Chapter IX.1-7.Jesus cures a man born blind.8-13.Comments of the man's neighbours, who bring him to the Pharisees.14.It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.15-23.Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed been born blind.24-34.Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself, and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their assembly.35-38.Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his soul.39-41.The blindness of the Pharisees.1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit hominem caecum a nativitate:1. And Jesus passing by, saw a man who was blind from his birth.1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after Christ left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples, who are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us more probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a different day from those referred to in the close of the preceding chapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59), and passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is, that the Evangelist is speaking of Christ's passing along after He left the temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, thatJesusshould not be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but must be supplied from the preceding chapter.The man wasblind from his birth, so that it was no mere passing affection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was the more striking.[pg 166]2. Et interrogaverunt eum discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis peccavit, hic, aut parentes eius, ut caecus nasceretur?2. And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?2. How the disciples knew the man had beenborn blind, we are not told. To excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have been himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the disciples should think of the sins of the man's parents as the reason why he was born blind, for God Himself tells us that He is“jealous, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”(Exod. xx. 5). And we know that David was punished by the death of his child (2 Kings xii. 14). But why should the disciples imagine that the man might have been born blind on account ofhis ownsins? Some think that the disciples may have been imbued with the false notions of the Jews regarding the transmigration of souls, and have thought that this man's soul had sinned in some previous state of existence, and been therefore imprisoned in a blind body. But it is unlikely that the disciples at this time, the third year of our Lord's public life, were still in such ignorance.70Others think that the question means: was he born blind for some sin which itwas foreseenhe would commit? Others think that the question was hastily put without advertence to its absurdity. Others that the meaning is: was it for his own, or,since that is out of the question, was it for the sin of his parents that this man was born blind?3. Respondit Iesus: Neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius: sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo.3. Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.3. Christ replies that neither the man himself nor his parents had sinned, so as to explain his blindness—ἵνα, as acausewhy he should be born blind; but his blindness was ordained, or at least permitted, for the sake of the miracle which Christ was now about to work.4. Me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, donec dies est: venit nox, quando nemo potest operari.4. I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.4.Dayis here the span of Christ's mortal life:night[pg 167]the time after death, when Christ was no longer to perform works visibly before men. Of course, as God, Christ still works,“sustaining all things by the word of His power”(Heb. i. 3), but of this Divine operation there is no question here.5. Quamdiu sum in mundo, lux sum mundi.5. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.5.The light.See i.4,5. Christ was the spiritual light, and as a symbol and proof of His office of spiritual light-giver, He was now about to open the eyes of the blind man to the light of day.6. Haec cum dixisset, exspuit in terram, et fecit lutum ex sputo, et linivit lutum super oculos eius.6. When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon his eyes.6.He spat on the ground.Of course such ceremonies as that here recorded were wholly unnecessary to Christ for effecting the cure. Why He sometimes used them it is hard to say; perhaps to help to excite the faith of those who were being cured.“Those who impiously jeer at the use of ceremonies, and material elements in connection with spiritual effects, which they symbolize, have a clear refutation in this action, and several similar actions on the part of our Divine Redeemer for similar effects (Mark vii. 33; viii. 23).”(McEvilly).7. Et dixit ei: Vade, lava in natatoria Siloe (quod interpretatur Missus). Abiit ergo, et lavit, et venit videns.7. And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing.7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (שׂלוח) of the pool. Some have regarded the interpretation as the gloss of a copyist or interpreter; but there is practically no authority for doubting that it was written by St. John. Doubtless the pool bore this name for some mystic reason; by the natural salubrity of its waters, or by a supernatural virtue, like Bethesda (v. 2), it may have typifiedHim who was sentfrom God to heal men. The pool which still retains its old nameBirket Silwan, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. St. Jerome speaks of[pg 168]the spring which supplied it as situated at the foot of Mount Sion, and mentions also the intermittent character of the spring. See Isaiah viii. 6. In another place St. Jerome speaks of Siloe as situated at“the foot of Mount Moria,”so that there is no reason for doubting that the pool was situated in the valley called Tyropaeon, which separated Mount Sion from Mount Moria, just whereBirket Silwanis still to be seen. See also Josephus,Bella Jud., v. 4. 1. The blind man journeying towards the pool, with clay upon his eyes, must have attracted the attention of many, and thus helped to make the miracle more public. That one born blind, and accustomed to move about Jerusalem, would be able to find his way to the pool, there is no reason to doubt; in any case there need be no difficulty raised on this point, as he could probably have readily found some one willing to guide him.8. Itaque vicini, et qui viderant eum prius quia mendicus erat, dicebant: Nonne hic est qui sedebat et mendicabat? Alii dicebant: Quia hic est.8. The neighbours therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat, and begged? Some said: This is he.9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, sed similis est ei. Ille vero dicebat: Quia ego sum.9. But otherssaid: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he.10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo aperti sunt tibi oculi?10. They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened?11. Respondit: Ille homo qui dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos, et dixit mihi: Vade ad natatoria Siloe, et lava, Et abii, et lavi, et video.11. He answered: That man that is called Jesus, made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see.11.He answered: That man(ὁ ἄνθρωπος is the true reading)that is called Jesus.He yet recognises in Christ only a holy man, but refers to Him as one who was well known and much spoken of.[pg 169]12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est ille? Ait: Nescio.12. And they said to him: Where is he? He saith: I know not.13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos qui caecus fuerat.13. They bring him that had been blind to the Pharisees.13. Why they brought him to the Pharisees is not certain; probably in order to have the facts sifted more closely, and perhaps to have Christ condemned of violating the Sabbath (verse 14).14. Erat autem sabbatum, quando lutum fecit Iesus, et aperuit oculos eius.14. Now it was the sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.15. Iterum ergo interrogabant eum pharisaei quomodo vidisset. Ille autem dixit eis: Lutum mihi posuit super oculos, et lavi, et video.15. Again therefore the Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see.16. Dicebant ergo ex pharisaeis quidam: Non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit. Alii autem dicebant: Quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere? Et schisma erat inter eos.16. Some therefore of the Pharisees said: This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath. But others said: How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: Tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? Ille autem dixit: Quia propheta est.17. They say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a prophet.16, 17. The Pharisees themselves disagree as to the character of Christ, and ask the man who had been cured (note how he is still spoken of as blind, just as in the Blessed Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of Christ is spoken of as bread, not because it is any longer bread, but because of what it is known to have been shortly before) what he thought of Him who cured him. His reply is that Christ is a prophet (προφητής without the article), a man sent by God; nottheProphet, for he did not yet recognise Christ as the Messias.18. Non crediderunt ergo Iudaei de illo quia caecus fuisset et vidisset, donec vocaverunt parentes eius qui viderat:18. The Jews then did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they call the parents of him that had received his sight.18. The Pharisees now doubt thefactof the cure, and send[pg 170]for the man's parents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.19. Et interrogaverunt eos, dicentes: Hic est filius vester, quem vos dicitis quia caecus natus est? Quomodo ergo nunc videt?19. And asked them, saying: Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then doth he now see?20. Responderunt eis parentes eius, et dixerunt: Scimus quia hic est filius noster, et quia caecus natus est:20. His parents answered them and said: We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind.21. Quomodo autem nunc videat, nescimus: aut quis eius aperuit oculos, nos nescimus: ipsum interrogate: aetatem habet, ipse de se loquatur.21. But how he now seeth, we know not: or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: ask himself; he is of age, let him speak for himself.19-21. Three questions are put to the parents; to two they reply: that this is their son, and that he was born blind; but to the third they return no answer, though, doubtless, they believed their son's account of the cure.22. Haec dixerunt parentes eius, quoniam timebant Iudaeos: iam enim conspiraverant Iudaei, ut si quis eum confiteretur esse Christum, extra synagogam fieret.22. These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews: For the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.22.Put out of the synagogue; that is to say, deprived of all religious intercourse by a sort of excommunication.[pg 171]23. Propterea parentes eius dixerunt: Quia aetatem habet, ipsum interrogate.23. Therefore did his parents say: He is of age, ask him.24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum hominem qui fuerat caecus, et dixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo: nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est.24. They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.24. The man himself is again interrogated. The words:Give glory to Godare a sort of adjuration; as if they said—remember you are in the presence of God, and speak the truth. See Jos. viii. 19. And yet while, pretending to be anxious to hear the truth, they tried to overawe the poor man by declaring that they are convinced already that Christ is an impostor and sinner.25. Dixit ergo eis ille: Si peccator est, nescio: unum scio, quia caecus cum essem, modo video.25. He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.25.Being blind, τυφλὸς ὤν. Thepresentpart. is used relatively to the time when he blind.26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid fecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit tibi oculos?26. They said then to him: What did he to thee? How did he open thy eyes?27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis iam, et audistis: quid iterum vultis audire? numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri?27. He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard: why would you hear it again? will you also become his disciples?27.You have heard(Gr. καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε,You did not heed).Will you also become his disciples?These words are ironical. The man saw that the Pharisees were hostile to Jesus, and his natural gratitude towards his benefactor made him impatient with them.28. Maledixerunt ergo ei, et dixerunt: Tu discipulus illius sis: nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus.28. They reviled him therefore, and said: Be thou his disciple; but we are the disciples of Moses.28.They reviled him(ἐλοιδόρησαν)therefore, and said: Be thou that man's disciple.29. Nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus: hunc autem nescimus unde sit.29. We know that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we know not from whence he is.29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the devil.[pg 172]30. Respondit ille homo, et dixit eis: In hoc enim mirabile est quia vos nescitis unde sit, et aperuit meos oculos:30. The man answered, and said to them: Why herein is a wonderful thing that you know not from whence he is, and he hath opened my eyes.30.Youis emphatic; you the teachers of God's people!31. Scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit: sed si quis Dei cultor est, et voluntatem eius facit, hunc exaudit.31. Now we know that God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth his will, him he heareth.31.Now we know that God doth not hear sinners.These are the words of the blind man, and we are not bound to hold that they state what is true: that they were spoken by the man, the inspired Evangelist tells us; and thefactthat they were spoken is all that is covered by inspiration. But the words are generally true in the sense in which the context proves they were used. For God does not generally hear sinners so as to work miracles at their will; and this is what the words mean. That God never hears the prayers of sinners, is not stated here, and is not true.32. A saeculo non est auditum quia quis aperuit oculos caeci nati.32. From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind.33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam.33. Unless this man were of God, he could not do anything.33.Anything; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.34. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: In peccatis natus es totus, et tu doces nos? Et eiecerunt eum foras.34. They answered, and said to him: Thou wast wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.34.Thou wast wholly born in sins, ὅλος (totus); that is to say, altogether, entirely, as thy blindness proves. And dost thou, steeped from thy birth in sin and ignorance, presume to teach us, the sainted[pg 173]doctors of the Law?And they cast him out.Some take the sense to be, that they excommunicated him, but the obvious meaning is, that they drove him from their presence, wherever it was that they were assembled.35. Audivit Iesus quia eiecerunt eum foras: et cum invenisset eum, dixit ei: Tu credis in Filium Dei?35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?35. Christ as God knew, of course, that the man had been expelled by the Pharisees; but He waited till He heard it as man, and then went to seek for and reward the poor fellow, who had so intrepidly defended Him before them. Instead ofSon of God, some manuscripts of great authority readSon of Man; but it is more probable that the former is the correct reading. We may here remark how Christ, who had cured the blindness of the body without requiring faith now asks for faith in Himself before He will dispel the deeper darkness of the soul.“Qui fecit te sine te, non justificat te sine te; fecit nescientem, justificat volentem”(St. Aug., Serm. 15,de verbis Apost.).36. Respondit ille, et dixit: Quis est, Domine, ut credam in eum?36. He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?36. Probably the man recognised the voice of his benefactor, whom he had not seen until now, and he at once shows himself prepared to do what he understands Christ's question to suggest. He believed that Christ who had cured him, and whom he regarded as a prophet, would not deceive him as to who was really the Son of God. Lord (Gr. κύριε) ought rather to be rendered“Sir.”It is a term of respect, but does not at all imply that the man already recognised Christ to be his Lord and God, as is clear from the context.37. Et dixit ei Iesus: Et vidisti eum, et qui loquitur tecum, ipse est.37. And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee.37.Thou hast both seen.The meaning is: ThouseestHim, the Greek perfect having here the force of a present. See 1 John iii. 6. Christ's reference to the man'sseeing, was doubtless designed to stimulate his gratitude, and help him to faith.[pg 174]38. At ille ait: Credo Domine. Et procidens adoravit eum.38. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down he adored him.38. HeadoredChrist as God. Though the word προσεκύνησεν, which is here rendered“adored,”does not, in our opinion, necessarily imply supreme worship in the Greek of either the Old or New Testament,71still the context here determines it to that meaning. For Christ had just declared Himself to be the Son of God, and it isas suchthe man worships Him.39. Et dixit Iesus: In iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni: ut qui non vident videant, et qui vident caeci fiant.39. And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not, may see: and they who see, may become blind.39.For judgment I am come into this world.The blind man had recovered sight in two senses—bodily and spiritual—and Christ, as the occasion naturally suggested, now goes on to speak of spiritual blindness. Christ's words here are not contradictory of iii. 17 or viii. 15, because here there is question of a different judgment. In those passages there is question of the judgment ofcondemnation, for which Christ did not come at His first coming; here there is question of the judgment ofdiscernment(κρίμα, not κρίσις), and for this He had come at His first coming. The sense of the present passage then is: I am come to separate the good from the bad; to make known who love God, and who do not; to show and to effect that those who have been regarded as spiritually blind, and who, indeed, in many cases, have been so, may have the eyes of their souls opened to the light of truth, while those who have been thought, and who think themselves, to see (such as you Pharisees), may be shown to be indeed spiritually blind, and may reallybecome more blind, by being involved in deeper darkness through their own unbelief. This latter effect—that they should become more blind—was not directly intended by Christ, but it was foreseen and permitted, and this is enough to justify Christ's expression:“That they who see may become[pg 175]blind.”Compare Rom. v. 20:“Now the law entered in that sin might abound.”40. Et audierunt quidam ex pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant et dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos caeci sumus?40. And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard; and they said unto him: Are we also blind?41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum: nunc vero dicitis: Quia videmus. Peccatum vestrum manet.41. Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.40, 41. The Pharisees ask:Are we also blind?and Jesus replies:If you were blind, you should not have sin; that is to say, if you were blind through invincible ignorance, or, as we prefer to hold, if you were blindin your own estimation, if yourecognisedyour spiritual blindness, you should not have sin, because I would wipe it out; but now that yousayyou see, and rely upon yourselves, your sin remaineth.[pg 176]
Chapter IX.1-7.Jesus cures a man born blind.8-13.Comments of the man's neighbours, who bring him to the Pharisees.14.It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.15-23.Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed been born blind.24-34.Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself, and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their assembly.35-38.Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his soul.39-41.The blindness of the Pharisees.1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit hominem caecum a nativitate:1. And Jesus passing by, saw a man who was blind from his birth.1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after Christ left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples, who are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us more probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a different day from those referred to in the close of the preceding chapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59), and passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is, that the Evangelist is speaking of Christ's passing along after He left the temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, thatJesusshould not be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but must be supplied from the preceding chapter.The man wasblind from his birth, so that it was no mere passing affection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was the more striking.[pg 166]2. Et interrogaverunt eum discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis peccavit, hic, aut parentes eius, ut caecus nasceretur?2. And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?2. How the disciples knew the man had beenborn blind, we are not told. To excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have been himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the disciples should think of the sins of the man's parents as the reason why he was born blind, for God Himself tells us that He is“jealous, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”(Exod. xx. 5). And we know that David was punished by the death of his child (2 Kings xii. 14). But why should the disciples imagine that the man might have been born blind on account ofhis ownsins? Some think that the disciples may have been imbued with the false notions of the Jews regarding the transmigration of souls, and have thought that this man's soul had sinned in some previous state of existence, and been therefore imprisoned in a blind body. But it is unlikely that the disciples at this time, the third year of our Lord's public life, were still in such ignorance.70Others think that the question means: was he born blind for some sin which itwas foreseenhe would commit? Others think that the question was hastily put without advertence to its absurdity. Others that the meaning is: was it for his own, or,since that is out of the question, was it for the sin of his parents that this man was born blind?3. Respondit Iesus: Neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius: sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo.3. Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.3. Christ replies that neither the man himself nor his parents had sinned, so as to explain his blindness—ἵνα, as acausewhy he should be born blind; but his blindness was ordained, or at least permitted, for the sake of the miracle which Christ was now about to work.4. Me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, donec dies est: venit nox, quando nemo potest operari.4. I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.4.Dayis here the span of Christ's mortal life:night[pg 167]the time after death, when Christ was no longer to perform works visibly before men. Of course, as God, Christ still works,“sustaining all things by the word of His power”(Heb. i. 3), but of this Divine operation there is no question here.5. Quamdiu sum in mundo, lux sum mundi.5. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.5.The light.See i.4,5. Christ was the spiritual light, and as a symbol and proof of His office of spiritual light-giver, He was now about to open the eyes of the blind man to the light of day.6. Haec cum dixisset, exspuit in terram, et fecit lutum ex sputo, et linivit lutum super oculos eius.6. When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon his eyes.6.He spat on the ground.Of course such ceremonies as that here recorded were wholly unnecessary to Christ for effecting the cure. Why He sometimes used them it is hard to say; perhaps to help to excite the faith of those who were being cured.“Those who impiously jeer at the use of ceremonies, and material elements in connection with spiritual effects, which they symbolize, have a clear refutation in this action, and several similar actions on the part of our Divine Redeemer for similar effects (Mark vii. 33; viii. 23).”(McEvilly).7. Et dixit ei: Vade, lava in natatoria Siloe (quod interpretatur Missus). Abiit ergo, et lavit, et venit videns.7. And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing.7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (שׂלוח) of the pool. Some have regarded the interpretation as the gloss of a copyist or interpreter; but there is practically no authority for doubting that it was written by St. John. Doubtless the pool bore this name for some mystic reason; by the natural salubrity of its waters, or by a supernatural virtue, like Bethesda (v. 2), it may have typifiedHim who was sentfrom God to heal men. The pool which still retains its old nameBirket Silwan, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. St. Jerome speaks of[pg 168]the spring which supplied it as situated at the foot of Mount Sion, and mentions also the intermittent character of the spring. See Isaiah viii. 6. In another place St. Jerome speaks of Siloe as situated at“the foot of Mount Moria,”so that there is no reason for doubting that the pool was situated in the valley called Tyropaeon, which separated Mount Sion from Mount Moria, just whereBirket Silwanis still to be seen. See also Josephus,Bella Jud., v. 4. 1. The blind man journeying towards the pool, with clay upon his eyes, must have attracted the attention of many, and thus helped to make the miracle more public. That one born blind, and accustomed to move about Jerusalem, would be able to find his way to the pool, there is no reason to doubt; in any case there need be no difficulty raised on this point, as he could probably have readily found some one willing to guide him.8. Itaque vicini, et qui viderant eum prius quia mendicus erat, dicebant: Nonne hic est qui sedebat et mendicabat? Alii dicebant: Quia hic est.8. The neighbours therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat, and begged? Some said: This is he.9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, sed similis est ei. Ille vero dicebat: Quia ego sum.9. But otherssaid: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he.10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo aperti sunt tibi oculi?10. They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened?11. Respondit: Ille homo qui dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos, et dixit mihi: Vade ad natatoria Siloe, et lava, Et abii, et lavi, et video.11. He answered: That man that is called Jesus, made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see.11.He answered: That man(ὁ ἄνθρωπος is the true reading)that is called Jesus.He yet recognises in Christ only a holy man, but refers to Him as one who was well known and much spoken of.[pg 169]12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est ille? Ait: Nescio.12. And they said to him: Where is he? He saith: I know not.13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos qui caecus fuerat.13. They bring him that had been blind to the Pharisees.13. Why they brought him to the Pharisees is not certain; probably in order to have the facts sifted more closely, and perhaps to have Christ condemned of violating the Sabbath (verse 14).14. Erat autem sabbatum, quando lutum fecit Iesus, et aperuit oculos eius.14. Now it was the sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.15. Iterum ergo interrogabant eum pharisaei quomodo vidisset. Ille autem dixit eis: Lutum mihi posuit super oculos, et lavi, et video.15. Again therefore the Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see.16. Dicebant ergo ex pharisaeis quidam: Non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit. Alii autem dicebant: Quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere? Et schisma erat inter eos.16. Some therefore of the Pharisees said: This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath. But others said: How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: Tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? Ille autem dixit: Quia propheta est.17. They say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a prophet.16, 17. The Pharisees themselves disagree as to the character of Christ, and ask the man who had been cured (note how he is still spoken of as blind, just as in the Blessed Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of Christ is spoken of as bread, not because it is any longer bread, but because of what it is known to have been shortly before) what he thought of Him who cured him. His reply is that Christ is a prophet (προφητής without the article), a man sent by God; nottheProphet, for he did not yet recognise Christ as the Messias.18. Non crediderunt ergo Iudaei de illo quia caecus fuisset et vidisset, donec vocaverunt parentes eius qui viderat:18. The Jews then did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they call the parents of him that had received his sight.18. The Pharisees now doubt thefactof the cure, and send[pg 170]for the man's parents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.19. Et interrogaverunt eos, dicentes: Hic est filius vester, quem vos dicitis quia caecus natus est? Quomodo ergo nunc videt?19. And asked them, saying: Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then doth he now see?20. Responderunt eis parentes eius, et dixerunt: Scimus quia hic est filius noster, et quia caecus natus est:20. His parents answered them and said: We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind.21. Quomodo autem nunc videat, nescimus: aut quis eius aperuit oculos, nos nescimus: ipsum interrogate: aetatem habet, ipse de se loquatur.21. But how he now seeth, we know not: or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: ask himself; he is of age, let him speak for himself.19-21. Three questions are put to the parents; to two they reply: that this is their son, and that he was born blind; but to the third they return no answer, though, doubtless, they believed their son's account of the cure.22. Haec dixerunt parentes eius, quoniam timebant Iudaeos: iam enim conspiraverant Iudaei, ut si quis eum confiteretur esse Christum, extra synagogam fieret.22. These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews: For the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.22.Put out of the synagogue; that is to say, deprived of all religious intercourse by a sort of excommunication.[pg 171]23. Propterea parentes eius dixerunt: Quia aetatem habet, ipsum interrogate.23. Therefore did his parents say: He is of age, ask him.24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum hominem qui fuerat caecus, et dixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo: nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est.24. They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.24. The man himself is again interrogated. The words:Give glory to Godare a sort of adjuration; as if they said—remember you are in the presence of God, and speak the truth. See Jos. viii. 19. And yet while, pretending to be anxious to hear the truth, they tried to overawe the poor man by declaring that they are convinced already that Christ is an impostor and sinner.25. Dixit ergo eis ille: Si peccator est, nescio: unum scio, quia caecus cum essem, modo video.25. He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.25.Being blind, τυφλὸς ὤν. Thepresentpart. is used relatively to the time when he blind.26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid fecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit tibi oculos?26. They said then to him: What did he to thee? How did he open thy eyes?27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis iam, et audistis: quid iterum vultis audire? numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri?27. He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard: why would you hear it again? will you also become his disciples?27.You have heard(Gr. καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε,You did not heed).Will you also become his disciples?These words are ironical. The man saw that the Pharisees were hostile to Jesus, and his natural gratitude towards his benefactor made him impatient with them.28. Maledixerunt ergo ei, et dixerunt: Tu discipulus illius sis: nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus.28. They reviled him therefore, and said: Be thou his disciple; but we are the disciples of Moses.28.They reviled him(ἐλοιδόρησαν)therefore, and said: Be thou that man's disciple.29. Nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus: hunc autem nescimus unde sit.29. We know that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we know not from whence he is.29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the devil.[pg 172]30. Respondit ille homo, et dixit eis: In hoc enim mirabile est quia vos nescitis unde sit, et aperuit meos oculos:30. The man answered, and said to them: Why herein is a wonderful thing that you know not from whence he is, and he hath opened my eyes.30.Youis emphatic; you the teachers of God's people!31. Scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit: sed si quis Dei cultor est, et voluntatem eius facit, hunc exaudit.31. Now we know that God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth his will, him he heareth.31.Now we know that God doth not hear sinners.These are the words of the blind man, and we are not bound to hold that they state what is true: that they were spoken by the man, the inspired Evangelist tells us; and thefactthat they were spoken is all that is covered by inspiration. But the words are generally true in the sense in which the context proves they were used. For God does not generally hear sinners so as to work miracles at their will; and this is what the words mean. That God never hears the prayers of sinners, is not stated here, and is not true.32. A saeculo non est auditum quia quis aperuit oculos caeci nati.32. From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind.33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam.33. Unless this man were of God, he could not do anything.33.Anything; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.34. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: In peccatis natus es totus, et tu doces nos? Et eiecerunt eum foras.34. They answered, and said to him: Thou wast wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.34.Thou wast wholly born in sins, ὅλος (totus); that is to say, altogether, entirely, as thy blindness proves. And dost thou, steeped from thy birth in sin and ignorance, presume to teach us, the sainted[pg 173]doctors of the Law?And they cast him out.Some take the sense to be, that they excommunicated him, but the obvious meaning is, that they drove him from their presence, wherever it was that they were assembled.35. Audivit Iesus quia eiecerunt eum foras: et cum invenisset eum, dixit ei: Tu credis in Filium Dei?35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?35. Christ as God knew, of course, that the man had been expelled by the Pharisees; but He waited till He heard it as man, and then went to seek for and reward the poor fellow, who had so intrepidly defended Him before them. Instead ofSon of God, some manuscripts of great authority readSon of Man; but it is more probable that the former is the correct reading. We may here remark how Christ, who had cured the blindness of the body without requiring faith now asks for faith in Himself before He will dispel the deeper darkness of the soul.“Qui fecit te sine te, non justificat te sine te; fecit nescientem, justificat volentem”(St. Aug., Serm. 15,de verbis Apost.).36. Respondit ille, et dixit: Quis est, Domine, ut credam in eum?36. He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?36. Probably the man recognised the voice of his benefactor, whom he had not seen until now, and he at once shows himself prepared to do what he understands Christ's question to suggest. He believed that Christ who had cured him, and whom he regarded as a prophet, would not deceive him as to who was really the Son of God. Lord (Gr. κύριε) ought rather to be rendered“Sir.”It is a term of respect, but does not at all imply that the man already recognised Christ to be his Lord and God, as is clear from the context.37. Et dixit ei Iesus: Et vidisti eum, et qui loquitur tecum, ipse est.37. And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee.37.Thou hast both seen.The meaning is: ThouseestHim, the Greek perfect having here the force of a present. See 1 John iii. 6. Christ's reference to the man'sseeing, was doubtless designed to stimulate his gratitude, and help him to faith.[pg 174]38. At ille ait: Credo Domine. Et procidens adoravit eum.38. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down he adored him.38. HeadoredChrist as God. Though the word προσεκύνησεν, which is here rendered“adored,”does not, in our opinion, necessarily imply supreme worship in the Greek of either the Old or New Testament,71still the context here determines it to that meaning. For Christ had just declared Himself to be the Son of God, and it isas suchthe man worships Him.39. Et dixit Iesus: In iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni: ut qui non vident videant, et qui vident caeci fiant.39. And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not, may see: and they who see, may become blind.39.For judgment I am come into this world.The blind man had recovered sight in two senses—bodily and spiritual—and Christ, as the occasion naturally suggested, now goes on to speak of spiritual blindness. Christ's words here are not contradictory of iii. 17 or viii. 15, because here there is question of a different judgment. In those passages there is question of the judgment ofcondemnation, for which Christ did not come at His first coming; here there is question of the judgment ofdiscernment(κρίμα, not κρίσις), and for this He had come at His first coming. The sense of the present passage then is: I am come to separate the good from the bad; to make known who love God, and who do not; to show and to effect that those who have been regarded as spiritually blind, and who, indeed, in many cases, have been so, may have the eyes of their souls opened to the light of truth, while those who have been thought, and who think themselves, to see (such as you Pharisees), may be shown to be indeed spiritually blind, and may reallybecome more blind, by being involved in deeper darkness through their own unbelief. This latter effect—that they should become more blind—was not directly intended by Christ, but it was foreseen and permitted, and this is enough to justify Christ's expression:“That they who see may become[pg 175]blind.”Compare Rom. v. 20:“Now the law entered in that sin might abound.”40. Et audierunt quidam ex pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant et dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos caeci sumus?40. And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard; and they said unto him: Are we also blind?41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum: nunc vero dicitis: Quia videmus. Peccatum vestrum manet.41. Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.40, 41. The Pharisees ask:Are we also blind?and Jesus replies:If you were blind, you should not have sin; that is to say, if you were blind through invincible ignorance, or, as we prefer to hold, if you were blindin your own estimation, if yourecognisedyour spiritual blindness, you should not have sin, because I would wipe it out; but now that yousayyou see, and rely upon yourselves, your sin remaineth.[pg 176]
Chapter IX.1-7.Jesus cures a man born blind.8-13.Comments of the man's neighbours, who bring him to the Pharisees.14.It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.15-23.Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed been born blind.24-34.Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself, and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their assembly.35-38.Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his soul.39-41.The blindness of the Pharisees.1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit hominem caecum a nativitate:1. And Jesus passing by, saw a man who was blind from his birth.1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after Christ left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples, who are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us more probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a different day from those referred to in the close of the preceding chapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59), and passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is, that the Evangelist is speaking of Christ's passing along after He left the temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, thatJesusshould not be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but must be supplied from the preceding chapter.The man wasblind from his birth, so that it was no mere passing affection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was the more striking.[pg 166]2. Et interrogaverunt eum discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis peccavit, hic, aut parentes eius, ut caecus nasceretur?2. And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?2. How the disciples knew the man had beenborn blind, we are not told. To excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have been himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the disciples should think of the sins of the man's parents as the reason why he was born blind, for God Himself tells us that He is“jealous, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”(Exod. xx. 5). And we know that David was punished by the death of his child (2 Kings xii. 14). But why should the disciples imagine that the man might have been born blind on account ofhis ownsins? Some think that the disciples may have been imbued with the false notions of the Jews regarding the transmigration of souls, and have thought that this man's soul had sinned in some previous state of existence, and been therefore imprisoned in a blind body. But it is unlikely that the disciples at this time, the third year of our Lord's public life, were still in such ignorance.70Others think that the question means: was he born blind for some sin which itwas foreseenhe would commit? Others think that the question was hastily put without advertence to its absurdity. Others that the meaning is: was it for his own, or,since that is out of the question, was it for the sin of his parents that this man was born blind?3. Respondit Iesus: Neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius: sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo.3. Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.3. Christ replies that neither the man himself nor his parents had sinned, so as to explain his blindness—ἵνα, as acausewhy he should be born blind; but his blindness was ordained, or at least permitted, for the sake of the miracle which Christ was now about to work.4. Me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, donec dies est: venit nox, quando nemo potest operari.4. I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh when no man can work.4.Dayis here the span of Christ's mortal life:night[pg 167]the time after death, when Christ was no longer to perform works visibly before men. Of course, as God, Christ still works,“sustaining all things by the word of His power”(Heb. i. 3), but of this Divine operation there is no question here.5. Quamdiu sum in mundo, lux sum mundi.5. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.5.The light.See i.4,5. Christ was the spiritual light, and as a symbol and proof of His office of spiritual light-giver, He was now about to open the eyes of the blind man to the light of day.6. Haec cum dixisset, exspuit in terram, et fecit lutum ex sputo, et linivit lutum super oculos eius.6. When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon his eyes.6.He spat on the ground.Of course such ceremonies as that here recorded were wholly unnecessary to Christ for effecting the cure. Why He sometimes used them it is hard to say; perhaps to help to excite the faith of those who were being cured.“Those who impiously jeer at the use of ceremonies, and material elements in connection with spiritual effects, which they symbolize, have a clear refutation in this action, and several similar actions on the part of our Divine Redeemer for similar effects (Mark vii. 33; viii. 23).”(McEvilly).7. Et dixit ei: Vade, lava in natatoria Siloe (quod interpretatur Missus). Abiit ergo, et lavit, et venit videns.7. And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing.7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (שׂלוח) of the pool. Some have regarded the interpretation as the gloss of a copyist or interpreter; but there is practically no authority for doubting that it was written by St. John. Doubtless the pool bore this name for some mystic reason; by the natural salubrity of its waters, or by a supernatural virtue, like Bethesda (v. 2), it may have typifiedHim who was sentfrom God to heal men. The pool which still retains its old nameBirket Silwan, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. St. Jerome speaks of[pg 168]the spring which supplied it as situated at the foot of Mount Sion, and mentions also the intermittent character of the spring. See Isaiah viii. 6. In another place St. Jerome speaks of Siloe as situated at“the foot of Mount Moria,”so that there is no reason for doubting that the pool was situated in the valley called Tyropaeon, which separated Mount Sion from Mount Moria, just whereBirket Silwanis still to be seen. See also Josephus,Bella Jud., v. 4. 1. The blind man journeying towards the pool, with clay upon his eyes, must have attracted the attention of many, and thus helped to make the miracle more public. That one born blind, and accustomed to move about Jerusalem, would be able to find his way to the pool, there is no reason to doubt; in any case there need be no difficulty raised on this point, as he could probably have readily found some one willing to guide him.8. Itaque vicini, et qui viderant eum prius quia mendicus erat, dicebant: Nonne hic est qui sedebat et mendicabat? Alii dicebant: Quia hic est.8. The neighbours therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat, and begged? Some said: This is he.9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, sed similis est ei. Ille vero dicebat: Quia ego sum.9. But otherssaid: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he.10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo aperti sunt tibi oculi?10. They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened?11. Respondit: Ille homo qui dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos, et dixit mihi: Vade ad natatoria Siloe, et lava, Et abii, et lavi, et video.11. He answered: That man that is called Jesus, made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see.11.He answered: That man(ὁ ἄνθρωπος is the true reading)that is called Jesus.He yet recognises in Christ only a holy man, but refers to Him as one who was well known and much spoken of.[pg 169]12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est ille? Ait: Nescio.12. And they said to him: Where is he? He saith: I know not.13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos qui caecus fuerat.13. They bring him that had been blind to the Pharisees.13. Why they brought him to the Pharisees is not certain; probably in order to have the facts sifted more closely, and perhaps to have Christ condemned of violating the Sabbath (verse 14).14. Erat autem sabbatum, quando lutum fecit Iesus, et aperuit oculos eius.14. Now it was the sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.15. Iterum ergo interrogabant eum pharisaei quomodo vidisset. Ille autem dixit eis: Lutum mihi posuit super oculos, et lavi, et video.15. Again therefore the Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see.16. Dicebant ergo ex pharisaeis quidam: Non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit. Alii autem dicebant: Quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere? Et schisma erat inter eos.16. Some therefore of the Pharisees said: This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath. But others said: How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: Tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? Ille autem dixit: Quia propheta est.17. They say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a prophet.16, 17. The Pharisees themselves disagree as to the character of Christ, and ask the man who had been cured (note how he is still spoken of as blind, just as in the Blessed Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of Christ is spoken of as bread, not because it is any longer bread, but because of what it is known to have been shortly before) what he thought of Him who cured him. His reply is that Christ is a prophet (προφητής without the article), a man sent by God; nottheProphet, for he did not yet recognise Christ as the Messias.18. Non crediderunt ergo Iudaei de illo quia caecus fuisset et vidisset, donec vocaverunt parentes eius qui viderat:18. The Jews then did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they call the parents of him that had received his sight.18. The Pharisees now doubt thefactof the cure, and send[pg 170]for the man's parents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.19. Et interrogaverunt eos, dicentes: Hic est filius vester, quem vos dicitis quia caecus natus est? Quomodo ergo nunc videt?19. And asked them, saying: Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then doth he now see?20. Responderunt eis parentes eius, et dixerunt: Scimus quia hic est filius noster, et quia caecus natus est:20. His parents answered them and said: We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind.21. Quomodo autem nunc videat, nescimus: aut quis eius aperuit oculos, nos nescimus: ipsum interrogate: aetatem habet, ipse de se loquatur.21. But how he now seeth, we know not: or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: ask himself; he is of age, let him speak for himself.19-21. Three questions are put to the parents; to two they reply: that this is their son, and that he was born blind; but to the third they return no answer, though, doubtless, they believed their son's account of the cure.22. Haec dixerunt parentes eius, quoniam timebant Iudaeos: iam enim conspiraverant Iudaei, ut si quis eum confiteretur esse Christum, extra synagogam fieret.22. These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews: For the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.22.Put out of the synagogue; that is to say, deprived of all religious intercourse by a sort of excommunication.[pg 171]23. Propterea parentes eius dixerunt: Quia aetatem habet, ipsum interrogate.23. Therefore did his parents say: He is of age, ask him.24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum hominem qui fuerat caecus, et dixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo: nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est.24. They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.24. The man himself is again interrogated. The words:Give glory to Godare a sort of adjuration; as if they said—remember you are in the presence of God, and speak the truth. See Jos. viii. 19. And yet while, pretending to be anxious to hear the truth, they tried to overawe the poor man by declaring that they are convinced already that Christ is an impostor and sinner.25. Dixit ergo eis ille: Si peccator est, nescio: unum scio, quia caecus cum essem, modo video.25. He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.25.Being blind, τυφλὸς ὤν. Thepresentpart. is used relatively to the time when he blind.26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid fecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit tibi oculos?26. They said then to him: What did he to thee? How did he open thy eyes?27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis iam, et audistis: quid iterum vultis audire? numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri?27. He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard: why would you hear it again? will you also become his disciples?27.You have heard(Gr. καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε,You did not heed).Will you also become his disciples?These words are ironical. The man saw that the Pharisees were hostile to Jesus, and his natural gratitude towards his benefactor made him impatient with them.28. Maledixerunt ergo ei, et dixerunt: Tu discipulus illius sis: nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus.28. They reviled him therefore, and said: Be thou his disciple; but we are the disciples of Moses.28.They reviled him(ἐλοιδόρησαν)therefore, and said: Be thou that man's disciple.29. Nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus: hunc autem nescimus unde sit.29. We know that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we know not from whence he is.29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the devil.[pg 172]30. Respondit ille homo, et dixit eis: In hoc enim mirabile est quia vos nescitis unde sit, et aperuit meos oculos:30. The man answered, and said to them: Why herein is a wonderful thing that you know not from whence he is, and he hath opened my eyes.30.Youis emphatic; you the teachers of God's people!31. Scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit: sed si quis Dei cultor est, et voluntatem eius facit, hunc exaudit.31. Now we know that God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth his will, him he heareth.31.Now we know that God doth not hear sinners.These are the words of the blind man, and we are not bound to hold that they state what is true: that they were spoken by the man, the inspired Evangelist tells us; and thefactthat they were spoken is all that is covered by inspiration. But the words are generally true in the sense in which the context proves they were used. For God does not generally hear sinners so as to work miracles at their will; and this is what the words mean. That God never hears the prayers of sinners, is not stated here, and is not true.32. A saeculo non est auditum quia quis aperuit oculos caeci nati.32. From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind.33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam.33. Unless this man were of God, he could not do anything.33.Anything; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.34. Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: In peccatis natus es totus, et tu doces nos? Et eiecerunt eum foras.34. They answered, and said to him: Thou wast wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.34.Thou wast wholly born in sins, ὅλος (totus); that is to say, altogether, entirely, as thy blindness proves. And dost thou, steeped from thy birth in sin and ignorance, presume to teach us, the sainted[pg 173]doctors of the Law?And they cast him out.Some take the sense to be, that they excommunicated him, but the obvious meaning is, that they drove him from their presence, wherever it was that they were assembled.35. Audivit Iesus quia eiecerunt eum foras: et cum invenisset eum, dixit ei: Tu credis in Filium Dei?35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?35. Christ as God knew, of course, that the man had been expelled by the Pharisees; but He waited till He heard it as man, and then went to seek for and reward the poor fellow, who had so intrepidly defended Him before them. Instead ofSon of God, some manuscripts of great authority readSon of Man; but it is more probable that the former is the correct reading. We may here remark how Christ, who had cured the blindness of the body without requiring faith now asks for faith in Himself before He will dispel the deeper darkness of the soul.“Qui fecit te sine te, non justificat te sine te; fecit nescientem, justificat volentem”(St. Aug., Serm. 15,de verbis Apost.).36. Respondit ille, et dixit: Quis est, Domine, ut credam in eum?36. He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?36. Probably the man recognised the voice of his benefactor, whom he had not seen until now, and he at once shows himself prepared to do what he understands Christ's question to suggest. He believed that Christ who had cured him, and whom he regarded as a prophet, would not deceive him as to who was really the Son of God. Lord (Gr. κύριε) ought rather to be rendered“Sir.”It is a term of respect, but does not at all imply that the man already recognised Christ to be his Lord and God, as is clear from the context.37. Et dixit ei Iesus: Et vidisti eum, et qui loquitur tecum, ipse est.37. And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee.37.Thou hast both seen.The meaning is: ThouseestHim, the Greek perfect having here the force of a present. See 1 John iii. 6. Christ's reference to the man'sseeing, was doubtless designed to stimulate his gratitude, and help him to faith.[pg 174]38. At ille ait: Credo Domine. Et procidens adoravit eum.38. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down he adored him.38. HeadoredChrist as God. Though the word προσεκύνησεν, which is here rendered“adored,”does not, in our opinion, necessarily imply supreme worship in the Greek of either the Old or New Testament,71still the context here determines it to that meaning. For Christ had just declared Himself to be the Son of God, and it isas suchthe man worships Him.39. Et dixit Iesus: In iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni: ut qui non vident videant, et qui vident caeci fiant.39. And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world, that they who see not, may see: and they who see, may become blind.39.For judgment I am come into this world.The blind man had recovered sight in two senses—bodily and spiritual—and Christ, as the occasion naturally suggested, now goes on to speak of spiritual blindness. Christ's words here are not contradictory of iii. 17 or viii. 15, because here there is question of a different judgment. In those passages there is question of the judgment ofcondemnation, for which Christ did not come at His first coming; here there is question of the judgment ofdiscernment(κρίμα, not κρίσις), and for this He had come at His first coming. The sense of the present passage then is: I am come to separate the good from the bad; to make known who love God, and who do not; to show and to effect that those who have been regarded as spiritually blind, and who, indeed, in many cases, have been so, may have the eyes of their souls opened to the light of truth, while those who have been thought, and who think themselves, to see (such as you Pharisees), may be shown to be indeed spiritually blind, and may reallybecome more blind, by being involved in deeper darkness through their own unbelief. This latter effect—that they should become more blind—was not directly intended by Christ, but it was foreseen and permitted, and this is enough to justify Christ's expression:“That they who see may become[pg 175]blind.”Compare Rom. v. 20:“Now the law entered in that sin might abound.”40. Et audierunt quidam ex pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant et dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos caeci sumus?40. And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard; and they said unto him: Are we also blind?41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum: nunc vero dicitis: Quia videmus. Peccatum vestrum manet.41. Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.40, 41. The Pharisees ask:Are we also blind?and Jesus replies:If you were blind, you should not have sin; that is to say, if you were blind through invincible ignorance, or, as we prefer to hold, if you were blindin your own estimation, if yourecognisedyour spiritual blindness, you should not have sin, because I would wipe it out; but now that yousayyou see, and rely upon yourselves, your sin remaineth.
1-7.Jesus cures a man born blind.8-13.Comments of the man's neighbours, who bring him to the Pharisees.14.It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.15-23.Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed been born blind.24-34.Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself, and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their assembly.35-38.Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his soul.39-41.The blindness of the Pharisees.
1-7.Jesus cures a man born blind.
8-13.Comments of the man's neighbours, who bring him to the Pharisees.
14.It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.
15-23.Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed been born blind.
24-34.Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself, and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their assembly.
35-38.Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his soul.
39-41.The blindness of the Pharisees.
1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after Christ left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples, who are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us more probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a different day from those referred to in the close of the preceding chapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59), and passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is, that the Evangelist is speaking of Christ's passing along after He left the temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, thatJesusshould not be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but must be supplied from the preceding chapter.
The man wasblind from his birth, so that it was no mere passing affection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was the more striking.
2. How the disciples knew the man had beenborn blind, we are not told. To excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have been himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the disciples should think of the sins of the man's parents as the reason why he was born blind, for God Himself tells us that He is“jealous, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”(Exod. xx. 5). And we know that David was punished by the death of his child (2 Kings xii. 14). But why should the disciples imagine that the man might have been born blind on account ofhis ownsins? Some think that the disciples may have been imbued with the false notions of the Jews regarding the transmigration of souls, and have thought that this man's soul had sinned in some previous state of existence, and been therefore imprisoned in a blind body. But it is unlikely that the disciples at this time, the third year of our Lord's public life, were still in such ignorance.70Others think that the question means: was he born blind for some sin which itwas foreseenhe would commit? Others think that the question was hastily put without advertence to its absurdity. Others that the meaning is: was it for his own, or,since that is out of the question, was it for the sin of his parents that this man was born blind?
3. Christ replies that neither the man himself nor his parents had sinned, so as to explain his blindness—ἵνα, as acausewhy he should be born blind; but his blindness was ordained, or at least permitted, for the sake of the miracle which Christ was now about to work.
4.Dayis here the span of Christ's mortal life:night[pg 167]the time after death, when Christ was no longer to perform works visibly before men. Of course, as God, Christ still works,“sustaining all things by the word of His power”(Heb. i. 3), but of this Divine operation there is no question here.
5.The light.See i.4,5. Christ was the spiritual light, and as a symbol and proof of His office of spiritual light-giver, He was now about to open the eyes of the blind man to the light of day.
6.He spat on the ground.Of course such ceremonies as that here recorded were wholly unnecessary to Christ for effecting the cure. Why He sometimes used them it is hard to say; perhaps to help to excite the faith of those who were being cured.“Those who impiously jeer at the use of ceremonies, and material elements in connection with spiritual effects, which they symbolize, have a clear refutation in this action, and several similar actions on the part of our Divine Redeemer for similar effects (Mark vii. 33; viii. 23).”(McEvilly).
7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (שׂלוח) of the pool. Some have regarded the interpretation as the gloss of a copyist or interpreter; but there is practically no authority for doubting that it was written by St. John. Doubtless the pool bore this name for some mystic reason; by the natural salubrity of its waters, or by a supernatural virtue, like Bethesda (v. 2), it may have typifiedHim who was sentfrom God to heal men. The pool which still retains its old nameBirket Silwan, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. St. Jerome speaks of[pg 168]the spring which supplied it as situated at the foot of Mount Sion, and mentions also the intermittent character of the spring. See Isaiah viii. 6. In another place St. Jerome speaks of Siloe as situated at“the foot of Mount Moria,”so that there is no reason for doubting that the pool was situated in the valley called Tyropaeon, which separated Mount Sion from Mount Moria, just whereBirket Silwanis still to be seen. See also Josephus,Bella Jud., v. 4. 1. The blind man journeying towards the pool, with clay upon his eyes, must have attracted the attention of many, and thus helped to make the miracle more public. That one born blind, and accustomed to move about Jerusalem, would be able to find his way to the pool, there is no reason to doubt; in any case there need be no difficulty raised on this point, as he could probably have readily found some one willing to guide him.
11.He answered: That man(ὁ ἄνθρωπος is the true reading)that is called Jesus.He yet recognises in Christ only a holy man, but refers to Him as one who was well known and much spoken of.
13. Why they brought him to the Pharisees is not certain; probably in order to have the facts sifted more closely, and perhaps to have Christ condemned of violating the Sabbath (verse 14).
16, 17. The Pharisees themselves disagree as to the character of Christ, and ask the man who had been cured (note how he is still spoken of as blind, just as in the Blessed Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of Christ is spoken of as bread, not because it is any longer bread, but because of what it is known to have been shortly before) what he thought of Him who cured him. His reply is that Christ is a prophet (προφητής without the article), a man sent by God; nottheProphet, for he did not yet recognise Christ as the Messias.
18. The Pharisees now doubt thefactof the cure, and send[pg 170]for the man's parents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.
19-21. Three questions are put to the parents; to two they reply: that this is their son, and that he was born blind; but to the third they return no answer, though, doubtless, they believed their son's account of the cure.
22.Put out of the synagogue; that is to say, deprived of all religious intercourse by a sort of excommunication.
24. The man himself is again interrogated. The words:Give glory to Godare a sort of adjuration; as if they said—remember you are in the presence of God, and speak the truth. See Jos. viii. 19. And yet while, pretending to be anxious to hear the truth, they tried to overawe the poor man by declaring that they are convinced already that Christ is an impostor and sinner.
25.Being blind, τυφλὸς ὤν. Thepresentpart. is used relatively to the time when he blind.
27.You have heard(Gr. καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε,You did not heed).Will you also become his disciples?These words are ironical. The man saw that the Pharisees were hostile to Jesus, and his natural gratitude towards his benefactor made him impatient with them.
28.They reviled him(ἐλοιδόρησαν)therefore, and said: Be thou that man's disciple.
29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the devil.
30.Youis emphatic; you the teachers of God's people!
31.Now we know that God doth not hear sinners.These are the words of the blind man, and we are not bound to hold that they state what is true: that they were spoken by the man, the inspired Evangelist tells us; and thefactthat they were spoken is all that is covered by inspiration. But the words are generally true in the sense in which the context proves they were used. For God does not generally hear sinners so as to work miracles at their will; and this is what the words mean. That God never hears the prayers of sinners, is not stated here, and is not true.
33.Anything; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.
34.Thou wast wholly born in sins, ὅλος (totus); that is to say, altogether, entirely, as thy blindness proves. And dost thou, steeped from thy birth in sin and ignorance, presume to teach us, the sainted[pg 173]doctors of the Law?And they cast him out.Some take the sense to be, that they excommunicated him, but the obvious meaning is, that they drove him from their presence, wherever it was that they were assembled.
35. Christ as God knew, of course, that the man had been expelled by the Pharisees; but He waited till He heard it as man, and then went to seek for and reward the poor fellow, who had so intrepidly defended Him before them. Instead ofSon of God, some manuscripts of great authority readSon of Man; but it is more probable that the former is the correct reading. We may here remark how Christ, who had cured the blindness of the body without requiring faith now asks for faith in Himself before He will dispel the deeper darkness of the soul.“Qui fecit te sine te, non justificat te sine te; fecit nescientem, justificat volentem”(St. Aug., Serm. 15,de verbis Apost.).
36. Probably the man recognised the voice of his benefactor, whom he had not seen until now, and he at once shows himself prepared to do what he understands Christ's question to suggest. He believed that Christ who had cured him, and whom he regarded as a prophet, would not deceive him as to who was really the Son of God. Lord (Gr. κύριε) ought rather to be rendered“Sir.”It is a term of respect, but does not at all imply that the man already recognised Christ to be his Lord and God, as is clear from the context.
37.Thou hast both seen.The meaning is: ThouseestHim, the Greek perfect having here the force of a present. See 1 John iii. 6. Christ's reference to the man'sseeing, was doubtless designed to stimulate his gratitude, and help him to faith.
38. HeadoredChrist as God. Though the word προσεκύνησεν, which is here rendered“adored,”does not, in our opinion, necessarily imply supreme worship in the Greek of either the Old or New Testament,71still the context here determines it to that meaning. For Christ had just declared Himself to be the Son of God, and it isas suchthe man worships Him.
39.For judgment I am come into this world.The blind man had recovered sight in two senses—bodily and spiritual—and Christ, as the occasion naturally suggested, now goes on to speak of spiritual blindness. Christ's words here are not contradictory of iii. 17 or viii. 15, because here there is question of a different judgment. In those passages there is question of the judgment ofcondemnation, for which Christ did not come at His first coming; here there is question of the judgment ofdiscernment(κρίμα, not κρίσις), and for this He had come at His first coming. The sense of the present passage then is: I am come to separate the good from the bad; to make known who love God, and who do not; to show and to effect that those who have been regarded as spiritually blind, and who, indeed, in many cases, have been so, may have the eyes of their souls opened to the light of truth, while those who have been thought, and who think themselves, to see (such as you Pharisees), may be shown to be indeed spiritually blind, and may reallybecome more blind, by being involved in deeper darkness through their own unbelief. This latter effect—that they should become more blind—was not directly intended by Christ, but it was foreseen and permitted, and this is enough to justify Christ's expression:“That they who see may become[pg 175]blind.”Compare Rom. v. 20:“Now the law entered in that sin might abound.”
40, 41. The Pharisees ask:Are we also blind?and Jesus replies:If you were blind, you should not have sin; that is to say, if you were blind through invincible ignorance, or, as we prefer to hold, if you were blindin your own estimation, if yourecognisedyour spiritual blindness, you should not have sin, because I would wipe it out; but now that yousayyou see, and rely upon yourselves, your sin remaineth.