Thomas Aquinas Commentary John 9

After showing the enlightening power of His teaching by His own words, our Lord confirms this by His action when He gives sight to one physically blind.

Three things are presented in this passage:

1. The man’s infirmity.
2. His healing, beginning with the verse, when he had said these things, he spat on the ground.
3. A discussion among the Jews about this healing, beginning with, therefore the neighbors (John 9:8).

Regarding the first point, the man's infirmity, two things are covered:

• The man’s infirmity is mentioned.
• An inquiry is made about its cause, beginning with, and his disciples asked him.

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that Jesus hid Himself and left the temple. As He was passing by, He saw the blind man: and as Jesus passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. Three things are considered here.

First, He passed by to avoid the anger of the Jews: do not kindle the coals of a sinner, lest you be burned in his flaming fire . Second, He sought to soften their hardness of heart by performing a miracle: if I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin (John 15:24). Third, He went on His way to confirm His words by performing a sign, for our Lord’s works produce faith in what He says: he confirmed the message by the signs that attended it (Mark 16:20).

In the mystical sense, according to Augustine, this blind man represents the human race. Sin is a spiritual blindness: their wickedness blinded them . The human race is blind from birth because it contracted sin from its origin. This blindness occurred through the sin of the first man, from whom we all draw our origin. We read, we were by nature—that is, by natural origin—children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

Then, beginning with the phrase, and his disciples asked him, the cause of this man’s infirmity is discussed. This happens in two parts:

• First, the disciples ask about its cause.
• Second, Christ explains it, starting with, neither this man nor his parents sinned.

Regarding the first part, three things are to be considered. First is the reason the disciples questioned Christ. According to Chrysostom, this was because Jesus, after leaving the temple, saw this blind man and looked at him intently, as if seeing in him an opportunity to manifest His power. The disciples, seeing Him look so intently at the blind man, were then prompted to question Him.

Second, we see the seriousness of the disciples, for they say, Rabbi, calling him "teacher," to indicate that they are questioning him in order to learn.

Third, we see why they asked, who sinned? when they inquired into the reason for the man’s blindness.

According to Chrysostom, it must be said that because the Lord had said to the paralytic He healed, See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you (John 5:14), the disciples thought this man's infirmity was also due to sin. They also thought that every human illness arose from sin, as Eliphaz said: Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? (Job 4:7). Therefore, they asked whether he had been born blind because of his own sin or that of his parents.

It does not seem possible that it was because of his own sin, since no one sins before being born. Souls do not exist before their bodies, nor do they sin before birth, as some mistakenly think. As the Apostle writes, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad... not because of works but because of his call, she was told, “The older will serve the younger” (Romans 9:11–12). Nor does it seem that he suffered because of his parents' sin, for we read: The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers (Deuteronomy 24:16).

Note that people are punished with two kinds of punishment. One is spiritual and concerns the soul; the other is bodily and concerns the body. A child is never punished for his father's sake with a spiritual punishment, because a child's soul is not from his father but from God: All souls are mine, that is, by creation; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the child is mine: the soul that sins will be punished (Ezekiel 18:4). Augustine also says this in one of his letters. However, a child can be punished for his father's sake with a bodily punishment, since he is from his father as far as his body is concerned. This is shown explicitly when Sodom was destroyed, for the children of its inhabitants were killed because of their parents' sins (Genesis 19). Likewise, the Lord very often threatened to destroy the children of the Jews because of their parents' sins.

To understand why one person is punished for the sins of another, we must realize that punishment has two aspects: it is an affliction and it is a remedy. For example, a part of the body is sometimes cut off to save the whole body. A punishment of this kind causes an injury in that a part is removed, but it is a remedy in that it saves the body itself. Still, a doctor never removes a more important limb to save a less important one, but always the other way around.

In human affairs, the soul is superior to the body, and the body is superior to external possessions. Therefore, it never happens that someone is punished in his soul for the sake of his body; rather, he is punished in his body as a healing remedy for his soul. God, therefore, sometimes imposes physical punishments or difficulties with external things as a beneficial remedy for the soul. In such cases, these punishments are not given merely as injuries, but as healing remedies. Thus, the killing of the children of Sodom was for the good of their souls—not because they deserved it, but so that they would not be punished more severely for increasing their sins by living a life imitating their parents. In this way, some are often punished for the sins of their parents.

Then, with the words, Jesus answered, our Lord reveals the reason for the man’s infirmity. In three steps:

1. He excludes the reason the disciples assumed.
2. He states the real reason.
3. He explains it.

He excludes the reason they assumed when He says, It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, for the disciples had assumed this was the reason for his infirmity, as was stated.

But a contrary statement is found: all have sinned and are in need of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). And again, we read that sin has passed to all people from Adam.

I answer that both the blind man and his parents did contract original sin and even added other actual sins during their lives, for we read: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). But when the Lord says, neither this man nor his parents sinned, He means that the blindness did not come as a result of their sins. It is as if to say, "The man was not born blind because of their sins."

He states the real reason when He says, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. For through the works of God, we are led to a knowledge of Him: His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made (Romans 1:20); and, for the works that the Father has given me to accomplish... bear witness about me (John 5:36). But the knowledge of God is humanity's greatest good, since our happiness consists in this: Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3); and, let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me (Jeremiah 9:24). Therefore, if an infirmity occurs so that God’s works may be manifested, and God is made known through this manifestation, it is clear that such bodily infirmities occur for a good purpose.

It might seem that the manifestation of God’s works is not a sufficient reason for such an infirmity, especially since neither the man nor his parents had sinned in a way that caused it. Therefore, some say that the words, that the works of God might be displayed, do not indicate the cause but merely the sequence of events. The sense would then be: "The man was blind, and the works of God were manifested in his cure."

But this does not seem reasonable. It is better to say that the reason is indeed being given. For evil is twofold: the evil of fault (sin) and the evil of punishment. God does not cause the evil of fault, but He permits it. Yet He would not permit it unless He intended to bring some good from it. As Augustine says in his Enchiridion, "God is so good that He would never permit any evil to occur, unless He were so powerful as to draw some good from every evil." Therefore, He allows certain sins to be committed because He intends some good; in this way, He allows the rage of tyrants so that martyrs may be crowned.

Much more, therefore, should it be said that the evil of punishment—which He does cause, as it is said, Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it? (Amos 3:6)—is never applied except for the good He intends. Among these goods, the best is that the works of God be manifested, and that from them God may be known. Therefore, it is not unfitting for Him to send afflictions or allow sins to be committed so that some good may come from them.

It should be noted, as Gregory says in his Morals on the Book of Job, that God sends afflictions to people in five ways.

1. Sometimes they are the beginning of damnation: Strike them with a double punishment (Jeremiah 17:18). A sinner is struck with this kind of punishment in this life so that, without interruption, he might be punished endlessly in the next life. For example, Herod, who killed James, was punished in this life and also in hell (Acts 12:23).
2. Sometimes afflictions are sent as a correction, as we read: your discipline will teach me (Psalms 17:36).
3. Sometimes a person is afflicted not to correct past wrongs, but to preserve him from future ones, as we read of Paul: And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated (2 Corinthians 12:7).
4. Sometimes it is done to encourage virtue. This is when a person’s past sins are not being corrected, nor are future ones being prevented, but he is led to a stronger love by knowing the power of the one who unexpectedly delivered him from some difficulty: virtue is made perfect in infirmity (2 Corinthians 12:9); and, patience has its perfect work (James 1:4).
5. Finally, sometimes afflictions are sent to manifest the divine glory, as we read here: that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Next, Christ explains the true reason, beginning with, I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. Because He had mentioned God’s works, He proceeds in three steps:

1. He states the opportunity for manifesting God’s works.
2. He gives the reason for this opportunity: the night is coming, when no one can work.
3. He explains this with the phrase, as long as I am in the world.

He says, therefore, that this man was born blind that the works of God might be displayed in him. And it was necessary that they be displayed, for I must do the works of him who sent me. This can refer to Christ as a man, and in this sense, I must do the works of him who sent me means the works entrusted to me by my Father, as mentioned above: for the works that the Father has given to me (John 5:36). And later He says: Father, I have finished the work that you gave me to do (John 17:4).

Alternatively, these words can refer to Christ as God, and then they indicate the equality of His power with the Father's. The meaning is then, I must do the works of him who sent me, that is, the works which I have from the Father. For everything the Son does, even according to His divine nature, He has from His Father: The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing (John 5:19).

I must do the works of him who sent me while it is day. Our natural day is produced by the sun's presence to the earth. But the Sun of Justice is Christ, our God: But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness will rise (Malachi 4:2). Therefore, as long as this Sun is present to us, the works of God can be done in us, for us, and by us. At one time, this Sun was physically present to us, and then it was day: This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it (Psalms 118:24). Therefore, it was fitting to do the works of God. He is also present to us by grace, and then it is the day of grace, when it is fitting to do the works of God, while it is day. As the Apostle says, The night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light (Romans 13:12); and, those who sleep, sleep at night. You, however, are not in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:7).

If the sun's presence produces day and its absence produces night, then since the sun is always present to itself, it is always day for the sun. For the sun, it is always the time for acting and illuminating. But for us, to whom the sun is sometimes present and at other times absent, it is not always acting and illuminating. In the same way, for Christ, the Sun of Justice, it is always day and always the time for acting. This is not so with respect to us, however, because we are not always able to receive His grace due to some obstacle on our part.

He explains why this is our opportunity when He says, the night is coming, when no one can work. Just as there are two kinds of day, so there are two kinds of night. One kind of night is caused by the physical departure of the Sun of Justice. This is what the Apostles experienced when they were demoralized at the time of the Passion, when Christ was physically taken from them: You will all fall away because of me this night (Matthew 26:31). Then it was not a time for acting, but for suffering.

However, it is better to say that even when Christ was physically absent after His ascension, it was still day for the Apostles, because the Sun of Justice shone on them, and it was a time for working. Therefore, "night" in this passage refers to the night that comes from a spiritual separation from the Sun of Justice—that is, a separation from grace. This night is of two kinds. One is the loss of actual grace through mortal sin: those who sleep, sleep at night (1 Thessalonians 5:7). When this night comes, no one can perform works that merit eternal life.

The other night is total, when one is deprived not only of actual grace by mortal sin, but even of the ability to obtain grace because of eternal damnation in hell. Here there is a vast night for those to whom it will be said, depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire (Matthew 25:41). During this night, no one can work, because it is not the time for meriting, but for receiving what one has merited. Therefore, while you are living, do now what you will wish to have done then: Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going (Ecclesiastes 9:10).

He gives the reason for what He has just said, stating, As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. This is like saying, "If you want to know what this day and night are of which I speak, I say that I am the light of the world (John 8:12), for my presence makes day, and my absence makes night."

As long as I am in the world by my bodily presence—I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father (John 16:28)—I am the light of the world. In this sense, this day lasted until the ascension of Christ. Alternatively, as long as I am in the world spiritually by grace—I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20)—I am the light of the world. In this sense, this day will last until the end of the world.

Next, when the Evangelist says, When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, he describes the healing of the blind man. Here, Christ did five things:

1. He moistened the earth: he spat on the ground.
2. He made clay: he made clay of the spittle.
3. He smeared the man’s eyes: and he spread the clay on his eyes.
4. He commanded the man to wash: Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.
5. The man’s sight was restored: and he came back seeing.

Each of these actions has both a literal and a mystical explanation.

The literal meaning is explained by Chrysostom in this way. Christ restored the man’s sight with spittle to show that He accomplished this by a power coming from Himself, and that the miracle should not be attributed to anything else: power came out from him (Luke 6:19). Although our Lord could have performed all His miracles by His word alone, because he commanded and they were created (Psalms 148:5), He frequently used His body in them to show that it held a definite healing power as an instrument of His divinity.

He made clay from His spittle to show that He who had formed the first man from clay could also reform the deficient members of a man. Thus, just as He formed the first man from clay, so He made clay to re-form the eyes of the one born blind.

He rubbed the clay on the eyes of the one born blind to show, by healing the most important part of the body, that He was the creator of bodies. For man is more excellent than all other bodily substances; among his members, the head is the most excellent; and among the organs of the head, the eye is more excellent than the others: The eye is the lamp of the body (Matthew 6:22). Therefore, by repairing the eye, which is more excellent than other bodily members, He showed that He was the creator of the entire man and of all physical nature.

He said, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, so that it would not seem that the clay He rubbed on the eyes had the power to heal them. Thus, as long as the man had the clay on his eyes, he did not see; he saw only after he washed.

He sent him some distance to wash at the pool of Siloam for two reasons. First, to overcome the obstinacy of the Jews. For the man had to cross the city, and so all would see him going with clay on his eyes and then returning with his sight restored. Second, He did this to highlight the obedience and faith of the blind man. Perhaps the man had frequently had clay put on his face and had often washed in the pool of Siloam, yet had not seen. He could have said, "Clay usually makes it worse, and I have often washed in the pool but was never helped," as we read of Naaman (2 Kings 5:10). Yet he did not argue, but simply obeyed. Thus it follows, So he went and washed. The reason He sent him to the pool of Siloam was because the Jewish people were signified by that water: because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently (Isaiah 8:6). Therefore, He sent him to Siloam to show that He still loved the Jewish people.

The effect follows, because he came back seeing. This was predicted: Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened (Isaiah 35:5).

Augustine gives the mystical and allegorical explanation. He says that the spittle, which is saliva descending from the head, signifies the Word of God, who proceeds from the Father, the head of all things: I came forth from the mouth of the Most High . Therefore, the Lord made clay from spittle and earth when the Word was made flesh.

He spread the clay on his eyes—that is, on the eyes of the human race. These are the eyes of the heart, anointed by faith in the incarnation of Christ. But the blind man did not yet see, because this anointing makes one a catechumen, who has faith but has not yet been baptized. So He sends him to the pool of Siloam to wash and receive his sight—that is, to be baptized and in baptism to receive full enlightenment. Thus, according to Dionysius, baptism is an enlightenment: I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses (Ezekiel 36:25). This Gospel is therefore appropriately read during Lent, on Holy Saturday, when those about to be baptized are examined.

Nor is it without reason that the Evangelist adds the meaning of the pool, saying, which means Sent. This is because whoever is baptized must be baptized in Christ, who was sent by the Father: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27). For if Christ had not been sent, none of us would have been freed from sin.

According to Gregory, however, the spittle signifies the taste of intimate contemplation, which flows from the head into the mouth, because through love for our Creator we have been touched even in this life with the taste of revelation. Thus, the Lord mixed spittle with earth and restored sight to the man born blind, since supernatural grace illuminates our carnal understanding by the admixture of His contemplation and heals our understanding from its original blindness.

1. After describing the miraculous healing of the blind man, the Evangelist tells of the miracle being examined. The miracle is examined in three stages:

   • First, by the people.
   • Second, by the Pharisees and rulers: they brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees.
   • Third, on account of his confession, the blind man is instructed and commended by Christ: Jesus heard that they had cast him out (John 9:35).

   Regarding the first stage, the Evangelist mentions three things:

   • First, an inquiry about the person who received his sight.
   • Second, an inquiry about the restoration itself: therefore they said to him.
   • Third, an inquiry about the one who restored his sight: and they said to him: where is he?

   Regarding the inquiry about the person, he does three things:

   • First, a question is raised about the one who received his sight.
   • Second, the different opinions about this are given.
   • Third, the question is settled.

2. The question is asked by the people. He says, therefore the neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar said: is this not he who sat and begged?

   Here, two things are to be considered. One is that due to the greatness of the miracle, it was considered incredible. So we read: from the beginning of the world it has not been heard that any man has opened the eyes of one born blind (John 9:32). This fulfills for them what is said: I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told (Habakkuk 1:5).

   Second, we should note the wonderful compassion of God, because our Lord performs miracles not only for the powerful but also for outcasts, since he healed, with great pity, those who begged. This shows that he who came for our salvation rejected no one because of their poverty: has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom? (James 2:5). Thus they explicitly say, is this not he who sat and begged? This is like saying, “He is an outcast and does not deserve to be cured.” But the opposite is said: the giants who were born there . . . God did not choose them .

3. The opinions of the people are presented when he says, some said: this is he, because they had often seen him begging, and later hurrying through the town when he went to the pool with the clay on his eyes. Thus they could not deny that it was he. But others held the contrary opinion, so they said, no, but he is like him. The reason for this, as Augustine says, is that the man’s appearance changed when he regained his sight, for nothing is so characteristic as the expression a person gets from his eyes: a sensible man is known by his face .

4. The question is settled by the man himself, because he, the formerly blind man, said, I am he, the one who used to beg. His voice was grateful, so that he would not be guilty of ingratitude. Since he could not be ungrateful for such a great favor and was unable to show any other sign of gratitude than to constantly declare that he had been cured by Christ, he said, I am he, the one who was blind and begged; and now I see. Bless the God of heaven, give glory to him in the sight of all that live, for he has shown his mercy to you .

5. Then, they said therefore to him: how were your eyes opened? Here we see the investigation of the act, which was the restoration of the man’s sight.

   • First, we have the question asked by the Jews.
   • Second, the answer of the man who was blind: he answered: that man who is called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes.

6. They continue: if you are the blind man who used to beg, then tell us, how were your eyes opened? This question came from their vain curiosity because neither the one who was cured nor we ourselves know how it was done: do not meddle in what is beyond your tasks .

7. The man’s answer was remarkable; he says, that man who is called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes, and said to me: go to the pool of Siloam and wash. In his answer he makes several points.

   1. He points out the person who gave him his sight, saying that man who is called Jesus. He was right in calling him a man; he knew that he was a man, and he was a true man: born in the likeness of man (Philippians 2:7). For although he had not seen Jesus, because he had left while still blind to go to Siloam, he knew him from listening and from the conversations of others about him.

   2. He tells what was done, saying, he made clay and anointed my eyes. Here he shows that he is truthful, not asserting what is not certain. For our Lord had made clay from spittle, but the man did not know this; yet through his sense of touch he recognized the clay which was made and placed over his eyes. So he did not say, “He made clay from spittle,” but only, made clay and anointed my eyes. That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands . . . we proclaim also to you (1 John 1:1).

   3. He mentions the command, saying, and said to me, go to the pool of Siloam and wash. This was also necessary for us, for if we wish to be cleansed from our blindness of heart, it is necessary that we be spiritually washed: wash yourselves; make yourselves clean (Isaiah 1:16).

   4. He shows his obedience, saying, and I went, and I washed. He is saying in effect, “Because I heard this command and desired to see, I obeyed.” And it is no wonder, because we read: for the commandment, that is, when obeyed, is a lamp and the teaching a light (Proverbs 6:23).

   5. He mentions the good effect, saying, and I see. It was fitting that he be enlightened after obeying, because as it says: it is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him (Acts 5:32). Notice the perseverance of this man. As Augustine says, “Look at him! He became a preacher of grace. See him! He preaches and testifies to the Jews. This blind man testified, and the hearts of the wicked were vexed, because they did not have the light in their hearts which he had in his face.”

8. Next, we have the inquiry about the person who restored his sight: and they said to him: where is he? He said: I do not know. First, there is the question asked by the Jews, where is he? They asked this maliciously, as they were thinking of killing him, for they had already formed a conspiracy against Christ: but now you seek to kill me (John 8:40).

   Second, we have the man’s answer, I do not know. As Augustine says, from these words it is clear that what was accomplished in him physically represents what is accomplished spiritually at different stages. For at first, the blind man is anointed, and then sees after his washing. The anointing represents the beginning of his physical health, and the washing leads to complete health. In particular, an anointing produces a catechumen, and the washing—that is, baptism—perfects and enlightens him. Thus we have a representation of the difference in faith found at different stages. For when he says, I do not know, this represents the imperfect faith of catechumens: you adore that which we do know (John 4:22). This can also signify our faith: for our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect (1 Corinthians 13:9).

9. Then when he says, they brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees, we see his examination by the Pharisees. This examination has two parts:

   • First, they question the man born blind.
   • Second, they question his parents: the Jews then did not believe.

   In the first part, he does three things:

   • First, we see the person to be examined.
   • Second, he mentions the intention of the examiners.
   • Third, we have the interrogation itself.

10. The one to be examined, the formerly blind man, is led to the Pharisees by the people. They, that is, the crowd, brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees. They did this because the crowd was trying to find out from him where Jesus was, so that if they found him they could bring him to the Pharisees and accuse him of breaking the Sabbath. So because they did not have Christ, they took the man, so that by questioning him more roughly they might force him by fear to make up something false about Christ: I will go to the great, and will speak to them; for they know the way of the Lord, the law of their God. But they all alike had broken the yoke, they had burst the bonds (Jeremiah 5:5).

11. The Evangelist shows that their intention was perverse, saying, it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. He says this to show their evil intention and the reason why they sought Jesus: namely, to find a charge against him and detract from his miracle by his supposed violation of the law. Nevertheless, it should be said that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8).

12. His examination is conducted by the Pharisees, since it is said, again therefore the Pharisees asked him how he had received his sight. They question him about two things:

    • First, about what was done.
    • Second, about the person who did it: some of the Pharisees said.

13. The Evangelist does two things regarding the first point: first, he presents their interrogation; second, the man’s answer.

    They ask him about the sign he received, again therefore the Pharisees asked him how he had received his sight, not in order to learn, but to find a reason to accuse him of lying.

    p>The man answers them, not contradicting what he said before, nor deviating from the truth. He, that is, the man, said to them, he put clay on my eyes. We must, first, admire the perseverance of this man. Although it may not seem such a great thing to have spoken the truth when he, without danger, was questioned by the crowd, he showed remarkable perseverance when in greater danger before the Pharisees he neither denied what he had said before nor changed his account: I will also speak of your testimonies before kings, and will not be put to shame (Psalms 119:46). Second, we should admire his skill, for it is good practice to first relate an event in detail and with all its circumstances, and then if it has to be repeated, to speak more concisely. So here, he does not repeat the name of the one who spoke to him, nor that he said to me: go and wash. But without hesitation he relays only the essential, and says, he put clay on my eyes.

14. Next, an inquiry is made about the one who restored the man’s sight: some of the Pharisees said: this man is not of God . . . But others said: how is a man who is a sinner able to do such miracles?

    • First, the different opinions of the Pharisees concerning Christ are given.
    • Second, the opinion of the man is sought: therefore they said to the blind man again.

    Regarding the first point, he does three things:

    • First, he presents the opinion of those who were blaspheming Christ.
    • Then, the opinion of those who were commending him.
    • Third, he concludes with the fact that they were arguing and disagreeing among themselves.

15. We should note, concerning the first point, that those who act maliciously against someone keep silent if they see anything good in his work. They reveal the evil, if any is seen, even turning what is good into evil, as it is written: beware of a scoundrel, for he devises evil, lest he give you a lasting blemish . This is what they are doing here: for they do not mention what seemed good—that is, the restoration of the man’s sight—but stress what they can against Christ, that is, his breaking of the Sabbath. Thus some of the Pharisees said, that is, those who were malicious and corrupt, this man is not from God, who does not keep the Sabbath. But Christ did keep the Sabbath, for when the Lord forbade work on the Sabbath he had in mind servile work, which is a sin: whoever commits sin is the slave of sin (John 8:34). Therefore, he who performs works of sin on the Sabbath breaks the Sabbath. So Christ, who was without sin, kept the Sabbath, rather than they.

16. The opinion of those commending him is presented when he reports them as saying, how is a man who is a sinner able to do such miracles? These others had some faith due to the signs that Christ worked, but were still weak and imperfect. It was out of fear of the Pharisees and the elders that they asked with hesitation, how is a man who is a sinner able to do such miracles? We read below that many of the chief men also believed in him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him (John 12:42). They should have shown how our Lord had not broken the Sabbath and have appropriately replied in defense of Jesus.

17. The difference of opinion among them is mentioned when he says, and there was division among them; and this division was also found in the people. This was a sign of their destruction: their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt (Hosea 10:2); every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste (Matthew 12:25).

18. Next, at what do you say about him who opened your eyes? they ask the man for his opinion. First we have the question the Pharisees asked; second, the man’s answer.

    They question him, saying, what do you say about him? According to Chrysostom, this question was not asked by those who were blaspheming Christ, but by those favorably disposed. This is clear from the way they questioned him, for they call his attention to the gift he received, saying, what do you say about him who opened your eyes? If the others had been doing the questioning, they would not have said this, but would rather recall that Christ broke the Sabbath. But these remind him of the benefit that he received to make him grateful and lead him to testify to Christ. But according to Augustine, this question was asked by Christ’s enemies, who wanted to discredit this man who constantly professed the truth, or they were trying to get him to change his opinion out of fear, or at least were attempting to exclude him from the synagogue.

    The man’s answer remained the same: and he said: he is a prophet. Although up to this time, as though unanointed in heart, he did not yet profess that Christ was the Son of God, he firmly expressed what he thought and did not lie. For our Lord said of himself: a prophet is not without honor except in his own country (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4); the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet . . . him will you hear (Deuteronomy 18:15).

19. Next, at the Jews then did not believe, we see his parents questioned. This section has four parts:

    • First, we have the reason why they were questioned.
    • Second, the question itself: and they asked.
    • Third, their answer: his parents answered them.
    • Fourth, the reason for this answer: these things his parents said.

20. The reason for this second questioning was the unbelief of the Pharisees. He says, the Jews, that is, the Pharisees, did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who received his sight. They did this in an attempt to nullify the miracle of Christ and to preserve their own glory: how are you able to believe who receive glory from one another? (John 5:44).

21. The Pharisees now question his parents. Here they ask about three things. First, about their son, saying is this your son? Which is like saying, “Surely this is not he?”

    Second, about his blindness; and so they add, who you say was born blind. They did not say, “who at one time was blind,” but who you say, as if to say, “You made this up. Surely it is not true?” But what father would lie in such a way about his son? Yet they were trying to make him say he did.

    Third, they ask how he had obtained his sight, how does he now see? This was like saying, “Either it is false that he now sees, or that he was once blind; but obviously the truth is that he sees; therefore it was false to say that he had been blind.” The powerful man will test you through much talking, and while he smiles he will be examining you .

22. Then, the answer of his parents is given: his parents answered them and said: we know that this is our son and that he was born blind. The Pharisees had asked about three things; they answer firmly about two and, in regard to the third, they refer them to their son. First, they admit the first point, namely, that he is their son; so they say, we know that this is our son. They also admit the second when they add, and that he was born blind. This shows that the truth always conquers what is false, as we read in the apocryphal Ezra: truth conquers all (Ezra 3:13). Yet as to the third question, how their son sees, they answer, but how he now sees we do not know. They reply, second, about the person who gave him his sight, nor do we know who opened his eyes. They answer this way because the question was directed against the one who gave sight to their son, and so they refer this to their son, saying, ask him, he is of age, he speaks for himself. This was like saying, “He was born blind, not mute; thus he can speak for himself in this matter.” The testimony about this miracle was from several sources so as to make it more believable: the parents told what they knew, and their son confirmed that he had been cured.

23. The reason for their answer is given when he says, his parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for they were still imperfect and did not dare do what our Lord says: do not fear those who kill the body (Matthew 10:28). The reason for their fear was for the Jews had already agreed among themselves that, if any man should confess him to be the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. And, these things have I spoken to you, that you may not be scandalized (John 16:1). As Augustine says, “It was no longer an evil to be cast out of the synagogue, for the ones they rejected, Christ welcomed.”

1. After the questioning of the blind man and his parents, an attempt is made to make him deny the truth and affirm what is false. They do this in three steps:

1. They attempt to make him deny the truth.
2. They revile him.
3. They condemn him.

The second step begins with the words, they reviled him therefore; the third begins with, they answered, and said to him: you were completely born in sins.

Regarding the first step, the Evangelist does two things:

1. He shows how they tried to get the man born blind to deny the truth.
2. He shows how they continued to question him in order to slander him: they then said to him: what did he do to you?

Concerning their attempt to make him deny the truth, the Evangelist again does two things:

1. He shows their malice.
2. He shows the steadfastness of the man born blind: therefore he said to them.

The malice of the Pharisees is shown by their attempt to have him deny the truth, while the steadfastness of the man appears in his resolute profession of the truth.

2. Regarding the first point, the text says, they therefore called the man again who had been blind, for his parents had referred them back to him, and said to him: give the glory to God. They say one thing but mean another. They wish to force him to say that his sight was not restored by Christ, or failing that, to force him to admit that he was cured by Christ through sorcery. They do not say this openly, but implicitly, with an appearance of devotion.

They attempt this by saying, give the glory to God. It is as if they were saying: “Your sight has been given to you, but only God can do this. Therefore, you should not attribute this to anyone but God, and certainly not to this man, Christ. If you do, you are indicating that you have not received the gift of your healing from God, because God does not perform miracles through sinners.” This is why they add, we know that this man is a sinner, as if to say: “To prove that this man has done nothing, you must deny what you have said.”

But, as Augustine says, if the man had done this, he would not be giving glory to God but would be blaspheming by his ingratitude. In truth, the Pharisees were lying when they said, we know that this man is a sinner. They could not convict him of sin, and he himself said, who among you will convict me of sin? (John 8:46). And no wonder, because he committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips (1 Peter 2:22).

3. Here we see the steadfastness of the man. Amazed at the hardness of the Pharisees and impatient with what they were saying, he says in all truth, if he is a sinner, I do not know.

Yet, since he had said before that he is a prophet (John 9:17), is he now speaking out of fear, as if he were doubtful? Not at all. Rather, he is angry and mocking the Pharisees. He is saying, in effect: “You assert that he is a sinner, but I do not know that he is, and I am amazed that you claim this, because he performed a work that does not seem to be the work of a sinner. One thing I know, that before I was blind but now I see, by his kindness.” According to Augustine, he said this in order not to be slandered or to conceal the truth. For perhaps if he had said, “I know that he is a just man,” which was true, they would have slandered him. But according to Chrysostom, he said this to give them a more impressive testimony to the miracle and to make his answer believable by calling attention to the gift he received.

4. They again question the man in order to slander him. This section contains two parts:

1. The cunning interrogation of the Pharisees.
2. The contemptuous reply of the man: he answered them: I have told you already.

5. Regarding the first part, the text says, they said to him: what did he do to you? The man had confessed that he received his sight from Christ, which was not what they were asking. Instead, they intended to slander Christ with their line of questioning. So they did not ask, “How is it that you see?” but how did he open your eyes? It was like saying, “He did this by some trick or sorcery, didn’t he?” As it is written, those who seek my hurt speak of ruin, and meditate treachery all the day long (Psalms 38:12).

6. Now the man’s answer is given. Because he had truly received his sight, he answers them boldly, not timidly. First, he belittles their repeated questioning, saying, I have told you already and you have heard: why do you want to hear it again? This was like saying: “I told you once. Why do you want to hear it again? That is foolish. It seems you are not paying attention to what I am saying. So, I have nothing further to say to you, because your questioning is useless, and you want to quibble rather than learn.” As it is written: he who tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man; and at the end he will say: what is it? .

Second, he mocks the presumptuous intention of the Pharisees, saying, will you also become his disciples? When someone carefully investigates a matter, he does so either with a good intention (to accept it) or with an evil intention (to condemn it). Since the Pharisees were investigating this carefully, and because the man did not dare to accuse them of an evil intention, he takes the other alternative, saying, will you also become his disciples? He means by this: “If you are not investigating this maliciously, then you must wish to join him.” As it is written, can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil (Jeremiah 13:23). As Augustine says, the one who had received his sight gladly desired to give them light. Thus, he significantly says, will you also, implying that he himself was a disciple. He is saying in effect: “Will you also become his disciples, as I am? I already see, and I do not envy your coming to the light.” And as Chrysostom says, from the steadfastness of this man we can see how strong truth really is, for when it convinces the lowly, it makes them noble and strong. We can also see how weak a lie is, for even if it is maintained by the powerful, it only shows them to be weak.

7. Next, the Pharisees revile the man. This section has two parts:

1. We see them revile him.
2. We see the man’s defense: the man answered.

Concerning the first part, the author does two things:

1. He presents the reviling of the Pharisees.
2. He presents the reason behind it: but we are the disciples of Moses.

8. With respect to the first point, he says, and they reviled him therefore and said: you are his disciple. This is, indeed, scornful, if you consider their vicious hearts. But if you consider their words, it is the greatest blessing. May we and our children be treated with such scorn! If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples (John 8:31). Still, the Evangelist stated that they reviled him by saying this because their words came from evil hearts: like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are smooth lips with an evil heart (Proverbs 26:23). We read about this reviling elsewhere: let them curse, but you bless (Psalms 109:28); and: blessed are you when men revile you (Matthew 5:11).

9. He next adds the reason for their reviling when he says, we are the disciples of Moses. They were thinking of how they were ridiculed by the man when he asked if they wanted to become Christ’s disciples, for they took pride in being disciples of Moses, whom they thought was greater. First, they state their own position, saying, we are the disciples of Moses. Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice . But this pride of theirs is false, because they neither followed Moses nor fulfilled his commands: if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also (John 5:46). This was like saying: “You do not follow the servant, and then you go against his Lord.”

Second, they praise the dignity of Moses when they say, we know that God spoke to Moses. Here they are telling the truth, for as we read: the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Exodus 33:11); and, if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth (Numbers 12:6). Thus God spoke to Moses in a more excellent way than to the other prophets, and this is what they are speaking about. However, it is clear that since God spoke his Word to Moses, the dignity of Moses came from the Word of God. And so the Word of God is of greater dignity than Moses: yet Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more honor than the house (Hebrews 3:3).

Third, they hint at the dignity of Christ in a veiled manner when they say, as for this man, Christ, we do not know from where he comes. This is true, but not in the way they understood it, for they did not know the Father, and Christ was from the Father: you know neither me nor my Father (John 8:19). But their statement is false as they understood it. When they said, we do not know from where he comes, they meant he had no authority and was unverified, so that it was not clear whether he came from God. They seem to be applying to him the words: I did not send the prophets, yet they ran (Jeremiah 23:21).

10. Now, the man’s argument against the Pharisees is presented. In it, he does two things:

1. He is amazed at their hardness of heart.
2. He refutes their false opinion: now we know that God does not hear sinners.

11. Concerning the first point, we must recall that we are not amazed at what happens frequently and in the usual way; we are amazed at what is unusual and great, whether good or evil. We are struck by unusual and great good: you are wonderful, my Lord, and your countenance is full of grace (Esther 15:17). We are also amazed at great evil: be appalled, O heavens, at this... for my people have committed two evils (Jeremiah 2:12).

In line with this, the man says in answer, why, this is a marvel! You do not know from where he comes. He is saying in effect: “It would not be remarkable if you regarded someone insignificant like me as having no authority. But it is extremely amazing that you can see an explicit and evident sign of divine power in Christ and still say that you do not know where he comes from, especially since he opened my eyes.”

12. The man refutes their false opinion by saying, we know that God does not hear sinners. He is reasoning this way: whoever God hears is from God; but God heard Christ; therefore, Christ is from God.

He first states his main premise, then the minor premise (from the beginning of the world), and third, he draws his conclusion: unless this man were of God, he could not do anything.

Regarding the main premise, he does two things:

1. He mentions those whom God does not hear.
2. He mentions those God does hear: but if a man is a servant of God and does his will, he hears him.

13. God does not hear sinners. In regard to this he says, we know that God does not hear sinners. He is saying: “Both you and I agree that sinners are not heard by God.” Thus it is said, they cried to the Lord and he did not hear them (Psalms 17:42); and again, then they will call upon me, but I will not hear (Proverbs 1:28).

But there are statements which contradict this: if they sin against you—for there is no man who does not sin—but later repent with all their heart, then hear from heaven and forgive your people (2 Chronicles 6:36–39); and we read that the tax collector went down to his house justified (Luke 18:14). Because of this, Augustine says that this man is speaking as one who has not yet been fully enlightened, as one who does not yet have complete knowledge. For God does hear sinners; otherwise, it would have been futile for the tax collector to have prayed, God, be merciful to me a sinner (Luke 18:13).

Accordingly, if we wish to preserve the man’s statement, we must say that God does not hear those sinners who persist in their sinning. But he does hear those sinners who are sorry for their sins, who should be regarded more as repentant than as sinners.

14. Yet there is a difficulty here. It is clear that miracles are not accomplished by our own power, but through prayer. But sinners often perform miracles: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name... and do many mighty works in your name? (Matthew 7:22). And yet God did not know them. Thus, what the man said does not seem to be true, namely, we know that God does not hear sinners.

There are two answers to this. The first is general. Prayer can both obtain what it asks for and merit a reward. Thus, sometimes it obtains what it asks for but does not merit a reward; at other times, it merits a reward but does not obtain what it asks for. And so, nothing prevents the prayer of a sinner from obtaining what it asks, although it does not merit a reward. This is the way that God hears sinners: not as a matter of merit, but they obtain what they ask from the divine power, which they acknowledge. The other answer is specific and applies to this particular case, where the miracle that was performed makes known the person of Christ.

15. It should be mentioned that every miracle is a kind of testimony. Sometimes, a miracle is a testimony to the truth that is being preached; at other times, it is a testimony to the person performing it. We must also realize that no true miracle happens except by divine power, and that God is never a witness to a lie. I say, therefore, that whenever a miracle is performed in testimony to a doctrine being preached, that doctrine must be true, even if the person preaching it is not good. But when it is performed in testimony to the person, it is also necessary that the person be good. Now it is evident that the miracles of Christ were performed in testimony to his person: for the works that the Father has given to me to accomplish... bear witness about me (John 5:36). It was with this meaning that the man said that God does not hear sinners—that is, God does not hear them so that they could perform miracles as a testimony to their supposed holiness.

16. Then when he says, but if a man is a servant of God and does his will, he hears him, he shows that God hears the just through merit.

We must realize that performing miracles is attributed to faith: if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will be done (Matthew 21:21). The reason for this is that miracles are accomplished by the omnipotence of God, on which faith relies. Therefore, whoever wishes to obtain something from God has to have faith: let him ask in faith (James 1:6). However, if he wishes to obtain it through merit, he must do God’s will. These two conditions are mentioned here. As to the first, he says, if a man is a servant of God, by sacrifices and offerings: they will worship him with sacrifice and burnt offering (Isaiah 19:21). These belong to the worship of latria, which attests to one’s faith. As to the second, he says, and does his will by obeying his commandments, he hears him.

17. Here he takes the minor premise of his argument. He is saying: “Because of what Christ did, which no man has ever done, it is obvious that he did this by the action of God, and that he has been heard by God.” If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin (John 15:24).

18. Next, he draws his conclusion. He is saying, in effect: “From the kind of works that Christ does, it is obvious that he is from God.” For unless this man were of God, he could not do anything—that is, freely, often, and truly: for without me you can do nothing (John 15:5).

19. Here the Pharisees condemn the man. In this condemnation, they fall into three sins: untruth, pride, and injustice.

They fall into untruth by reviling the man, saying, you were completely born in sins. Here it should be noted that the Jews were of the opinion that all infirmities and temporal adversities afflict us on account of our previous sins. This was the opinion given by Eliphaz: think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same. By the breath of God they perish (Job 4:7). The reason for this opinion is that in the Old Law, temporal goods were promised to the good, and temporal punishment to the evil: if you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good of the land (Isaiah 1:19). Therefore, seeing that this man had been born blind, they believed that this happened on account of his sins, and so they say, you were completely born in sins. But they were wrong, because the Lord said, it was not that this man sinned, or his parents (John 9:3). There is a lying rebuke in the anger of an injurious man .

They say completely to show that he is defiled by sins not only in his soul, as all of us are born sinners, but even in the traces of sin that appear in his body, such as blindness. Or according to Chrysostom, completely means that he was in sin all his life, from his earliest years.

They are guilty of pride by rejecting what the man was teaching, when they say, you are teaching us? This was like saying, “You are not worthy.” This makes their pride clear, for no person, no matter how wise, ought to reject being taught by an inferior. Thus the Apostle teaches that if something is revealed to one who is inferior, those who are greater should keep silent and listen (1 Corinthians 14:30). In Daniel, we read that all the people, including the elders, listened to the judgment of a young boy, Daniel, whose spirit had been raised up by God (Daniel 13:45-62).

They are guilty of injustice by unjustly casting him out. Thus we read, and they cast him out, because he spoke the truth. However, in this man, what our Lord had said is already fulfilled: blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man (Luke 6:22).

1. After the Evangelist showed how the Jews cast out the man born blind because he persisted in the truth, he now shows how Jesus received and taught him.

   First, we see Christ teaching him; second, the devotion of the man born blind, who said, I believe, Lord; and third, the approval of his devotion, when Jesus said, For judgment I came into this world.

   Regarding the first point, Christ’s teaching, the Evangelist does three things. First, he shows Christ’s eagerness to teach him; second, we see the man’s desire to believe, when he answered and said, "Who is he, Lord?"; and third, the teaching of the faith is given to perfect him, when Jesus said to him, "You have seen him."

2. Christ’s eagerness to teach is described in three ways. First, by His attentive consideration of what was done to the man. Just as a prince carefully considers what his champion endures for his sake, so Christ attentively considered what the man born blind underwent for the sake of the truth. And so he says that Jesus heard—that is, attentively considered—that they, the Pharisees, had cast him out of the temple. Give heed to me, O Lord, and to the voices of my adversaries (Jeremiah 18:19).

   Second, Christ’s eagerness is seen from His efforts in searching for the man, for the Evangelist says, and when he had found him, he said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" We are said to find what we diligently seek: she seeks diligently, until she finds it (Luke 15:8). It is clear from this that Christ was looking for him alone, because He found more faith in this one man than in all the others. We can see from this that God loves one just person more than ten thousand sinners: I will make men more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir (Isaiah 13:12). And in Genesis, we read that God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of ten just men (Genesis 17).

   Third, our Lord’s eagerness is seen from the seriousness of His question; he said to him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" The blind man was a figure of those to be baptized. Thus, the custom arose in the Church of questioning those to be baptized about their faith: Baptism... now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clean conscience (1 Peter 3:21).

   When asked about his faith, Jesus does not say, "Do you believe in Christ?" but rather, Do you believe in the Son of God? He does this, as Hilary says, to counter the future error of those who would profess Christ yet deny that He is the Son of God and truly God, as Arius did. These words clearly exclude this error, for if Christ were not God, we would not have to believe in Him, since God alone is the object of faith, which rests on the first truth. For I can certainly believe a creature, such as Peter or Paul, yet I do not believe in Peter; I believe in God alone as the object of faith. Thus, it is clear that the Son of God is not a creature: You believe in God, believe also in me (John 14:1).

3. Next, the Evangelist mentions the man’s desire to believe. We must recall that this man had not yet physically seen Christ, for he had not seen Him when Christ anointed his eyes and sent him to the pool of Siloam. When he wanted to return to Jesus, he was detained by the Pharisees and the Jews. However, although he had not physically seen Jesus, he believed that the one who opened his eyes was the Son of God. And so he breaks out in words of desire and intense longing, saying, And who is he, Lord—that is, the Son of God who opened my eyes—that I may believe in him? It is clear from this that he knew some things about Jesus but was ignorant of others. For if he had known nothing, he would not have argued so firmly on His behalf; and if he had not been ignorant of other things, he certainly would not have asked, Who is he, Lord? My soul yearns for you in the night (Isaiah 26:9), that is, in the night of ignorance.

4. Because Wisdom goes about seeking those worthy of her , Christ reveals Himself to the man who desired Him, saying, You have seen him, and it is he who talks with you. Here, Christ gives him a teaching of faith. First, He mentions the gift the man received, saying, You have seen him, meaning, "You, who did not see before, have now seen Him." He is saying, in effect, that the man born blind received the ability to see from Him. As it is written, Blessed are the eyes which see what you see (Luke 10:23), and, Lord, now let your servant depart in peace... for my eyes have seen your salvation (Luke 2:29). Second, the teaching itself is given when He says, it is he who talks with you. In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son (Hebrews 1:2).

   These words refute the error of Nestorius, who said that in Christ the suppositum of the Son of God is different from the suppositum of the Son of Man. They refute it because the one who spoke these words was born from Mary and was the Son of Man, and this very same one is the Son of God, as our Lord says. Therefore, there are not two supposita in Christ, although the natures are not the same.

5. Then, when the Evangelist says, He said, "I believe, Lord," we see the devout faith of the man born blind. First, he professes with his lips the faith in his heart, saying, I believe, Lord. Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved (Romans 10:10). Second, he shows it in his conduct: and falling down, he worshiped him. This shows that he believes in the divine nature of Christ, because those whose consciences have been cleansed know Christ not only as the Son of Man, which was externally obvious, but as the Son of God, who had taken on flesh. For worship is due to God alone: You will adore the Lord, your God (Deuteronomy 6:13).

6. Next, with the words, And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world," the devotion of the man born blind is commended. First, his devotion is commended; second, we see the grumbling of the Jews, at and some of the Pharisees; and then they are answered, at Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin."

7. The man born blind is commended for his faith. We read, For judgment I came into this world.

   Against this, we also read, For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17).

   I answer that the second statement speaks of the judgment of condemnation, about which we read that they who have done evil will go to the resurrection of judgment (John 5:29), that is, to a judgment of condemnation. God did not send His Son for this purpose at His first coming; He was sent to save us. But here, in the present statement, He is speaking of the judgment of distinction, about which we read, Vindicate me, O Lord, and distinguish my cause (Psalms 43:1). For Jesus came to distinguish the good from the evil.

   The words that follow show this: that they who do not see, may see, and that they who see, may become blind. According to Augustine, those who think they see do not see, and those who do not think they see, do see. We are said to be spiritually blind insofar as we sin: Their wickedness blinded them . Thus, one who does not recognize his own sins regards himself as seeing, while one who recognizes himself as a sinner regards himself as not seeing. The first is characteristic of the proud; the second, of the humble.

   So the meaning is this: I have come to distinguish the humble from the proud, so that the humble, who do not see—that is, who regard themselves as sinners—may see, having been illuminated by faith, and that they who see—that is, the proud—may become blind, that is, may remain in the darkness.

8. Chrysostom understands this passage in terms of the judgment of condemnation, so that the statement, For judgment I came into this world, is not understood in a causal sense but indicates a sequence of events. This is like saying that after my coming into the world, the judgment of condemnation increases for some. Elsewhere, we find something similar: This child is set for the falling and rising of many in Israel (Luke 2:34), not because Christ is the cause of their fall, but because their fall is a consequence of His coming. He adds, that they who do not see—that is, the Gentiles, who lacked the light of divine knowledge—may see, that is, be admitted to the knowledge of God. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light (Isaiah 9:2). And that they who see—namely, the Jews, who did have a knowledge of God, for in Judah God is known (Psalms 76:1)—may become blind, that is, fall away from the knowledge of God. The Apostle explicitly mentions this: The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it (Romans 9:30).

9. Now we see the grumbling of the Jews. They had understood our Lord’s words in a physical sense because they had seen the man born blind physically restored to sight and had thought that our Lord was concerned only with the light in his eyes rather than in his mind. And so they believed He was warning and threatening them with physical blindness when He said, may become blind. Therefore, the Evangelist says, And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard him say the words above.

   He says, who were with him, to show their vacillation, for sometimes they were with Him because of the miracles they saw, and then would leave when the truth was made known to them: They believe for a while, and in time of tribulation fall away (Luke 8:13). And they said to him, "Are we also blind?"—that is, physically? Yet they were spiritually blind: Let them alone; they are blind guides (Matthew 15:14).

10. Next, we see the Jews silenced. According to Augustine, this shows the meaning of the previous passage—that our Lord was referring to spiritual blindness. He says, If you were blind—that is, if you thought you were blind, recognizing your sin out of humility—you would not have sin, because you would be running to the remedy. For sin is taken away by grace, which is given only to the humble: God gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). But now you say, "We see"—that is, proudly thinking that you do see, you do not recognize that you are sinners—so your sin remains, that is, it is not taken away. God opposes the proud (James 4:6).

    Chrysostom understands this passage as referring to physical blindness. The meaning is then: If you were blind, physically, you would not have sin, because since blindness is a physical defect, it does not have the nature of sin. But now you say, "We see," so your sin is clear, because while seeing the miracles that I perform, you do not believe me. Blind the heart of this people (Isaiah 6:10).

    Here is another explanation. If you were blind—that is, ignorant of the judgments of God and of the sacraments of the law—you would not have sin, or at least, your sin would not be as great. It is as if to say, "If you were sinning out of ignorance, your sin would not be so serious." But now you say, "We see"—that is, you arrogate to yourselves an understanding of the law and a knowledge of God, and still you sin—then your sin remains, that is, it becomes greater. That servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating (Luke 12:47).