Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxxvi Pg 39
See 2 Sam. v. 6–8.
—in which respect (I should rather say) that they were a type of people equally blind,4954 4954 The Marcionites.
who in after-times would not admit Christ to be the son of David—so, on the contrary, Christ succoured the blind man, to show by this act that He was not David’s son, and how different in disposition He was, kind to the blind, while David ordered them to be slain.4955 4955
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxxvi Pg 41
See 2 Sam. v. 8.
If all this were so, why did Marcion allege that the blind man’s faith was of so worthless4956 4956 Fidei equidem pravæ: see preceding page, note 3.
a stamp? The fact is,4957 4957 Atquin.
the Son of David so acted,4958 4958 Et hoc filius David: i.e., præstitit, “showed Himself good,” perhaps.
that the Antithesis must lose its point by its own absurdity.4959 4959 De suo retundendam. Instead of contrast, he shows the similarity of the cases.
Those persons who offended David were blind, and the man who now presents himself as a suppliant to David’s son is afflicted with the same infirmity.4960 4960 Ejusdem carnis: i.e., infirmæ (Oehler).
Therefore the Son of David was appeased with some sort of satisfaction by the blind man when He restored him to sight, and added His approval of the faith which had led him to believe the very truth, that he must win to his help4961 4961 Exorandum sibi.
the Son of David by earnest entreaty. But, after all, I suspect that it was the audacity (of the old Jebusites) which offended David, and not their malady.
Edersheim Bible History
Lifetimes xi.ix Pg 312.1
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 2
VERSE (7) - :9 2Sa 5:8 Jer 5:10
