Bola sobota.

Jezis vychadza z chramu , kde prezil turbulentnu situaciu.

Ako odchadza vsimne si slepeho muza.

Bola sobota.

Vieme, ze pri branach do chramu sedavali bedari,ktori prosili o almuznu. Sku 3,2

Muz bol ludom znamy, sedaval tam pravdepodobne casto a vedelo sa o nom, ze bol SLEPY OD NARODENIA Jn 9,20 - o tom sa vedelo, pretoze bud to ten muz hlasal alebo to hovoril niekto,kto ho poznal blizsie. Fakt, ktorym sa dokazovala velkost biedy alebo fat,ktorym apeloval na tych, ktrorych prosil o almuznu.

V evanjeliach nachadzame 6 svedectiev o uzdraveni slepych a toto je jediny pribeh cloveka, o ktorom sa hovori, ze bol slepym od narodenia.

Apostoli to vedeli a boli zvedavi alebo jednoducho chceli pocut vysvetlenie od svojho UCITELA,

co je dovodom tejto slepoty . verili, ze slepota je Bozim trestom. Tak sa pytali Jezisa, kto sa previnil.

Mudr.8,19-20

Mt 14,2

Mt 16,14

Kto zhresil,ked bol slepym od narodenia - ON alebo...

Otazka apostolov nas nuti domnievat sa, ze aj v Izraeli bola rozsirena mienka, ze dusa nevykupena sa vracia znova do zivota cloveka - viera v reinkarnaciu je sirena v budizme, v indickych nabozenstvach tiez.

Ez 18

Dalsou mienkou rozsirenou medzi zidmi bolo , ze za hreichy otcov trpeli deti.

Ale Pan Jezis prekvapivo poukazuje na uplne inu skutocnost - neznamu pre apostolov:

nezhresil ani on, ani jeho rodicia .

Nebol to trest. Bol to ukaz v diele BOZEJ PROZRETELNOSTI.

A vravi: ABY SA ZJAVILA MOC BOHA:

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents — So as to bring this suffering upon him; nor was the punishment of either the chief design of this dispensation of Providence; but that the works of God — Namely, his miraculous works; should be made manifest in him — Particularly his sovereignty, in bringing him into the world blind; his power, in conferring the faculty of sight upon him; and his goodness, in bearing witness to the doctrine by which men are to be saved.

9:1-7 Christ cured many who were blind by disease or accident; here he cured one born blind. Thus he showed his power to help in the most desperate cases, and the work of his grace upon the souls of sinners, which gives sight to those blind by nature. This poor man could not see Christ, but Christ saw him. And if we know or apprehend anything of Christ, it is because we were first known of him. Christ says of uncommon calamities, that they are not always to be looked on as special punishments of sin; sometimes they are for the glory of God, and to manifest his works. Our life is our day, in which it concerns us to do the work of the day. We must be busy, and not waste day-time; it will be time to rest when our day is done, for it is but a day. The approach of death should quicken us to improve all our opportunities of doing and getting good. What good we have an opportunity to do, we should do quickly. And he that will never do a good work till there is nothing to be objected against, will leave many a good work for ever undone, Ec 11:4. Christ magnified his power, in making a blind man to see, doing that which one would think more likely to make a seeing man blind. Human reason cannot judge of the Lord's methods; he uses means and instruments that men despise. Those that would be healed by Christ must be ruled by him. He came back from the pool wondering and wondered at; he came seeing. This represents the benefits in attending on ordinances of Christ's appointment; souls go weak, and come away strengthened; go doubting, and come away satisfied; go mourning, and come away rejoicing; go blind, and come away seeing.

8) The Lord confirms by a sign the declaration that he is the Light of the world, by giving eyesight as well as light. That which had been proclaimed as a great truth of his Being and mission, viz. that he was the Light of the world, was now to be established and confirmed to the disciples by a signal miracle. The "higher criticism" finds explanation of this and other similar miracles at Bethsaida and Jericho, in the prophecy of Isaiah 42:19; Isaiah 43:8; Isaiah 35:5; Isaiah 29:18. Volkmar holds that the story of Zacchaeus is thus rewritten! Thoma thinks that we have a spiritualization of the "miracle" on Saul of Tarsus. It would be waste time to point out the differences which are patent to the simplest criticism. Verse 1. - And - the καί suggests relation both in subject-matter, in time, place, occasion, and theme, with that which had preceded - as Jesus was passing by, going along his way, he saw a man blind from birth (cf. ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8). He was obviously a well-known beggar, who had often proclaimed the fact that he was blind from birth (see ver. 8). Such a condition and history rendered the cure more difficult and hopeless in the view of ordinary professors of the healing art, and the juxtaposition of such a symbolic fact with the near activity of those who were boasting of their Abrahamic privilege and their national and mere hereditary advantages, is one of the instances of the unconscious poesy of the gospel history. There he sits, the very type of the race which says, "We see," but which to Christ's eye was proclaiming its utter helplessness and blindness, not asking even to be illumined, and revealing the fundamental injury done to the very race and nature of man, and calling for all the healing power that he had been sent into the world to dispense. The man who had been struck blind, or whose eyesight had been slowly dosed by disease, became the type of the effect of special sins upon the character and life; thus e.g., vanity conceals radical defects and weaknesses; pride hides from the sinner's own view his own transgressions; temporary blindness to great faults is one of the symptoms of gross sin like David's, and prejudice is proverbially blind and deaf; but here is a man who is nothing less than the type of a congenital bias to evil, of hereditary damage done to human nature. Unless Christ can pour light upon those who are born blind, he is not the Savior the world needs. John 9:1

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, Ezekiel 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, Matthew 9:10.

And {1} as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

(1) Sin is even the beginning of all bodily diseases, and yet it does not follow that in punishing, even very severely, that God is punishing because of sin

τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς.] So much the greater was the miracle; comp. Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8. The supposition, based on John 9:5, that this blind man represents the κόσμος, to which Jesus, having been spurned by the Jews, now turns (Luthardt), is the less warrantable, as the stress in that verse is laid on φῶς, and not on τοῦ κόσμου (comp. even John 8:12). This healing of the blind is not intended to have a figurative import, though it is afterwards used (John 9:39 ff.) as a figurative representation of a great idea.

τίς ἥμαρτεν, etc.] The notion of the disciples is not, that neither the one nor the other could be the case (Euth. Zigabenus, Ebrard, comp. also Hengstenberg); but, as the positive mode of putting the dilemma shows, that either the one or the other must be the case. See Baeumlein, Partic. p. 132. They were still possessed by the popular idea (comp. on Matthew 9:2, also the book of Job, and Acts 28:4) that special misfortunes are the punishment of special sins; against which view Jesus, here and in Luke 13:9 ff., decidedly declares Himself. Now, as the man was born blind, either it must have been the guilt of his parents, which he was expiating,—a belief which, in accordance with Exodus 20:5, was very prevalent (Lightfoot, p. 1048), and existed even among the Greeks (Maetzner in Lycurg. in Leocr. p. 217),—or he himself must have sinned even whilst in the womb of his mother. The latter alternative was grounded in the popular notion that even an embryo experiences emotions (comp. Luke 1:41; Luke 1:43), especially evil emotions, and that the latter predominate (see Sanhedr. f. 91. 2; Beresh. Rabba, f. 38. 1, b.; Lightfoot), comp. Wetstein. The explanation of the question from the belief (which there is also no right to assume as presupposed in Matthew 14:2) in the transmigration of souls (Calvin, Beza, Drusius, Aretius, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, and several others) is as inadmissible as the assumption of a belief in the pre-existence of souls (Cyril, De Wette, Brückner). For apart from the uncertainty of the fact whether the doctrine of the transmigration of souls was entertained by the Jews in the days of Christ (see Tholuck on the passage, and Delitzsch Psychol. p. 463 f. [E. T. p. 545 f.]), those two doctrines could not have been popularly known among the people, and therefore must not be assumed to have been held by the disciples, although it is true that the pre-existence of souls, both of good and bad, is an unquestionable article of doctrine in Wis 8:19 f., as also with Philo and the Essenes, with the Rabbins, and in the Cabbala (see Grimm on Wisdom of Solomon in the Exeget. Handb. p. 177 f.; Bruch, Lehre v. d. Prae-existenz d. Seel. p. 22). It is quite out of place, however, to refer to the heathen view of the pre-existence of souls (Isidorus and Severus in Corder. Cat). Tholuck’s suggestion, finally, that the thought, though obscurely conceived, is, that the blind man, through being born blind, is marked out as a sinner in virtue of an anticipation of punishment, both contradicts the words, and is altogether destitute of biblical support. In Luthardt’s view, the disciples, in accordance with Exodus 20:5, regarded the second of the two supposed cases as alone possible, but mentioned the first as a possibility, in order that Christ might solve the riddle which they were unable to solve. Similarly Baeumlein and Delitzsch, who looks upon the question as the mere expression of perplexity resulting from a false premiss. It is an arbitrary procedure, however, to ascribe such a difference to two cases regarding which a question is asked in precisely the same form, or to treat the possibility in the one case as posited merely in appearance. The disciples considered both cases possible, and wished to know which of them was real. At the same time, however, they deemed a third case out of the question, and this was the error in the dilemma which they put forth,—an error which Jesus (John 9:3) lays bare and corrects by setting before them the Tertium datur.

ἵνα τυφλ. γενν.] The retributive result, in accordance with the teleological connection of the divine destiny. That the man was born blind might have been previously known to those who asked the question; or the man himself might just have informed them of the fact, for the purpose of adding force to his request for alms (John 9:8).

CAMBRIDGE

No source is so probable as this verse, for nowhere else is there an account of Christ’s healing a congenital disease. See on John 1:23 and John 3:3.