BibleTools.info

2. Who did sin? The Jews taught that the sufferings of this life were divine punishment for sin. According to the Talmud, “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity” (Shabbath 55a, Soncino ed., p. 255). “A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him” (Nedarim 41a, Soncino ed., p. 130). The rabbis further taught that God was careful that sin met its punishment according to the rule, measure for measure. Several examples of the rule are given in the Mishnah: “In the measure with which a man measures it is meted out to him.” “Samson went after [the desire of] his eyes; therefore the Philistines put out his eyes. … Absalom gloried in his hair; therefore he was hanged by his hair. And because he cohabited with the ten concubines of his father, therefore he was stabbed with ten lances. … And because he stole three hearts, the heart of his father, the heart of the court of justice, and the heart of Israel, … therefore three darts were thrust through him” (Sotah 1. 7, 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 37, 41). The Jews held that every sin had its peculiar punishment, and believed it possible in certain cases, at least, to determine the guilt of a man by the nature of his suffering. After the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Sanhedrin, and with it the end of Jewish executions, Rabbi Joseph taught that God visited natural calamities upon those deserving death: “He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation, is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation” (Talmud Kethuboth 30a, 30b, Soncino ed., p. 167).

Although these statements are of a date later than the time of Jesus, they doubtless reflect the thinking of the Jews in His time. This is evident from the question of the disciples on this occasion, also from the question of Jesus on this subject in Luke 13:2, 4.

It should be noted that even though the above represents the overwhelming opinion, the Jews did make provision for what they called the chastisement of love. This they believed God sent for testing and purification. Such chastisements, they held, would never interfere with the study of the Torah or with prayer. He who willingly submitted to these chastisements would be richly rewarded. However, they considered these chastisements of love as exceptions to the general rule, where there is suffering there is also guilt.

This man. If this man was blind as the result of his own sin, then he must have sinned before he was born, inasmuch as his blindness had existed from birth. There are a few hints in rabbinical literature to the effect that the Jews considered prenatal sinning on the part of the child at least a possibility. For example, Midrash Rabbah, on Gen. 25:22 (Soncino ed., pp. 559, 560), charges that Esau committed sin both prior to and at the time of his birth. However, the predominant view of the Jews was that a child cold not be guilty of any misdemeanor before birth. Midrash Rabbah, on Lev. 22:27 (Soncino ed., p. 350), tells the story of a mother who brought her son to the judge because of some offense. When she observed the judge condemning others to lashing she began to fear that if she would disclose the offense of her son the judge would kill him. When she turn came she said nothing of the offense but simply charged that before birth her son had kicked [like a refractory beast]. The judge inquired. Has he done anything else? She answered No. He said, That is no offense at all. The answer of the judge reflects the general teaching of the Jews with regard to supposed prenatal sin on the part of the child.

The disciples had doubtless heard of the hairsplitting arguments of the rabbis on this perplexing question and were anxious to hear what Jesus had to say on the matter.

His parents. This part of the disciples’ question had at least some scriptural basis, for the law declares that the Lord visits “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate” Him (Ex. 20:5). Children often do suffer the consequences of their parents’ wrongdoing, but they are not punished for the parents’ guilt (see on Eze. 18:1, 2; cf. PP 306).

Some of the rabbis taught that epilepsy, lameness, dumbness, and deafness came as the result of the transgression of the most trivial traditional rules (see Talmud Pesaḥim 112b, Soncino ed., p. 579; Giṭṭin 70a, Soncino ed., p. 333; Nedarim 20a, 20b, Soncino ed., pp. 57, 58).

They had received their erroneous philosophy of suffering from Satan, for he, “the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,—as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin” (DA 471). They had not grasped the lesson from the book of Job which showed that “suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy” (DA 471; see on Ps. 38:3).

2. Who did sin? The Jews taught that the sufferings of this life were divine punishment for sin. According to the Talmud, “There is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity” (Shabbath 55a, Soncino ed., p. 255). “A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him” (Nedarim 41a, Soncino ed., p. 130). The rabbis further taught that God was careful that sin met its punishment according to the rule, measure for measure. Several examples of the rule are given in the Mishnah: “In the measure with which a man measures it is meted out to him.” “Samson went after [the desire of] his eyes; therefore the Philistines put out his eyes. … Absalom gloried in his hair; therefore he was hanged by his hair. And because he cohabited with the ten concubines of his father, therefore he was stabbed with ten lances. … And because he stole three hearts, the heart of his father, the heart of the court of justice, and the heart of Israel, … therefore three darts were thrust through him” (Sotah 1. 7, 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 37, 41). The Jews held that every sin had its peculiar punishment, and believed it possible in certain cases, at least, to determine the guilt of a man by the nature of his suffering. After the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Sanhedrin, and with it the end of Jewish executions, Rabbi Joseph taught that God visited natural calamities upon those deserving death: “He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation, is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation” (Talmud Kethuboth 30a, 30b, Soncino ed., p. 167).

Although these statements are of a date later than the time of Jesus, they doubtless reflect the thinking of the Jews in His time. This is evident from the question of the disciples on this occasion, also from the question of Jesus on this subject in Luke 13:2, 4.

It should be noted that even though the above represents the overwhelming opinion, the Jews did make provision for what they called the chastisement of love. This they believed God sent for testing and purification. Such chastisements, they held, would never interfere with the study of the Torah or with prayer. He who willingly submitted to these chastisements would be richly rewarded. However, they considered these chastisements of love as exceptions to the general rule, where there is suffering there is also guilt.

This man. If this man was blind as the result of his own sin, then he must have sinned before he was born, inasmuch as his blindness had existed from birth. There are a few hints in rabbinical literature to the effect that the Jews considered prenatal sinning on the part of the child at least a possibility. For example, Midrash Rabbah, on Gen. 25:22 (Soncino ed., pp. 559, 560), charges that Esau committed sin both prior to and at the time of his birth. However, the predominant view of the Jews was that a child cold not be guilty of any misdemeanor before birth. Midrash Rabbah, on Lev. 22:27 (Soncino ed., p. 350), tells the story of a mother who brought her son to the judge because of some offense. When she observed the judge condemning others to lashing she began to fear that if she would disclose the offense of her son the judge would kill him. When she turn came she said nothing of the offense but simply charged that before birth her son had kicked [like a refractory beast]. The judge inquired. Has he done anything else? She answered No. He said, That is no offense at all. The answer of the judge reflects the general teaching of the Jews with regard to supposed prenatal sin on the part of the child.

The disciples had doubtless heard of the hairsplitting arguments of the rabbis on this perplexing question and were anxious to hear what Jesus had to say on the matter.