Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts.

Acts 3:1-2

So this man was blind from birth and placed at this location every day. This implies to me that he was probably there for a number of years.

Given that Jesus had probably walked past him several times, only a few weeks earlier, would it be correct to say Jesus had not healed this individual? Or is there a flaw in my logic?

share|improve this question
4  
Possibly. Probably. I'm sure that there are many who were left unhealed by Jesus. –  swasheck May 15 '12 at 20:15
1  
Yes, I am sure of that. I am wondering if there are any clues in this specific instance. Eg. Maybe someone knows that Jesus would never have entered by this gate. –  Wikis May 15 '12 at 20:31
1  
After reading of Jesus' frequency in visiting the temple "I was with you day after day in the temple" (Luke 22:53), and his actions in the temple "the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them" (Matthew 21:15), it must have been exceptional circumstances that stopped this man from seeing or being healed by Jesus. I would assume that the man was not healed by Jesus for much the same reason the man blind from birth was healed by Jesus in John 9:3 "that the works of God might be displayed in him", this time by the apostles. –  Peter May 21 '12 at 6:03
2  
I think - The crippler was looking for alms not healing –  user653 Jun 29 '12 at 17:54
1  
You can't make an argument from silence. –  user3028 Dec 2 '13 at 13:27
show 2 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

There are only two possibilities:

  1. Jesus healed him, but the healing didn't 'take.

  2. Jesus did not heal him.

    1 is improbable, so what are the reasons that Jesus wouldn't have healed him?

a. They didn't cross paths. Though possible is not probable.

b. They crossed paths but Jesus chose not to heal him. This occurs other places:

Mt 13.58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

A plausible solution is that the beggar got his 'bread and butter' daily from the Pharisees who traversed there daily. To accommodate himself to them he probably joined in the banter mocking Jesus to secure his 'income'.

When word of his resurrection had spread, he could separate himself from the other scoffers. His approach to the apostles was probably a bit more humble.

share|improve this answer
add comment

protected by Daи Jan 9 at 17:19

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.