrines of the Church. For the Jews, when they were in misery, greatly murmured, as if merely suffering the penalty of their forefathers' impiety, or as if God were most unreasonably laying upon them the sins of their fathers, and scoffed at it as a most unjust punishment; they even said in a proverb: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. And these again, being afflicted with a like and kindred ignorance to those just mentioned by us, earnestly maintain 9 that the souls of men existed and had their being before the creation of their bodies, and that these souls having turned willingly to sin even before the existence of their bodies, then souls and bodies became united, when in the order of chastisement the souls received birth in the flesh. But in one brief statement the follies of both these parties are exposed by Christ, Who confidently affirms that neither had the blind man sinned nor his parents. He refutes the doctrine of the Jews by saying that the man had not been born blind on account of any sin either of himself or of his ancestors, no, not even of his father or mother; and he also overthrows the silly nonsense of the others, who say that souls sin before their existence in the body. For some one will say to them and very reasonably: How, tell me, does Christ say that neither had the blind man sinned nor his parents? And yet we could not grant that they were altogether free from sin. For, inasmuch as they were human, it is I suppose in every way likely or rather it of necessity follows that they fell into errors. Pray then, what time does Christ mean to define as that concerning which His word shall appears to us true, that neither did the man himself sin, nor indeed his parents? |Surely He speaks of that which is previous to birth, when having no existence whatever, they did not sin. Again, concerning such matters, how truly frivolous and beside the mark it is to think that souls sinned before the existence of their bodies, and on that account were embodied and sent into this world, we have argued at length at the beginning of the present gospel, in interpreting and commenting on the words: That was the True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and it would be superfluous for us to discuss the subject again. But it is necessary to say whence it occurred to the Jews to fall into this opinion and supposition; also to show clearly that from inability to understand the Divine Word, they mistook its proper meaning. Israel once dwelt in tents in the wilderness, and God called His hierophant Moses on Mount Sinai; but when he extended his stay there with God to the number of forty days, he seemed to be a loiterer to those who had influence with the people, who both rose up against Aaron then being alone, and falling back in contempt upon the idolatries of Egypt, cried saying: Make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. Then what followed thereupon I think it necessary to speak of briefly. They made a calf, as it is written, and at this God was justly provoked to anger: then indeed He threatened to destroy the whole congregation at once. Moses fell down before Him and sought for pardon with much entreaty. The Creator of the universe granted forgiveness, and promised to punish the people no further than that He would not continue to go up with them to the land of promise, but would send with them instead His special Angel as it were in the position of leader. At this Moses was sorely grieved, and as God was not willing to go up with the people, he inferred with some likelihood indeed that the Divine anger was not yet thoroughly appeased. So he prayed again earnestly that God would accompany them, |4 knowing that the mere guidance of an Angel would not suffice some of the Israelites, and perhaps also fearing the weakness of the people and therefore deprecating the holy angels' hatred of evil; and he entreated the Good One, the Lover of men, the Supreme King and Lord over all, to be willing rather to be present with those so prone to transgress. For he knew that God would pardon them not once only but many times, and that He would grant mercy to those who should offend. And God also consented to this. Then Moses sought a sign from Him, even that he might see Him, as a full assurance and testimony that He had forgiven them completely: For, said he, if I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me; that I may evidently see Thee, that I may find grace in Thy sight, and that I may know that this great nation is Thy people. This also God granted, as far as it was possible, assuring in every way His own servant both that He had forgiven the people their sin and that He would go up with them to the land of promise. Then, giving as it were a sort of finishing touch to the promises, which seemed wanting, He commands Moses to hew out two other tables for Him, the former ones as we know having been broken in pieces, so that He might write down the Law yet again for the people; even in this affording no small evidence of His kindness towards them. And when Moses was ready also for this, the Lord descended in a child, as it is written, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the Name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before his face and proclaimed: The Lord God is pitiful and merciful, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and true, and keeping justice, and showing mercy unto thousands, taking away iniquities and unrighteousnesses and sins; and He will not clear the guilty; visiting the sins of fathers upon children and upon children's children unto the third and fourth generation. But now attend carefully, for I am about to take up again the question proposed at first. God declares Himself to show His kindness and His incomparable love of |men in a manner suitable to Deity. For we maintain that these were the words of God, not of any other speaker; not (as some think) the words of the all-wise Moses, offering up laudatory prayers on behalf of the people. For that it is the Lord of all Himself speaking these things of Himself, no other than the blessed Moses himself will bear witness to us, teaching in the Book of Numbers, when the Israelites had again taken offence from unseasonable cowardice, because some, who by Moses at God's command had been sent to spy it out, spake evil of the Land of Promise. For when they returned from the land of the strangers and were come again to their own people, they spat out bitter words concerning it. Affirming the land to be so wild and rugged that it was capable of eating up its inhabitants, they excited so much hatred of it in the minds of their hearers, that bursting into tears they now desired again to be in Egypt with all its hardships. For, Let us make, said they, captains, and let us journey into Egypt. And when God threatened to destroy them, Moses again prayed, and all but reminding Him also of the promise He had given, went on to cry: And now let Thy strength be exalted, O Lord, according as Thou hast spoken, saying, The Lord is long-suffering and of great mercy and true, forgiving transgressions and iniquities and sins; and He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation. Forgive this people their sin according to Thy great mercy, as Thou hast been favourable to them from Egypt even until now. It appears therefore that He Who is God over all attributes to Himself love of men and the greatest forbearance towards evil. It will be fitting in the next place to set forth the cause on account of which the Jews, being deceived, could suppose our good God to be mindful of injury and exceeding wrathful. For my part, I do not think them able to lay hold of the Divine Oracles in any way, or to cavil at them as if they have not expressed what is most excellent or have |6 strayed far from the law of fairness. On the other hand, I think that they only indulge their own ignorance in this matter, to suppose the sins of fathers to be really brought upon children, and the Divine anger to be stretched so far that it may even reach to the third and fourth generation, exacting unjustly from innocent persons the penalties of others' crimes. Would it not at all events be more becoming to them, if they were wise, to hold the opinion that the Source of righteousness and of our moral laws would do nothing so shameful? For even men inflict punishments according to the laws upon habitual transgressors, but by no means visit them on their children, unless perchance they are detected as partners and associates in the misdeeds: and as to Him Who prescribed to us the laws of all justice, how can He be detected in inflicting penalties such as among ourselves are greatly condemned? Then this also in addition is to be considered. By the mouth of Moses He published laws innumerable, and in many cases those living in bad habits were ordered to be punished, but nowhere is a command from Him to be found, that children should share the penalties incurred by their sinning fathers. For penalty is for those who are detected in crime, and it was ordained that it was fitting to punish those only who were obnoxious to the law. To think as the Jews do is therefore surely impious, but it is certainly the part of a wise man to investigate the Divine mind and by every means to observe what things are agreeable to Nature, the queen of all things. Rightly therefore let us hold that the God of the universe, setting as it were before Him His inherent clemency, willing to be admired for His pure love of men and to this end proclaiming: The Lord is longsuffering and of great mercy and true, forgiving transgressions and sins, would not wish to be known as so mindful of evil that He extends His anger even to the fourth generation inclusive. For how can He still be longsuffering and of great mercy, or how does He forgive transgressions and sins, Who cannot endure to limit the infliction of penalty to the person |7 of the sinner, but extends it beyond the third generation, and like a sort of thunderbolt assaults even the innocent? Surely then it is quite incredible and of almost utter folly, to suppose that God attributes to Himself, together with love of men and gentleness, anger so lasting and so unreasonable. To these things another may be added by those who support the Jewish opinion, and do not allow that God knows a suitable time for every kind of action. For if He promises longsuffering and is found to yield very easily in laying aside His anger, why is He seen to have added: Visiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation? Of course this was done for no other reason than a wish to frighten those who expect remission of sins from Him, as showing that the object of their hopes should never be realized, since He Who with reason is grieved with them is so mindful of evil and tenacious in anger. But further, tell me what the hierophant Moses himself indicates to us. Would he not seem to do a thing most opposite to all reason, if, when Israel had given offence and was about to suffer punishment, he proceeded to pray for them, and, while asking for oblivion of the offence and an exhibition of God's love for men, he should unseasonably say to God: Thou art of such a nature that Thou requitest the sins of fathers upon children's children? For this would be rather the way of one instigating to anger than of one calling for mercy, and of one asking mindfulness of injury rather than longsuffering. But in my opinion by these words he seemed to importune God and to recall to His memory almost the very words which He Himself uttered, when He publicly proclaimed His inherent goodness. For in what way He is longsuffering and of great mercy, and how He is by nature One Who takes away sins and transgressions, will be most excellently discerned, in the very dealings wherein He seems to be somewhat bitter. In the next place then I think it is fitting to set forth |8 in what way we may rightly understand the words which were spoken by God. The Lord, He says, is long suffering and of great mercy, taking away transgressions and sins. Then we will read that which immediately follows as if with a note of interrogation:. And will He not surely clear the guilty? So that thou mayest understand something of this sort: Will not, says He, the longsuffering and greatly merciful God, Who takes away transgressions and sins, will He not surely clear the guilty? Of course it is not to be doubted: certainly He will thoroughly purge him. For how is He longsuffering and of great mercy and how does He at all take away sins, unless He purges the guilty? At these words He goes off to a demonstration of His inherent longsuffering and forbearance, even that He will visit the sins of the fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation: not chastising the son for the father; do not think this: nay, not even does He lay upon a descendant the faults of his ancestors like a burden: but meaning something of this sort. There was (we will suppose) a certain man, a transgressor of laws, having his mind full of all wickedness, and who, being taken in this manner of lining, deserved to be punished without any respite; but yet God in forbearance dealt with him patiently, not bringing upon him the wrath he had merited. Then to him was born a son, a rival of his father in impious deeds and outdoing his parent in villainy: God also showed longsuffering towards this man. But from him is born a third, and from the third a fourth, in no way inferior to their progenitors in wickedness, but practising equal impiety with them. Then God pours out wrath upon them, already even from the beginning deserved by the whole race, after He has tolerated as much as and even more than it behoved Him. A postponement of vengeance even unto the fourth generation, how is it not truly a commendation of Divine gentleness? For that He is wont to chastise neither son for father nor father for son, it is not hard to learn from those words which by the voice of the prophet Ezekiel He clearly spake to the Jews |9 themselves, when over this same thing they murmured and said: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. And, says he, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, what mean ye by this proverb in Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord, this proverb shall be said no more in Israel. For all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son; they are mine. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son: each in his own iniquity in which he hath sinned, in that shall he die. But I suppose no one is so foolish as to think that God did not at the beginning legislate in the most excellent way, but somehow changed His plans and altered His ideas for the better, and like one of ourselves was with difficulty and after subsequent deliberation able to improve His legislation to what was most fitting. In such a case, if we praise the earlier laws we shall clearly be blaming the later, and if we express an opinion that the later laws are superior we shall condemn the earlier by our lower estimation of them. God too will legislate in opposition to Himself, and will have fallen short, as we may have done, of a perfect standard, by ordaining one thing at one time and a different thing at another time. But I suppose every one will say that the Divine Nature cannot be in any way subject to such inconsistencies as this, and could not even have ever fallen short of absolute perfection. It is then as a demonstration of His incomparable munificence that He alleges the words quoted above, viz:----Requiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation. For that the merciful God is wont to punish sinners not immediately, but rather to do it reluctantly and to put off punishments for long seasons, thou wilt understand from His own words: And I was full of Mine anger and restrained it, and: did not make a full end of them. And again in another place: For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. Thou seest that He was indeed full of anger, for some were perpetrating deeds deserving fulness of anger, but as God He forbore patiently and delayed to make a full end of those who offended Him. But in order that we may exhibit to thee as in a picture the proof of what we have said and from actual events demonstrate the praise of God's love for men to be contained in this text, I will bring forward something recorded in the Sacred Books, and will endeavour from the Divine Scripture itself to show the sins of fathers visited on children even to the third and fourth generation; not unjustly, but justly, and in a manner merited by the sufferers themselves. The story shall be summarized, because of the length of the narrative. Well then, in the First Book of Kings we read that after other kings Ahab reigned over Israel, and burning with a most unrighteous desire for another man's vineyard, he slew the lord of it, even Naboth. For although he did not himself command that deed, yet he expressed no anger at the wickedness of his wife. At this God was of course wroth, and spake to Ahab by Elijah the prophet: Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast killed and also taken possession, therefore thus saith the Lord, In the place where the swine and the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there shall the dogs lick thy blood; and the harlots shall wash themselves in thy blood. And again immediately: Thus saith the Lord, Behold I bring evil upon thee, and will kindle a fire behind thee, and will utterly destroy from Ahab every male and him that is shut up and left in Israel. And I will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahab, for the provocations wherewith thou hast provoked Me to anger and made Israel to sin. And of Jezebel he spake, saying, The dogs shall eat her within the outer-wall of Jezreel. And him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat, and him that dieth in the field shall the birds of the air eat. When the Lord of all unmistakably threatened to do all these things and to inflict them, Ahab rent his garment and entered into his house; as it is written, He was pricked to the heart, and burst bitterly into tears, and girded his loins with sackcloth. In which state God pities him, and begins to allay His anger, and putting as it were a bridle to His sudden fury says to the Prophet: Hast thou seen how Ahab was pricked to the heart before Me? I will not bring these things in his days, but in his son's days I will bring the evil. Will it not therefore be right to inquire upon whom these things were fulfilled? Well, the son of Ahab was Ahaziah, Who, Scripture says, did evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of his father Ahab, and in the way of Jezebel his mother. Then the son of Ahaziah was, Scripture says, Joram, of whom again it is written that he walked in the sins of the house of Jeroboam. Next to Joram reigned a third Ahaziah, of whom again the language of the narrative says that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab. But when the time had now come for punishing the house of Ahab, which had not ceased from impiety towards God even to the fourth generation, there was anointed to be the next king over Israel Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi, who slew Ahaziah, and beside him Jezebel; he slew also seventy other sons of Ahab, carrying out as it were the Divine wrath to the uttermost, so that he obtained both honour and favour on account of it. For what saith God to him? Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in Mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in Mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit upon thy throne. Thou seest therefore that He reluctantly punished in the fourth generation the wicked descendants of wicked men, whereas to him from whom He received honour He extends His mercy even to the fourth generation. Cease therefore, O Jew, to accuse the righteousness of God. As a form of encomium certainly we will accept that saying: Requiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation.

There was a certain philosophy among the ancients that troubles came from sin because they were confident that God was not responsible for any evil. The notion that people suffer as an exercise so that they might perceive the power of God at last—this was not well known at all because they would rather have God give good rewards to the just then and there and not prolong suffering any longer for the sake of eternal life. Since he was a blind man from birth, it occurred to the disciples to ask. Since no one can sin before his birth, they ventured a guess that the parents were to blame. For they knew that children may suffer in order to bring grief to the parents. But the Lord said that the blindness did not occur because of any sin but for the sake of the glory of God that was about to take place as the power of God would be revealed through his unexpected recovery of sight.

This question does not seem a proper one. For the Apostles had not been taught the fond notion of the Gentiles, that the soul has sinned in a previous state of existence. It is difficult to account for their putting it.

The disciples, having noticed His attention to the blind man, ask: "Who sinned, he or his parents, that he was born blind?" This question seems strange. For how could he have sinned before his birth? The apostles probably did not share the pagan superstition that the soul, before its union with the body, lives in another world and descends into the body as a punishment for sin. Being fishermen, they could not have heard any such thing, for such ideas belonged to the philosophers. So, the question seems unreasonable, but not to one who is attentive. For know this: the Apostles had heard Christ say to the paralytic, "Behold, you have been made well; sin no more, lest something worse happen to you" (Jn. 5:14). Now they see the blind man and are perplexed, and they speak as if to say, "Let us grant that the paralytic was afflicted for his sins, but what will You say about this man? Did he sin? But this cannot be said, because he has been blind from birth. Or did his parents sin? Neither can this be said, because a son is not punished for his father." So then, the Apostles in the present case are not so much asking as they are expressing perplexity.

1295 Then (v2), the cause of this man's infirmity is discussed: first, the disciples ask about its cause; secondly, Christ explains it. 1296 In regard to the first, three things are to be considered. The first is the reason for the disciples questioning Christ. According to Chrysostom, this was because Jesus, leaving the temple and seeing this blind man, looked at him intently, as though seeing in him an opportunity to manifest his power. And so the disciples seeing him look so intently at the blind man were impelled to question him. Secondly, we see the seriousness of the disciples, because they say, Rabbi, calling him Teacher, to indicate that they are questioning him in order to learn. Thirdly, we see why they asked, who sinned? when they inquire into the reason for the man's blindness. It must be said, according to Chrysostom, that because the Lord said to the paralytic, when he healed him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you," the disciples thought that his infirmity was due to sin. They also thought that every human illness arose from sin, as Eliphaz said: "Think now, who that was innocent ever perished?" (Jb 4:7). Therefore, they asked whether he had been born blind on account of his own sin or that of his parents. It does not seem to have been on account of his own sin, because no one sins before he is born, since souls do not exist before their bodies, nor do they sin, as some mistakenly think: "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing, either good or bad — not because of works but because of his call, she was told 'The elder will served the younger'" (Rom 9:11). Nor does it seem that he suffered on account of a sin of his parents, for we read: "The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16). Note that people are punished with two kinds of punishment. One is spiritual and concerns the soul; the other is bodily and concerns the body. A child is never punished on account of his father with a spiritual punishment, because the soul of a child is not from his father but from God: "All souls are mine," that is, by creation, "the soul of the father as well as the soul of the child is mine: the soul that sins shall be punished" [Ez 18:4]. Augustine also says this in one of his letters. But a child is punished on account of his father with a bodily punishment, since he is of his father as far as his body is concerned. This is expressly shown in Genesis (c 19) where when Sodom was destroyed the children of the inhabitants of Sodom were killed on account of the sins of their parents. Again, the Lord very often threatened to destroy the children of the Jews on account of the sins of their parents. 1297 To understand why one person is punished on account of the sins of another, we must realize that a punishment has two aspects: it is an injury and a remedy. Sometimes a part of the body is cut off to save the entire body. And a punishment of this kind causes an injury insofar as a part is cut off, but it is a remedy insofar as it saves the body itself. Still, a doctor never cuts off a superior member to save one which is inferior, but the other way around. Now in human matters, the soul is superior to the body, and the body is superior to external possessions. And so it never happens that someone is punished in his soul for the sake of his body, but rather he is punished in his body as a curing remedy for his soul. Therefore, God sometimes imposes physical punishments, or difficulties in external concerns, as a beneficial remedy for the soul. And then punishments of this kind are not given just as injuries, but as healing remedies. Thus, the killing of the children of Sodom was for the good of their souls: not because they deserved it, but so they would not be punished more severely for increasing their sins in a life spent in imitating their parents. And in this way some are often punished for the sins of their parents.

Account of the man who was born blind, Joh 9:1-5. Christ heals him, Joh 9:6, Joh 9:7. The man is questioned by his neighbors, Joh 9:8-12. He is brought to the Pharisees, who question him, Joh 9:13-17, and then his parents, Joh 9:18-23. They again interrogate the man, who, vindicating the conduct of Christ, is excommunicated by them, Joh 9:24-34. Jesus, hearing of the conduct of the Pharisees, afterwards finds the man, and reveals himself to him, Joh 9:35-38. He passes sentence on the obduracy and blindness of the Pharisees, Joh 9:39-41.

Who did sin, this man, or his parents - The doctrine of the transmigration of souls appears to have been an article in the creed of the Pharisees, and it was pretty general both among the Greeks and the Asiatics. The Pythagoreans believed the souls of men were sent into other bodies for the punishment of some sin which they had committed in a pre-existent state. This seems to have been the foundation of the disciples question to our Lord. Did this man sin in a pre-existent state, that he is punished in this body with blindness? Or, did his parents commit some sin, for which they are thus plagued in their offspring? Most of the Asiatic nations have believed in the doctrine of transmigration. The Hindoos still hold it; and profess to tell precisely the sin which the person committed in another body, by the afflictions which he endures in this: they profess also to tell the cures for these. For instance, they say the headache is a punishment for having, in a former state, spoken irrevently to father or mother. Madness is a punishment for having been disobedient to father or mother, or to one's spiritual guide. The epilepsy is a punishment for having, in a former state, administered poison to any one at the command of his master. Pain in the eyes is a punishment for having, in another body, coveted another man's wife. Blindness is a punishment for having killed his mother: but this person they say, before his new birth, will suffer many years' torment in hell. See many curious particulars relative to this in the Ayeen Akbery, vol. iii. p. 168-175; and in the Institutes of Menu, chap. xi. Inst. 48-53. The Jewish rabbins have had the same belief from the very remotest antiquity. Origen cites an apocryphal book of the Hebrews, in which the patriarch Jacob is made to speak thus: I am an angel of God; one of the first order of spirits. Men call me Jacob, but my true name, which God has given me, is Israel: Orat. Joseph. apud Orig. Many of the Jewish doctors have believed that the souls of Adam, Abraham, and Phineas, have successively animated the great men of their nation. Philo says that the air is full of spirits, and that some, through their natural propensity, join themselves to bodies; and that others have an aversion from such a union. See several other things relative to this point in his treatises, De Plant. Noe - De Gigantibus - De Confus. Ling. - De Somniis, etc.; and see Calmet, where he is pretty largely quoted. The Hindoos believe that the most of their misfortunes arise out of the sins of a former birth; and, in moments of grief not unfrequently break out into exclamations like the following: - "Ah! in a former birth how many sins must I have committed, that I am thus afflicted!" "I am now suffering for the sins of a former birth; and the sins that I am now committing are to fill me with misery in a following birth. There is no end to my sufferings!" Josephus, Ant. b. xvii. c. 1, s. 3, and War, b. ii. c. 8, s. 14, gives an account of the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject. He intimates that the souls of those only who were pious were permitted to reanimate human bodies, and this was rather by way of reward than punishment; and that the souls of the vicious are put into eternal prisons, where they are continually tormented, and out of which they can never escape. But it is very likely that Josephus has not told the whole truth here; and that the doctrine of the Pharisees on this subject was nearly the same with that of the Papists on purgatory. Those who are very wicked go irrecoverably to hell; but those who are not so have the privilege of expiating their venial sins in purgatory. Thus, probably, is the Pharisean doctrine of the transmigration to be understood. Those who were comparatively pious went into other bodies, for the expiation of any remaining guilt which had not been removed previously to a sudden or premature death, after which they were fully prepared for paradise; but others who had been incorrigibly wicked were sent at once into hell, without ever being offered the privilege of amendment, or escape. For the reasons which may be collected above, much as I reverence Bishop Pearce, I cannot agree with his note on this passage, where he says that the words of the disciples should be thus understood: - Who did sin? This man, that he is blind? or his parents, that he was born so? He thinks it probable that the disciples did not know that the man was born blind: if he was, then it was for some sin of his parents - if he was not born so, then this blindness came unto him as a punishment for some crime of his own. It may be just necessary to say, that some of the rabbins believed that it was possible for an infant to sin in the womb, and to be punished with some bodily infirmity in consequence. See several examples in Lightfoot on this place.

THE OPENING OF THE EYES OF ONE BORN BLIND, AND WHAT FOLLOWED ON IT. (John 9:1-41) as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from birth--and who "sat begging" (Joh 9:8).

who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind--not in a former state of existence, in which, as respects the wicked, the Jews did not believe; but, perhaps, expressing loosely that sin somewhere had surely been the cause of this calamity.