asking them, how or by what sin this had come to them. But, as this man was 'blind from
his birth,' the possibility of some actual sin before birth would suggest itself, at least as a
speculative question, since the 'evil impulse' (Yetser haRa), might even then be called
into activity.8 At the same time, both the Talmud and the later charge o f the Pharisees,
'In sins wast thou born altogether,' imply that in such cases the alternative explanation
would be considered, that the blindness might be caused by the sin of his parents.9 It
was a common Jewish view, that the merits or demerits of the p arents would appear in
the children. In fact, up to thirteen years of age a child was considered, as it were, part
of his father, and as suffering for his guilt.10 More than that, the thoughts of a mother
might affect the moral state of her unborn offspring, and the terrible apostasy of one of
the greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the sinful delight his mother
had taken when passing through an idol-grove.11 Lastly, certain special sins in the
parents would result in specific diseases in their offspring, and one is mentioned12 as
causing blindness in the children.13 But the impression left on our minds is, that the
disciples felt not sure as to either of these solutions of the difficulty. It seemed a
mystery, inexplicable on the suppositi on of God's infinite goodness, and to which they
sought to apply the common Jewish solution. Many similar mysteries meet us in the
administration of God's Providence - questions, which seem unanswerable, but to which
we try to give answers, perhaps, not much wiser than the explanations suggested by
disciples.
8. Sanh. 91 b; Ber. R. 34.
9. This opinion has, however, nothing to do with 'the migration of souls' - a doctrine which
has been generally, but quite erroneously, supposed that Josephus imputed to the
Pharisees. The misunderstanding of Jew. War. ii. 8. 14, should be corrected by Antiq.
xviii. 1. 3.
10. Shabb. 32 b; 105 b; Yalkut on Ruth, vol. ii. par. 600, p. 163 c.
12. Nedar. 20 a.
11. Midr. on Ruth. iii. 13.
13. At the same time those opinions, which are based on higher moral views of marriage,
are only those of an individual teacher. The latter are cynically and coarsely set aside by
'the sages' in Nedar. 20 b.
But why seek to answer them at all, since we possess not all, perhaps very few o f, the
data requisite for it? There is one aspect, however, of adversity, and of a strange
dispensation of evil, on which the light of Christ's Words here shines with the brightness
of a new morning. There is a physical, natural reason for them. God has no t specially
sent them, in the sense of His interference or primary causation, although He has sent
them in the sense of His knowledge, will, and reign. They have come in the ordinary
course of things, and are traceable to causes which, if we only knew them , would
appear to us the sequence of the laws which God has imposed on His creation, and
which are necessary for its orderly continuance. And, further, all such evil
consequences, from the operation of God's laws, are in the last instance to be traced
back to the curse which sin has brought upon man and on earth. With these His Laws,
and with their evil sequences to us through the curse of sin, God does not interfere in