A Dispute over Pre-natal Sins

Controversy with the Jews and with the Sanhedrim continued as long as Jesus remained in Jerusalem, and would have resulted in His imprisonment if the orders issued by chief officers had been obeyed. But there was a division of sentiment among the people, many influential persons even believing that Jesus was a prophet, while yet others were more radical and made public confession of their belief in Him as the Messiah. Nevertheless, the rabble were incited against Him by the priesthood, and an effort was made to stone Him, but His time was not yet come, and at an extreme moment of peril He disappeared from among them. Whether this disappearance was by withdrawal suddenly and commingling with the crowd, or by rendering Himself invisible, we are not told, but whatever may have been the means which He employed. His escape from the mad ravenings and threatenings of His enemies was effected without inviting pursuit.

“Then took they up stones to cast at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

From the reading of John, it appears that Jesus and His disciples passed ovit of the gates of Jerusalem together, for it is related that” as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from his birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

By the gates of the cities of Palestine beggars were accustomed to sit and solicit alms from those who went out and in, and even to this day the custom continues, though not as general as it was in the time of Christ, for lepers are not nearly so numerous now as they were then. Yet in nearly every city I entered while traveling through the Holy Land, I was met at the’ entrances, whether at the gates of walled cities or the entering roadways, by the beseechments of many beggars suifering from every manner of affliction. This blind man whom Jesus thus met, while a beggar, was probably a person of distinguished characteristics, for the manner in which John represents him when brought before the Sanhedrim leads to the belief that he was a man of acute perception and of many natural parts which lifted him far above the masses in intellectual attainments.

The old Mosaic law recognized the transmission of disease, which was regarded as the product of sin, through three and four generations, and certain

(366) diseases were considered as types of particular sins. Whence came this belief? It was not an institution of hierarchal assumption to inspire fear or to increase the power of priestcraft, for the belief was older than Moses. In Persia there was a faith implanted by Pythagoras, who borrowed it from the yet more ancient East, which recognized the indestructibility of the soul, or the undying spirit of all living things, and which they believed transmigrated into another body when their former tenancy was ended by death. Upon this belief there were grafted others, one of which was that souls had not only an eternal existence and their birth was coincident with that of the body, but that in their ante-natal condition they had a personality which made them amenable to laws, the violations of which were sins, and from which there was no absolvement. Therefore, when a soul entered a body it retained all its deformities, moral or intellectual, and these were manifest in afflictions of the flesh. For this reason it was said of the blind man, as of any one born with any deformity: “Thou wast altogether born in sins.” The Pharisees were undoubtedly subjects of this singular belief, as is proved by the dispute growing out of the creation of vision in the sightless man.

The Windows of Sight Opened.

It was this belief in congenital sin among the Pharisees that prompted the disciples to ask of Jesus so singular a question, doubtless with the hope that He would reveal to them the measures of its correctness. Without wholly disappointing them, Jesus chose to briefly reply, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be manifest in him.” This was an explicit denial ot the old beliefs, if the blind man be regarded as an ordinary example, but the implication seems to be that God had fore-ordained him to be a subject for the operation of the divine power in its manifestation before the people. Apparently to prevent their further questioning concerning a belief which the disciples were hardly prepared to receive an explanation or interpretation of, Jesus taught them the importance of merciful acts without hesitating to first inquire as to the worthiness of any one to receive mercy. This He did by reminding them that His mission on earth was a short one, which was devoted to works rather than to discussions, or even revelations, respecting beliefs in which salvation had no proper place. Therefore, said He, “I nuist work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in the world I am the light of the world.” Or in other words: “I cannot waste my time in combating such transmitted beliefs, nor nuist you seek to explore such idle questions at the expense of your merciful duties. It is sufficient to know that where affliction exists, your duty is to relieve it; that where sin abounds, strive to save the sinners; that where the sorrowful are found, use your gifts to console them.”

When Jesus had thus quietly rebuked His disciples, He spat upon ths»- ground and made a poultice of the moistened clay, which He applied to the eyes of the blind man and then told him to bathe in the pool of Siloam. And the hopeful man ran gleefully away, perhaps led by some friend, until he came to the pool and there, following the directions given him, he bathed his sightless eyes, when lo, the lids opened, and the world of darkness moved away like a cloud floating from the face of a long-obscured sun, and light gathered in the cornea and struck through the pupil and set the iris revolving in an envelope of aqueous humor, and luminous rays poured in upon the lens and were reflected again in glorious vision. It was a plunge out of the world of Cimmerian obscuration into a land of resplendent illumination; a birth -of sight, a creation of vision, a revealment of image. “And he went his way and washed, and came seeing.”

The Sanhedrim in Disputation with the Beggar.

Jesus might have created sight in the blind eyes of the subject of His divine power by speaking a single word, but He had an object in employing means calculated to first excite belief in the unfortunate. Clay was supposed to possess curative prGperti££) as is still believed by many, while the waters of Siloam were noted for their healing virtues. Thus, while neither clay nor water were really agencies in the creation of sight, yet the employment of these means served to excite the blind man’s faith in Jesus as a true physician, and so the way was opened for belief.

The appearance of one born in blindness and grown to manhood in this affliction, and who suddenly received sight, nnist have been remarkable to those who had known him from his youth. No wonder that his friends hardly recognized him; no wonder that his changed expression and the miraculous gift that had been bestowed so confused them that they asked one another: “Is not this he that sat and begged?” Some there were, who knew him best, that declared positively he was the man born blind; others, doubting the possibility of such a miracle, could not bring themselves to an implicit belief, though they frankly admitted he was like the man; but their doubts were relieved by a joyous admission from the subject. Discussion thus ended among the man’s acquaintances, but when he told them how one named Jesus had given him sight, the people were so astounded that they insisted on bringing him before the Pharisees, who might perchance give some explanation of the miracle. There was great excitement we must believe, and as the wisest men were looked to for an interpretation of all singular events, the Sanhedrim, whose members were Pharisees, had the man brought before them and by these pundits he was critically questioned. And they asked who is this person that gave you sight, and where may He be found? But the fortunate one could not answer them, for he did not himself know.

WHKREAS 1 WAS Hl.lM’, NOW I SKK.”
(369)

Pursuing their inquiries, however, the Sanhedrim soon learned that the gift of sight had been bestowed on the Sabbath day, and this fact gave them the opportunitysought to veil their ignorance behind a pompous show of learning and a bombastic exhibition of their regard for the Sabbatic laws. “Why,” said sonie of them, “this Man is not righteous, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But there were a few among the seventy who composed that body honest enough to ask their colleagues, “How can a man who is a sinner do such things?” Thus even their pompousness did not quite stifle inquiry; for the honest members confounded the majority; so they began again to question the man, who had for a while stood mute before them, listening to their wise saws and instances. Therefore they asked him: “What sayest thou of Him, that He hath opened thine eyes?” The question was a direct one, and the captious members of the ecclesiastical body were startled by the no less direct reply: “He is a prophet.”

Not satisfied with their examination of the subject of the Lord’s power and mercy, the Pharisees sent for the man’s parents, and these being brought before the court of inquiry they were questioned in many things appertaining to their son. Their answers were made with caution, because they knew the bigotry of the Jews and had probably heard of their bitter rancor against Jesus. They accordingly only acknowledged that he was born blind and that he had suddenly received sight, but by what means they knew not; said they,” He is of age, ask him.” Nothing satisfactory to the Sanhedrim could be gained from the parents, so the son was again called in, and to him they fawningly and seductively spoke: “Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner.” Or, to paraphrase: ‘* You have suddenly received your sight, it is true, but was it through the power of Beelzebub or of God? Give God the praise for so great and miraculous a gift; do not impute power like this to a man, and least of all to a man who violates the Sabbath. Come now, lift up your praises to God alone.” But the man was no less grateful to his benefactor than he was logical in his reasoning, therefore he answered them; “Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.” Still the court did not give over their efforts to influence the man to acknowledge his benefactor as a sinner and to have him make a confession which they might use against Jesus. Thus they facetiously asked,” What did He to thee; how opened He thine eyes?” With evidence of impatience at the persistency of their questionings, each one of which showed animus and insincerity, the man responded: “I have told you already, -and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be His disciples?” He was justified in meeting their captious and impertinent inquest with ironical rejoinder, and being put to confusion by his answers these grave theologians showed great vexation, and the spokesman of the ecclesiastical tribunal, perhaps the high. priest himself, with a manifestation of self-sufl5ciency and superiority said ij the man, “Thou art His disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples; we know that God spake unto Moses; but as for this fellow, we know not from whence He is.” True enough, they did not know Jesus, the Christ, and their ambition for place and power prevented them from knowing God. Quick to see the force of their admission, the man made most excellent use of it by showing wherein they condemned themselves, saying:” Why, herein is a mar’elous thing, that ye know not from whence He is, and yet He hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners. Since the world began was it not heard

that any man opened the
eyes of one that was born
blind. If this man were
not of God, He could do
nothing.”

What a hard rap was
his at the ignorance, the
hypocrisy and the arrogance of the Sanhedrim.
It was equivalent to saying: “You sit in judgment on things concerning which you know nothing: you hoodwink the
people by assuming a

PERFORATED PARAPETS AND LATTICED WINDOWS IN THE knowledge OI CVCry tUUlg,

WALLS OF JERUSALEM. both secular and ecclesiastical, but you are wise only in your own conceits, and render your judgments according to the influences that affect your own interests. You have no consideration for mercy when it conflicts with your advantages, and you sit there now, deaf to the voice of justice, and condemn Jesus because He does more gracious works and is more worthy of God’s favor than you.”

No wonder the hierarchal judges were galled and that they flew into a rage. They could not answer his arguments, and being convicted under the man’s accusings and the proofs which he so ably proclaimed, in a spirit of wrathful indignation they cry,” Put him out, put him out. ““Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou (presume to) teach us?” And they cast him out, excommunicated him, and would no doubt have remanded him to perpetual blindness had they possessed the power.

Jesus heard how the man had been treated by the Pharisees, and soon after finding him, asked, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” Up to this time it is evident that he who had miraculously received sight did not know his benefactor, though it is probable, and so appears frpm his answers before the Sanhedrim, that he had a belief that he had received the gift from either Christ, of whom he had certainly often heard, or from some newly-risen prophet. But he asked in reply to the inquiry of Jesus,” Who is He, I^ord, that I might believe on Him? and Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee.” At this revelation the man must have rejoiced, for his heart was full of gratitude, so full indeed that he would brave the wrath of all Jewry in making confession of his debt and his acknowledgment of the heavenly-derived powers of Jesus; so, without hesitation, and with fullness of faith, he said, “Lord I believe, and he worshiped Him.” And Jesus said,” For judgment I am come into the world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be

made blind.”

Parable of the Good Shepherd.

The meeting and dialogue between Jesus and the blind man drew a crowd of interested listeners, among whom were several Pharisees who were so stirred up by the sayings of Christ that they asked Him, ’ ‘Are we blind also? “’ ‘Ah,” answered Jesus, “it were infinitely better for your souls if you were blind, for seeing the works of God, and not believing on Him, and being instructed by the Son of God and rejecting Him, is the blindness of obduracy and extreme sinfulness, a condition worse than a loss of all the five senses, because you will not accept a cure.”

Jesus seized the occasion to discourse further to His audience, who were probably half-inclined to receive His instructions, and to make His meaning and claims to Messiahship more easily comprehended by His hearers He related a parable of the Good Shepherd. This illustration was particularly appropriate and forceful among a people who were largely engaged in sheep tending, constituting Indeed a chief industry of the nation, and which was so far a typical pursuit that the shepherds were chosen as the first to receive tidings of the Messianic birth, while Jesus gave to Himself the title of the “Good Shepherd,” and the shepherd’s crook is still retained as the sceptre of catholic authority.

Said Jesus, “I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” Or to relate the parable in its direct application: “I am come into the world to gather within the fold of everlasting life all men, of whatsoever nationality, but no man can be of my flock who seeks entrance by means such as the Pharisees practice, for men shall not be accepted who make a pretence of righteousness when in fact they are worldly-minded and refrain from merciful acts. These are they whom I may liken to thieves and robbers who climb over and mingle with the flock. The truly deserving can only enter into the fold through the door provided, and I am that door. They that are within will not hearken to the voice

ANCIENT CASTLE ON THE SPUR OE MOUNT CARMEL.

of a stranger, but My call they recognize, since they know that I am the true shepherd. I give my life for my sheep, but he that is a hireling, who assumes to be a shepherd only to compass his own evil ends, flees at the coming of a wolf — the glittering promises of worldly preferment and pleasure — and having no real care for the sheep leaveth them to be destroyed or scattered.”

“I am the good shepherd and know My sheep, and am known of Mine. As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have [all the nations of the world] which are not of this [Jewish] fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one* fold and one shepherd. Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from

Me, because I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have

power to take it again.”

The application of the parable was so direct and convicting that some of the

Pharisees took offence and in their rabidness exclaimed,” He hath a devil and is

mad; why hear ye Him?” But there were other Jews present who, more just

and less prejudiced, believed the words of Christ, and therefore answered:

“These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes

of the blind?”

Ministry of Jesus in Perea.

Departing from Jerusalem, Jesus returned again to Galilee; but His stay in that province was a short one, for the Pharisees haxi set the people against Him so virulentl)’ that His labors could not again be renewed there with promise of reward. There was a short interval between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication, and though it was not required by the law that every Jew should be present in Jerusalem at the latter celebration, and though He had been threatenened with arrest and with stoning on His last visit to the Holy City, yet Jesus nevertheless” steadfastly set His face to go up to Jerusalem.”

After pronouncing woes upon Capernaum and Chorazin, and upon the cities that rejected Him, Jesus set out upon His journey, but instead of proceeding directly toward Jerusalem, He passed southward to the borders of Samaria and thence eastward across the Jordan to the southern district of Decapolis, and thence into Perea. Wherever He went large crowds followed, beseeching Him to heal their sick and to confer blessings, to all of which calls upon His mercy He promptly responded But, singular to relate, not only were the scenes of pressing multitudes and miracles of healing which distinguished His ministry in Galilee repeated in Perea, but He found here enemies who confronted Him, as they did in Galilee, with claims that He performed miracles by a power delegated to Him by Beelzebub. So striking do the coincidences appear that some learned commentators declare that Luke, who alone records the incidents of this journey, has inserted a repetition of the discourses and miracles performed by Jesus in Galilee, a belief that is accepted by many of the Bible w/iters. For this reason it is impossible to tell how long Jesus remained in Perea or what He did there; but as some months intervened between the Feast of Dedication, celebrated in December, and the Crucifixion, an interval in which the life of Jesus was always in jeopardy, it is probable that if He did not spend a greater part of His time in Perea, He must have been in some retired district of Judea for a considerable while. So indefinite are the records that it cannot with positiveness be stated that Jesus returned to Galilee directly after the Feast of Tabernacles, and not a few authorities hold to the belief that He remained somewhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem, perhaps at Bethany, until after the Feast of Dedication. It would be a satisfaction to know every thing that transpired in our Lord’s life, and also the order in which the events occurred, but as these have not been revealed, we must accept with thankfulness that which is recorded, nor spend our time in vain discussions which can give us neither satisfaction nor consolation. We may derive comfort from the fact that, considering the times in which Jesus lived, the few who could read and the fewer still who could write, and the labor, with crude means at hand, of compiling records, and the persecution of Christ and His disciples, it is a miracle that so many of His works and sayings have been preserved to us.

A Hypocritical interrogation.

It is related by lyuke that on this presumably last journey of our Lord many
expedients were employed bj- the Pharisees to entrap Jesus, not only by arraigning Him before
the people as a
desecrater of the
Sabbath, and as
a person in collusion with Satan, but also by
attempts to expose Him as one
ignorant of the
Mosaic law, and
thus to hold Him
up before the
people as an impostor. This last
subtle effort was
not without
promise of success, for the law
and its interpretations were a

mass of contradictaries which it required This Jesus showed on many occasions by healing the sick on the Sabbath, by excusing His disciples for plucking grain on that day, by receiving the anointings of Mary Magdalene at Simon’s house, by forgiving the woman taken in sin, etc. And yet on each occasion He gave such excellent reasons for his conduct that, m the estimation of the unprejudiced. He found justification against both law and immemorial custom. But though often vanquished, the enemies of Jesus did not cease their efforts to confound Him by plying questions in which their own law

THE PRIEST AND I.EVITE PASSKO

the Messiah indeed to reconcile.

RV.

was in conflict with experience and practice, and which to answer in any wise would therefore appear necessarily to involve either an inconsistency or direct violation. Thus a certain rabbi, a lawyer as he was called, because of his thorough knowledge of the Mosaic law, of which he was an interpreter, beholding Jesus as He was probably discoursing to an audience, propounded to Him this question: “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” and Jesus answered, “What is written in the law? How do you interpret it?” To this the rabbi replied by quoting the law: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself” This law the rabbi recited with a glibness that showed how often he had repeated it before the classes under his instruction; so trippingly that it proved how parrot-like were his morning and evening utterances, and how truly small was his sincerity of belief in the law which he made a part of his daily invocation, and which he wore as an ornament on his phylacteries. But his false conception of the true spirit which the law was intended to embody was further exhibited by the inquiry which followed. Said Jesus, “Obey this law and thou shalt live.” “But,” asked the rabbi,” who is my neighbor?” If Christ had answered, “Thy neighbor is he who lives near you, or who is thy intimate, or who is tlty towmsman, or who is thy confederate in any cause, or any one be he Jew or Gentile,” the lawyer would have ridiculed Him and said to the people about Him: “Did I not tell you that this man, who declares Himself one sent by God to proclaim a new gospel, is an impostor? Why, He knows nothing about the law, for does not the Mosaic statute say ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and does it not deal with offences, and condemn evil, and punish with stripes, and with stoning, and with execution, and cast out the Gentile as unworthy to be numbered with the congregation? and in violation of these sacred laws this man does not condemn the wicked, He does not favor the punishment of evii doers, He forgives sinners. He regards not the Sabbath, He pardons the guilty .and He fellowships with publicans and Gentiles.”

Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Christ knew what was in the heart of this hypocritical rabbi, He saw the purpose of the inquiry, He thoroughly vuiderstood the craft of this lawyer, hence He answered the question by delivering a parable, which was a form of instruction common among rabbinical teachers themselves. Said He: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. The way, as you know,, is rugged and robber-infested, so that it is considered one of the most dangerous in all Palestine. Caves abound in which thieves may take refuge when beset by officers of the law, and there are lofty crags overhanging the road in many places, from which a small murderous band might hurl down rocks upon an enemy below, so that it is a

THE GOOD SAMARITAN. — From the Painting by a A. Morot, Medal of Honor, Paris Salon, 188a

(377)

perilous undertaking for even a well-armed body to attempt a dislodgment and arrest of outlaws who infest such a retreat. But this man had to pass through this dangerous region, hoping, however, that his poverty- would preserve him against attack, as he carried nothing to excite the cupidity of thieves. But his hopes were cruelly disappointing, for he had not gone far on the way when a band of robbers rushed out and with stones or bludgeons knocked him down and after stripping him of his clothes left him, half-dead from terrible wounds, to the cold mercies of any passer-by. Presently, after the robbers had departed, a priest came that way and saw the poor man lying in a pool of blood, moaning and perhaps feebly calling for help. But the priest only gathered up his own robes to prevent soilure in the bloody dust of the road, and making a half circuit about the victim, went on, heedless of the appeals made for assistance. Directly a I^evite, who was of the priestly class, came also by the place, and seeing the wounded man, had barely enough curiosity to stop and look at him. But the groans of the sufferer failed to arouse any compassion, and so he too went on, without so much as inquiring how badly he was hurt, or giving him a drink of water, or offering a word of encouragement by the way of a promise to send him aid. And in the roadway the poor man was left unattended, until a Samaritan, journeying over the way, came up and discovered his sorry condition. In a moment the Samaritan’s heart was struck with compassion; he saw that the wounded man was Jew, and hence his enemy, but in the presence of suffering he forgot nationality, he ignored the enmities that divided the two peoples, he felt only his humanity knocking at his heart and saying,” Give the wounded stranger assistance;” and taking a bottle of wine from his hamper, with it he washed the wounds and then poured a healing oil over the bruises and the bleeding cuts, and tearing a bandage from one of his garments he bound up the injuries, after which he lifted the poor man upon his own beast and conveyed him to the nearest inn. But his compassion did not expend itself with this noble deed of merc)’, for being unable to remain and care for the sufferer himself beyond a day, before he departed he took money from his purse and gave it to the inn-keeper, saying: “Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee.”

“Which now of these three,” asked Jesus of the rabbi, “thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among thieves?” and the rabbi answered, “He that showed mercy on him.” Then said Jesus unto him, “Go thou and do likewise.”

NORTHERN

PALESTINE

Scale of MIloarutti I

(379)

ST. LO:.;: ‘. 3. LI’liuAKY

BOYS’ DdPT.