John 9

John 9:1

Ambrose of Milan: You have heard, my brother, the lesson of the Gospel, wherein it is narrated that as the Lord Jesus passed by He saw a man which was blind from his birth. Now if the Lord saw him He did not pass him by, neither ought we to pass him by whom the Lord overlooked not; especially since he was blind from his birth, which is not mentioned without reason.

Now there is a blindness in which by the operation of illness the sight of the eyes is obscured, and this by the help of time is mitigated; there is a blindness also which is caused by the entrance of humours, and this, when the defect is removed, is cured by the aid of medicine; and this I say that you may know that it was not by skill but by Divine Power that he who was blind from his birth was healed. For the Lord gave him health as a free gift, not by any medicinal skill, for they whom the Lord Jesus healed were they whom no one could cure. — Letter 80.1-2

Apostolic Constitutions: He that framed for Himself a body out of a virgin, is also the Former of other men. And He that raised Himself from the dead, will also raise again all that are laid down. He who raises wheat out of the ground with many stalks from one grain, He that made the tree that is cut down send forth fresh branches, He that made Aaron’s dry rod put forth buds, will raise us up in glory; He that raised Him up that had the palsy whole, and healed him that had the withered hand, He that supplied a defective part to him that was born blind from clay and spittle, will raise us up; He that satisfied five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes, and caused a remainder of twelve baskets, and out of water made wine, and sent a piece of money out of a fish’s mouth by me Peter to those that demanded tribute, will raise the dead. — Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 5

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 1, 2) For the blind man here is the human race. Blindness came upon the first man by reason of sin: and from him we all derive it: i. e. man is blind from his birth. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: All, certainly, that was done by our Lord Jesus Christ, both works and words, are worthy of our astonishment and admiration: His works, because they are facts; His words, because they are signs. If we reflect, then, on what is signified by the deed here done, that blind man is the human race; for this blindness had place in the first man through sin, from whom we all draw our origin, not only in respect of death, but also of unrighteousness. For if unbelief is blindness, and faith enlightenment, whom did Christ find a believer at His coming? seeing that the apostle, belonging himself to the family of the prophets, says: “And we also in times past were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” If “children of wrath,” then children of vengeance, children of punishment, children of hell. For how is it “by nature,” save that through the first man sinning moral evil rooted itself in us as a nature? If evil has so taken root within us, every man is born mentally blind. For if he sees, he has no need of a guide. If he does need one to guide and enlighten him, then is he blind from his birth. — Tractates on John 44

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Mystically, our Lord, after being banished from the minds of the Jews, passed over to the Gentiles. (non occ.). The passage or journey here is His descent from heaven to earth, where He saw the blind man, i. e. looked with compassion on the human race. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Caesarius of Arles: We have just heard that Jesus gave sight to the man who was blind from birth. Do you wonder? Jesus is the Savior. He did something in keeping with his name, for by his kindness he restored what he had given to a lesser degree in the womb. Now when he made his eyes less powerful, surely he did not make a mistake, but he deferred it for the miracle.… Behold, why Christ delayed when he made the eyes less powerful in the womb. Do not think that the parents of that blind man had no sin and that the blind man himself, when he was born, did not contract original sin; because of the fact of original sin even very little children are baptized. However, that blindness was not due to the sin of his parents or due to the sin of the blind man, but in order that the glory of God might be made manifest in him. For when we are born we all contract original sin, and still we are not born physically blind. That blind man was prepared as a salve for the human race. He was bodily restored to light, in order that by considering his miracle we might be enlightened in heart. — SERMON 172.1

Cyril of Alexandria: While the Jews were raging against Him and now essaying to wound Him with stones, forthwith He goes forth of the temple that is among them, and takes Him away from the unholiness of His pursuers. And in passing by, straightway He seeth one blind from his birth, and setteth him as a token and that most clear that He will remove from the abominable behaviour of the Jews, and will leave the multitude of the God-opposers, and will rather visit the Gentiles, and to them transfer the abundance of His Clemency. And He likens them to the blind from his birth by reason of their having been made in error and that they are from their first age as it were bereft of the true knowledge of God, and that they Have not the light from God, i. e., the illumination through the Spirit.

It is meet to observe again what Christ’s visiting the blind man as He was passing by, signifies. And it comes to me to think that Christ strictly speaking came not for the Gentiles but for Israel’s sake alone (as Himself too somewhere says, I was not sent save unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel), yet was the recovery of sight given to the Gentiles, Christ transferring His Mercy to them as by the way, because of the disobedience of Israel. And this it was again which was afore-sung through Moses, I will provoke them to jealousy with not a nation, with a foolish nation will I anger them. For a foolish nation was it which serveth the creature more than Creator and like irrational beasts feeds on just all unlearning, and giveth heed only to things of the earth. But since Israel which was wise by reason of the law and prudent from having Prophets angered [God], it in its turn was angered by God, they who aforetime were not prudent being taken into the place belonging to these, for to them through faith was Christ made wisdom and sanctification and redemption, as it is written, i. e., both light and recovery of sight. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Irenaeus: For [they hold] that perfect Nous, previously begotten by the perfect Bythus, was not capable of rendering that production which issued from him perfect, but [could only bring it forth] utterly blind to the knowledge and greatness of the Father. They also maintain that the Saviour exhibited an emblem of this mystery in the case of that man who was blind from his birth, since the Aeon was in this manner produced by Monogenes blind, that is, in ignorance, thus falsely ascribing ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who, according to their own theory, holds the second [place of] production from the Propator. Admirable sophists, and explorers of the sublimities of the unknown Father, and rehearsers of those super-celestial mysteries “which the angels desire to look into!” -that they may learn that from the Nous of that Father who is above all, the Word was produced blind, that is, ignorant of the Father who produced him! — Against Heresies Book II

John Chrysostom: “And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man which was blind from his birth.” Being full of love for man, and caring for our salvation, and desiring to stop the mouths of the foolish, He omitteth nothing of His own part, though there be none to give heed. Wherefore here, when they would not receive His sublime sayings, but said that He had a devil, and attempted to kill Him, He went forth from the Temple, and healed the blind, mitigating their rage by His absence, and by working the miracle softening their hardness and cruelty, and establishing His assertions. And He worketh a miracle which was no common one, but one which took place then for the first time. “Since the world began,” saith he who was healed, “was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.” Some have, perhaps, opened the eyes of the blind, but of one born blind never. And that on going out of the Temple, He proceeded intentionally to the work, is clear from this; it was He who saw the blind man, not the blind man who came to Him; and so earnestly did He look upon him, that even His disciples perceived it. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

John 9:2

Apollinaris of Laodicea: There was a certain philosophy among the ancients that troubles came from sin because they were confident that God was not responsible for any evil. The notion that people suffer as an exercise so that they might perceive the power of God at last—this was not well known at all because they would rather have God give good rewards to the just then and there and not prolong suffering any longer for the sake of eternal life. Since he was a blind man from birth, it occurred to the disciples to ask. Since no one can sin before his birth, they ventured a guess that the parents were to blame. For they knew that children may suffer in order to bring grief to the parents. But the Lord said that the blindness did not occur because of any sin but for the sake of the glory of God that was about to take place as the power of God would be revealed through his unexpected recovery of sight. — FRAGMENTS ON John 49

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 1, 2) Rabbi is Master. They call Him Master, because they wished to learn: they put their question to our Lord, as to a Master. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: That not from sins of the soul prior to birth do bodily sufferings befal any, nor yet does God bring the sins of their fathers upon any, punishing those who have nothing sinned, but brings righteous doom upon all.

Being desirous (and not without good reason) that the mystery should be explained, or rather being Divinely guided, the most wise disciples were urged to ask instruction on the subject. And they are inquisitive with profit, by this means furnishing an advantage not so much for themselves as for us. For we are benefited greatly both by hearing the true explanation of these things from the Omniscient, and in addition also by being warned off from the abomination of effete doctrines. These errors not only used to exist among the Jews, but are also |2 advocated now by some who are insufferably conceited in their knowledge of inspired Scripture and seem to pass for Christians. Such persons of a truth delight too much in their own sophistries, indulging their private fancies, and not fearing to mingle Greek error with the doctrines of the Church. For the Jews, when they were in misery, greatly murmured, as if merely suffering the penalty of their forefathers’ impiety, or as if God were most unreasonably laying upon them the sins of their fathers, and scoffed at it as a most unjust punishment; they even said in a proverb: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge. And these again, being afflicted with a like and kindred ignorance to those just mentioned by us, earnestly maintain 9 that the souls of men existed and had their being before the creation of their bodies, and that these souls having turned willingly to sin even before the existence of their bodies, then souls and bodies became united, when in the order of chastisement the souls received birth in the flesh. But in one brief statement the follies of both these parties are exposed by Christ, Who confidently affirms that neither had the blind man sinned nor his parents. He refutes the doctrine of the Jews by saying that the man had not been born blind on account of any sin either of himself or of his ancestors, no, not even of his father or mother; and he also overthrows the silly nonsense of the others, who say that souls sin before their existence in the body.

For some one will say to them and very reasonably: How, tell me, does Christ say that neither had the blind man sinned nor his parents? And yet we could not grant that they were altogether free from sin. For, inasmuch as they were human, it is I suppose in every way likely or rather it of necessity follows that they fell into errors. Pray then, what time does Christ mean to define as that concerning which His word shall appears to us true, that neither did the man himself sin, nor indeed his parents? |Surely He speaks of that which is previous to birth, when having no existence whatever, they did not sin.

Again, concerning such matters, how truly frivolous and beside the mark it is to think that souls sinned before the existence of their bodies, and on that account were embodied and sent into this world, we have argued at length at the beginning of the present gospel, in interpreting and commenting on the words: That was the True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and it would be superfluous for us to discuss the subject again. But it is necessary to say whence it occurred to the Jews to fall into this opinion and supposition; also to show clearly that from inability to understand the Divine Word, they mistook its proper meaning. Israel once dwelt in tents in the wilderness, and God called His hierophant Moses on Mount Sinai; but when he extended his stay there with God to the number of forty days, he seemed to be a loiterer to those who had influence with the people, who both rose up against Aaron then being alone, and falling back in contempt upon the idolatries of Egypt, cried saying: Make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. Then what followed thereupon I think it necessary to speak of briefly. They made a calf, as it is written, and at this God was justly provoked to anger: then indeed He threatened to destroy the whole congregation at once. Moses fell down before Him and sought for pardon with much entreaty. The Creator of the universe granted forgiveness, and promised to punish the people no further than that He would not continue to go up with them to the land of promise, but would send with them instead His special Angel as it were in the position of leader. At this Moses was sorely grieved, and as God was not willing to go up with the people, he inferred with some likelihood indeed that the Divine anger was not yet thoroughly appeased. So he prayed again earnestly that God would accompany them, |4 knowing that the mere guidance of an Angel would not suffice some of the Israelites, and perhaps also fearing the weakness of the people and therefore deprecating the holy angels’ hatred of evil; and he entreated the Good One, the Lover of men, the Supreme King and Lord over all, to be willing rather to be present with those so prone to transgress. For he knew that God would pardon them not once only but many times, and that He would grant mercy to those who should offend. And God also consented to this. Then Moses sought a sign from Him, even that he might see Him, as a full assurance and testimony that He had forgiven them completely: For, said he, if I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me; that I may evidently see Thee, that I may find grace in Thy sight, and that I may know that this great nation is Thy people. This also God granted, as far as it was possible, assuring in every way His own servant both that He had forgiven the people their sin and that He would go up with them to the land of promise. Then, giving as it were a sort of finishing touch to the promises, which seemed wanting, He commands Moses to hew out two other tables for Him, the former ones as we know having been broken in pieces, so that He might write down the Law yet again for the people; even in this affording no small evidence of His kindness towards them. And when Moses was ready also for this, the Lord descended in a child, as it is written, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the Name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before his face and proclaimed: The Lord God is pitiful and merciful, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and true, and keeping justice, and showing mercy unto thousands, taking away iniquities and unrighteousnesses and sins; and He will not clear the guilty; visiting the sins of fathers upon children and upon children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

But now attend carefully, for I am about to take up again the question proposed at first. God declares Himself to show His kindness and His incomparable love of |men in a manner suitable to Deity. For we maintain that these were the words of God, not of any other speaker; not (as some think) the words of the all-wise Moses, offering up laudatory prayers on behalf of the people. For that it is the Lord of all Himself speaking these things of Himself, no other than the blessed Moses himself will bear witness to us, teaching in the Book of Numbers, when the Israelites had again taken offence from unseasonable cowardice, because some, who by Moses at God’s command had been sent to spy it out, spake evil of the Land of Promise. For when they returned from the land of the strangers and were come again to their own people, they spat out bitter words concerning it. Affirming the land to be so wild and rugged that it was capable of eating up its inhabitants, they excited so much hatred of it in the minds of their hearers, that bursting into tears they now desired again to be in Egypt with all its hardships. For, Let us make, said they, captains, and let us journey into Egypt. And when God threatened to destroy them, Moses again prayed, and all but reminding Him also of the promise He had given, went on to cry: And now let Thy strength be exalted, O Lord, according as Thou hast spoken, saying, The Lord is long-suffering and of great mercy and true, forgiving transgressions and iniquities and sins; and He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation. Forgive this people their sin according to Thy great mercy, as Thou hast been favourable to them from Egypt even until now. It appears therefore that He Who is God over all attributes to Himself love of men and the greatest forbearance towards evil. It will be fitting in the next place to set forth the cause on account of which the Jews, being deceived, could suppose our good God to be mindful of injury and exceeding wrathful.

For my part, I do not think them able to lay hold of the Divine Oracles in any way, or to cavil at them as if they have not expressed what is most excellent or have |6 strayed far from the law of fairness. On the other hand, I think that they only indulge their own ignorance in this matter, to suppose the sins of fathers to be really brought upon children, and the Divine anger to be stretched so far that it may even reach to the third and fourth generation, exacting unjustly from innocent persons the penalties of others’ crimes. Would it not at all events be more becoming to them, if they were wise, to hold the opinion that the Source of righteousness and of our moral laws would do nothing so shameful? For even men inflict punishments according to the laws upon habitual transgressors, but by no means visit them on their children, unless perchance they are detected as partners and associates in the misdeeds: and as to Him Who prescribed to us the laws of all justice, how can He be detected in inflicting penalties such as among ourselves are greatly condemned? Then this also in addition is to be considered. By the mouth of Moses He published laws innumerable, and in many cases those living in bad habits were ordered to be punished, but nowhere is a command from Him to be found, that children should share the penalties incurred by their sinning fathers. For penalty is for those who are detected in crime, and it was ordained that it was fitting to punish those only who were obnoxious to the law. To think as the Jews do is therefore surely impious, but it is certainly the part of a wise man to investigate the Divine mind and by every means to observe what things are agreeable to Nature, the queen of all things. Rightly therefore let us hold that the God of the universe, setting as it were before Him His inherent clemency, willing to be admired for His pure love of men and to this end proclaiming: The Lord is longsuffering and of great mercy and true, forgiving transgressions and sins, would not wish to be known as so mindful of evil that He extends His anger even to the fourth generation inclusive. For how can He still be longsuffering and of great mercy, or how does He forgive transgressions and sins, Who cannot endure to limit the infliction of penalty to the person |7 of the sinner, but extends it beyond the third generation, and like a sort of thunderbolt assaults even the innocent? Surely then it is quite incredible and of almost utter folly, to suppose that God attributes to Himself, together with love of men and gentleness, anger so lasting and so unreasonable.

To these things another may be added by those who support the Jewish opinion, and do not allow that God knows a suitable time for every kind of action. For if He promises longsuffering and is found to yield very easily in laying aside His anger, why is He seen to have added: Visiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation? Of course this was done for no other reason than a wish to frighten those who expect remission of sins from Him, as showing that the object of their hopes should never be realized, since He Who with reason is grieved with them is so mindful of evil and tenacious in anger.

But further, tell me what the hierophant Moses himself indicates to us. Would he not seem to do a thing most opposite to all reason, if, when Israel had given offence and was about to suffer punishment, he proceeded to pray for them, and, while asking for oblivion of the offence and an exhibition of God’s love for men, he should unseasonably say to God: Thou art of such a nature that Thou requitest the sins of fathers upon children’s children? For this would be rather the way of one instigating to anger than of one calling for mercy, and of one asking mindfulness of injury rather than longsuffering. But in my opinion by these words he seemed to importune God and to recall to His memory almost the very words which He Himself uttered, when He publicly proclaimed His inherent goodness. For in what way He is longsuffering and of great mercy, and how He is by nature One Who takes away sins and transgressions, will be most excellently discerned, in the very dealings wherein He seems to be somewhat bitter.

In the next place then I think it is fitting to set forth |8 in what way we may rightly understand the words which were spoken by God. The Lord, He says, is long suffering and of great mercy, taking away transgressions and sins. Then we will read that which immediately follows as if with a note of interrogation:. And will He not surely clear the guilty? So that thou mayest understand something of this sort: Will not, says He, the longsuffering and greatly merciful God, Who takes away transgressions and sins, will He not surely clear the guilty? Of course it is not to be doubted: certainly He will thoroughly purge him. For how is He longsuffering and of great mercy and how does He at all take away sins, unless He purges the guilty? At these words He goes off to a demonstration of His inherent longsuffering and forbearance, even that He will visit the sins of the fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation: not chastising the son for the father; do not think this: nay, not even does He lay upon a descendant the faults of his ancestors like a burden: but meaning something of this sort. There was (we will suppose) a certain man, a transgressor of laws, having his mind full of all wickedness, and who, being taken in this manner of lining, deserved to be punished without any respite; but yet God in forbearance dealt with him patiently, not bringing upon him the wrath he had merited. Then to him was born a son, a rival of his father in impious deeds and outdoing his parent in villainy: God also showed longsuffering towards this man. But from him is born a third, and from the third a fourth, in no way inferior to their progenitors in wickedness, but practising equal impiety with them. Then God pours out wrath upon them, already even from the beginning deserved by the whole race, after He has tolerated as much as and even more than it behoved Him. A postponement of vengeance even unto the fourth generation, how is it not truly a commendation of Divine gentleness? For that He is wont to chastise neither son for father nor father for son, it is not hard to learn from those words which by the voice of the prophet Ezekiel He clearly spake to the Jews |9 themselves, when over this same thing they murmured and said: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge. And, says he, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, what mean ye by this proverb in Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord, this proverb shall be said no more in Israel. For all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son; they are mine. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son: each in his own iniquity in which he hath sinned, in that shall he die. But I suppose no one is so foolish as to think that God did not at the beginning legislate in the most excellent way, but somehow changed His plans and altered His ideas for the better, and like one of ourselves was with difficulty and after subsequent deliberation able to improve His legislation to what was most fitting. In such a case, if we praise the earlier laws we shall clearly be blaming the later, and if we express an opinion that the later laws are superior we shall condemn the earlier by our lower estimation of them. God too will legislate in opposition to Himself, and will have fallen short, as we may have done, of a perfect standard, by ordaining one thing at one time and a different thing at another time. But I suppose every one will say that the Divine Nature cannot be in any way subject to such inconsistencies as this, and could not even have ever fallen short of absolute perfection.

It is then as a demonstration of His incomparable munificence that He alleges the words quoted above, viz:—-Requiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation. For that the merciful God is wont to punish sinners not immediately, but rather to do it reluctantly and to put off punishments for long seasons, thou wilt understand from His own words: And I was full of Mine anger and restrained it, and: did not make a full end of them. And again in another place: For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. Thou seest that He was indeed full of anger, for some were perpetrating deeds deserving fulness of anger, but as God He forbore patiently and delayed to make a full end of those who offended Him. But in order that we may exhibit to thee as in a picture the proof of what we have said and from actual events demonstrate the praise of God’s love for men to be contained in this text, I will bring forward something recorded in the Sacred Books, and will endeavour from the Divine Scripture itself to show the sins of fathers visited on children even to the third and fourth generation; not unjustly, but justly, and in a manner merited by the sufferers themselves. The story shall be summarized, because of the length of the narrative.

Well then, in the First Book of Kings we read that after other kings Ahab reigned over Israel, and burning with a most unrighteous desire for another man’s vineyard, he slew the lord of it, even Naboth. For although he did not himself command that deed, yet he expressed no anger at the wickedness of his wife. At this God was of course wroth, and spake to Ahab by Elijah the prophet: Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast killed and also taken possession, therefore thus saith the Lord, In the place where the swine and the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there shall the dogs lick thy blood; and the harlots shall wash themselves in thy blood. And again immediately: Thus saith the Lord, Behold I bring evil upon thee, and will kindle a fire behind thee, and will utterly destroy from Ahab every male and him that is shut up and left in Israel. And I will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahab, for the provocations wherewith thou hast provoked Me to anger and made Israel to sin. And of Jezebel he spake, saying, The dogs shall eat her within the outer-wall of Jezreel. And him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat, and him that dieth in the field shall the birds of the air eat. When the Lord of all unmistakably threatened to do all these things and to inflict them, Ahab rent his garment and entered into his house; as it is written, He was pricked to the heart, and burst bitterly into tears, and girded his loins with sackcloth. In which state God pities him, and begins to allay His anger, and putting as it were a bridle to His sudden fury says to the Prophet: Hast thou seen how Ahab was pricked to the heart before Me? I will not bring these things in his days, but in his son’s days I will bring the evil. Will it not therefore be right to inquire upon whom these things were fulfilled? Well, the son of Ahab was Ahaziah, Who, Scripture says, did evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of his father Ahab, and in the way of Jezebel his mother. Then the son of Ahaziah was, Scripture says, Joram, of whom again it is written that he walked in the sins of the house of Jeroboam. Next to Joram reigned a third Ahaziah, of whom again the language of the narrative says that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab. But when the time had now come for punishing the house of Ahab, which had not ceased from impiety towards God even to the fourth generation, there was anointed to be the next king over Israel Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi, who slew Ahaziah, and beside him Jezebel; he slew also seventy other sons of Ahab, carrying out as it were the Divine wrath to the uttermost, so that he obtained both honour and favour on account of it. For what saith God to him? Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in Mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in Mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit upon thy throne. Thou seest therefore that He reluctantly punished in the fourth generation the wicked descendants of wicked men, whereas to him from whom He received honour He extends His mercy even to the fourth generation. Cease therefore, O Jew, to accuse the righteousness of God. As a form of encomium certainly we will accept that saying: Requiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” A mistaken question, for how could he sin before he was born? and how, if his parents had sinned, would he have been punished? Whence then came they to put this question? Before, when He healed the paralytic, He said, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more.” They therefore, having understood that he was palsied on account of sin, said, “Well, that other was palsied because of his sins; but concerning this man, what wouldest Thou say? hath he sinned? It is not possible to say so, for he is blind from his birth. Have his parents sinned? Neither can one say this, for the child suffers not punishment for the father.” As therefore when we see a child evil entreated, we exclaim, “What can one say of this? what has the child done?” not as asking a question, but as being perplexed, so the disciples spake here, not so much asking for information, as being in perplexity. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

Pseudo-Clement: Yet in the beginning of the world men lived long, and had no diseases. But when through carelessness they neglected the observation of the proper times, then the sons in succession cohabiting through ignorance at times when they ought not, place their children under innumerable afflictions. Whence our Teacher, when we inquired of Him in regard to the man who was blind from his birth, and recovered his sight, if this man sinned, or his parents, that he should be born blind, answered, ‘Neither did he sin at all, nor his parents, but that the power of God might be made manifest through him in healing the sins of ignorance.’ — Clementine Homilies, Homily 19

John 9:3

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 3) Was he then born without original sin, or had he never added to it by actual sin? Both this man and his parents had sinned, but that sin was not the reason why he was born blind. Our Lord gives the reason; viz. That the works of God should be made manifest in him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: That which lies before us is hard to explain and capable of causing much perplexity, so that it would be perhaps not unlearned to pass it over in silence, and because of its excessive difficulty to leave it. But when the Jewish doctrines have been refuted, lest another thing akin to them, like any root of bitterness springing up, trouble you, as Paul says; (for perhaps some will hence suspect that the bodies of men are affected with sufferings, in order that the works of Grod may be made manifest in them;) I, for my part, think it seasonable to subjoin a few words with reference to this, that thereby we may both keep off any injuries arising from this source, and leave no loophole for deceptive arguments. That God does not bring the sins of parents upon children unless they are partakers of their wickedness, and further, that embodiment is not on account of sins previously committed by the soul, we have shown. For by speaking in opposition to these two errors, Christ in a wonderful manner overturned them, since He unquestionably knows all things, as God; or rather, since He Himself is the over-ruler of our affairs, and the ordainer of those things which befit and are deserved by every man. For in that He says the blind man had not sinned, nor was suffering blindness on that account, He shows that it is foolish to suppose the soul of man to be guilty of sins previous to its birth in the body: moreover, when He openly says that neither had His parents sinned that their son should be born blind, He refutes the silly suspicion of the Jews. Therefore, after He had taught His disciples as much as was necessary for them to know in order to refute the doctrines which we have above stated, and imparted to them as much as it was fitting to exhibit to the understanding of man, He is silent as to the rest, and sets forth no further with clearness the reason why he was born blind who was guilty of no sin previous to birth, attributing to the Divine Nature alone the knowledge of all such things and a management of affairs which is past finding out. But again He very skilfully transfers the language of His answer to something else and says; But that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Does then, some one will say, the Lord declare to us these words here as a certain doctrine, as if for this single reason ailments attack the bodies of men, that the works of God should be made manifest in them? It does not seem so at all to me, but rather it is evidently absurd so to imagine or suppose; He certainly is not dogmatizing at all (as some might think) when He says this. For that it happens to some to be smitten on account of their sins, we have often learnt from the Holy Scriptures. Paul indeed plainly writes to those who with feet as it were unwashed dared to approach the holy altar, and with profane and unholy hand to touch the mystical Eucharist: For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. For if we judged ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. Accordingly, upon the sickly and dead, it is sometimes by Divine wrath that the suffering has been brought. But also our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, after He had loosed the paralytic from a long disease, and had miraculously made him whole, says: Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing befal thee. Surely He says this as though it might happen that unless the man took heed he would suffer something worse for his sin, although he had once escaped and by the Lord’s favour been restored to health. But perhaps some may say: we will grant that these things are rightly said; but as to those who suffer something terrible from the cradle and their earliest years, or even from the very womb are afflicted with diseases, it is not easy to understand what kind of explanation any one can satisfactorily give. For we do not believe that the soul previously existed; nor indeed can we think that it sinned before the body, for how can that sin, which has not yet been called to birth? But if there has been no sin nor fault preceding the suffering, what then shall we allege as the cause of the suffering? Truly, by our minds we cannot comprehend those things which are far above us, and I should advise the prudent, and myself above all, to abstain from wishing to thoroughly scrutinize them. For we should recall to mind what we have been commanded, and not curiously examine things which are too deep, nor pry into those which are too hard, nor rashly attempt to discover those which are hidden in the Divine and ineffable counsel alone; but rather concerning such matters we should piously acknowledge that God alone knows some things, peculiar to Himself and excellent. At the same time we should maintain and believe that since He is the fountain of all righteousness, He will neither do nor determine anything whatever in human affairs, or in those of the rest of creation, which is unbecoming to Himself, or differs at all from the true rectitude of justice.

Since therefore it becomes us to be affected in this way, I say, that the Lord does not speak dogmatically when He says, that the works of God should be made manifest in him; but rather He says it to draw off the answer of the questioner in another direction, and to lead us from things too deep for us to more suitable ones; for that is a thing He was in some sort wont to do. And that this assertion is true, hear again how when the holy disciples were earnestly inquiring about the end of the world, and very curiously putting questions concerning His second coming, and going far beyond the limits proper for man, He very evidently draws them away from such interrogations. It is not for you, says He, to know times or seasons which the Father hath set within His own authority. But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea. Thou hearest that He does not permit us at all to seek into those things which no way are fit for us, but rather directs us to come back to what is necessary. So also in this place, having spoken plainly what was meet for us to learn, He reserves the rest in silence, knowing that it behoved Himself alone to understand this. But lest by being altogether silent He should as it were invite them again to ask Him about the same things, in the manner of alleging a reason, and as though courteously fashioning |some such answer as the questions seemed to deserve, He says, But that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Which is just as if He had said, in different and simpler language: The man was not born blind on account of his own sins or the sins of his parents; but since it has happened that he was so affected, it is possible that in him God may be glorified. For when, by power from above, he shall be found free from the affliction which lies upon him and troubles him, who will not admire the Physician? Who will not recognise the power of the Healer shown forth in Him?

I think this sense is latent in the words before us, but let those who are clever think out the more perfect meaning. And if any think fit to be contentious and say that the man was born blind for the very end that Christ might be glorified in him, we will say to them in reply: Do you suppose, O good people, that this was the only man in Judea who was blind from birth in the time of the coming of our Saviour, and that there was no other whatever? Surely, even though unwilling, they will confess, I think, that in all likelihood very many such were found in all the land. How was it then that Christ only exhibited His kindness and power to one of them, or at all events to but a small number? Concerning these things, however, I deem it superfluous to hold an argument. Wherefore, the other opinion being rejected as foolish, we will hold it true, that after Christ had revealed to us as much about the questions asked as was meet for us to learn, He passed on to another subject, skilfully turning aside His own disciple from searching into such things. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Gregory the Dialogist: For of scourges there are sundry kinds; for there is the scourge whereby the sinner is stricken that he may suffer punishment without withdrawal, another whereby he is smitten, that he may be corrected; another wherewith sometimes a man is smitten, not for the correction of past misdeeds, but for the prevention of future; another which is very often inflicted, whereby neither a past transgression is corrected, nor a future one prevented, but which has this end, that when unexpected deliverance follows the stroke, the power of the Deliverer being known may be the more ardently beloved, and that while the innocent person is bruised by the blow, his patience may serve to increase the gain of his merits… But sometimes the person is stricken neither for past not yet for future transgression, but that the alone mightiness of the Divine power may be set forth in the cutting short of the striking; whence when it was said unto the Lord concerning the blind man in the Gospel, “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” the Lord answered, saying, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him”: in which manifestation what else is done, saving that by that scourge the excellence of his merits is increased, and while there is no past transgression wiped away, the patience may engender a mighty fortitude. — Morals on the Book of Job, Preface 5.12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (in Præf. Moral. c. 5) One stroke falls on the sinner, for punishment only, not conversion; another for correction; another not for correction of past sins, but prevention of future; another neither for correcting past, nor preventing future sins, but by the unexpected deliverance following the blow, to excite more ardent love of the Saviour’s goodness. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Irenaeus: And for this reason did the Lord most plainly manifest Himself and the Father to His disciples, lest, forsooth, they might seek after another God besides Him who formed man, and who gave him the breath of life; and that men might not rise to such a pitch of madness as to feign another Father above the Creator. And thus also He healed by a word all the others who were in a weakly condition because of sin; to whom also He said, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee:” pointing out by this, that, because of the sin of disobedience, infirmities have come upon men. To that man, however, who had been blind from his birth, He gave sight, not by means of a word, but by an outward action; doing this not without a purpose, or because it so happened, but that He might show forth the hand of God, that which at the beginning had moulded man. And therefore, when His disciples asked Him for what cause the man had been born blind, whether for his own or his parents’ fault, He replied, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” Now the work of God is the fashioning of man. For, as the Scripture says, He made [man] by a kind of process: “And the Lord took day from the earth, and formed man.” Wherefore also the Lord spat on the ground and made clay, and smeared it upon the eyes, pointing out the original fashioning [of man], how it was effected, and manifesting the hand of God to those who can understand by what [hand] man was formed out of the dust. For that which the artificer, the Word, had omitted to form in the womb, [viz., the blind man’s eyes], He then supplied in public, that the works of God might be manifested in him, in order that we might not be seeking out another hand by which man was fashioned, nor another Father; knowing that this hand of God which formed us at the beginning, and which does form us in the womb, has in the last times sought us out who were lost, winning back His own, and taking up the lost sheep upon His shoulders, and with joy restoring it to the fold of life. — Against Heresies Book V

John Chrysostom: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.” This He saith not as acquitting them of sins, for He saith not simply, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents,” but addeth, “that he should have been born blind” - “but that the Son of God should be glorified in him.” “For both this man hath sinned and his parents, but his blindness proceedeth not from that.” And this He said, not signifying that though this man indeed was not in such case, yet that others had been made blind from such a cause, the sins of their parents, since it cannot be that when one sinneth another should be punished. For if we allow this, we must also allow that he sinned before his birth. As therefore when He declared, “neither hath this man sinned,” He said not that it is possible to sin from one’s very birth, and be punished for it; so when He said, “nor his parents,” He said not that one may be punished for his parents’ sake. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

John Chrysostom: “That the glory of God should be made manifest,” He saith. Lo, here again is another difficulty, if without this man’s punishment, it was not possible that the glory of God should be shown. Certainly it is not said that it was impossible, for it was possible, but, “that it might be manifested even in this man.” “What,” saith some one, “did he suffer wrong for the glory of God?” What wrong, tell me? For what if God had never willed to produce him at all? But I assert that he even received benefit from his blindness: since he recovered the sight of the eyes within. What were the Jews profited by their eyes? They incurred the heavier punishment, being blinded even while they saw. And what injury had this man by his blindness? For by means of it he recovered sight. As then the evils of the present life are not evils, so neither are the good things good; sin alone is an evil, but blindness is not an evil. And He who had brought this man from not being into being, had also power to leave him as he was. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

John Chrysostom: But when He said, “That the glory of God might be manifested,” He spake of Himself, not of the Father; His glory was already manifest. For since they had heard that God made man, taking the dust of the earth, so also Christ made clay. To have said, “I am He who took the dust of the earth, and made man,” would have seemed a hard thing to His hearers; but this when shown by actual working, no longer stood in their way. So that He by taking earth, and mixing it with spittle, showed forth His hidden glory; for no small glory was it that He should be deemed the Architect of the creation. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

Theodore of Mopsuestia: It was not unusual for his disciples to ask this kind of question about all that was happening to the Lord so that they could learn those things that lead to godliness. Indeed, since they had left everything and had given themselves completely to the Lord in order to learn from him godliness and piety, it is with laudable care that they took the opportunity from what happened around them to ask him such questions. When they saw this man born blind who, before he could sin, had this damage, and to whom this defect of the eyes happened when he was still in the womb, they were upset in their human way about this fact in trying to relate it to their faith. They thought that there was a just reason for such an accident and that such adversity had occurred not without good cause because they knew that God rules all human things. They were not able to understand what had happened in any other way because of their human weakness, attributing the reason for what happened either to the sin of the parents or to the blind man himself. It was not that he had been injured because he had sinned already—indeed, how could he sin if he was not born yet? But, since he would commit future sins, God, in his foreknowledge, restrained him by that disability. They justly and piously thought that the sins of people were the cause of all evils. But since, because of their human weakness, they could understand nothing more by themselves, they thought that the cause for this disability could only be attributed to the blind man himself or to his parents; as if the son had received that punishment for their sins, or he was the cause of his misfortune because he had received that punishment for his future sins. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.1-2

Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Lord taught the disciples that there are many reasons for all these events and that they are certainly secret and unexplainable. And so, we always complain about events whose causes we ignore, but then we also learn that nothing happens in vain. This knowledge will be given to us in the future world, because what is hidden now will be revealed to us. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.3

John 9:4

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 4) By His saying, Who sent Me, He gives all the glory to Him from Whom He is. The Father hath a Son Who is from Him, but hath none from whom He Himself is. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day.” Recall to thy mind the way in which He gives universal glory to Him of whom He is: for that One has the Son who is of Him; He Himself has no One of whom He is. But wherefore, Lord, saidst Thou, “While it is day”? Hearken why He did so. “The night cometh when no man can work.” Not even Thou, Lord. Will that night have such power that not even Thou, whose work the night is, wilt be able to work therein? — Tractates on John 44

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For when the Son declared that He worked the works of the Father, He proved that His and His Father’s works were the same: which are to heal the sick, to strengthen the weak, and enlighten man. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Lo here again in these words, plainly and reasonably, He rebukes in a similar manner the disciples, as if they had done something they ought not, and having left the high road, well-trodden and firm, had ventured on another which seemed not at all fit for them. For, why do ye ask, says He, things touching which it is good to be silent? Or why, leaving that which suits the time, do ye hasten to learn things beyond the capacity of man? It is not a time for such curiosity, says He, but for work and intense zeal; for I deem it more becoming, passing by such questions, to execute zealously God’s commands, and since He has appointed us Apostles, to fulfil the works of the Apostleship. When the Lord numbers Himself with those who are sent, and enrols Himself among those who ought to work, in no way does He make Himself really one of us, or say that He Himself is subject as we are- by a certain servile necessity to the will of a commander: but He uses a common habit of speech, even to ourselves trite and familiar. For, especially when the bare substance of an argument is not calculated to impress our hearers, we are wont to join ourselves to them, and to reckon ourselves with them. For which reason doubtless the most wise Paul addressed the Corinthians as if concerning himself and Apollos, and at last added: Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos; that in us ye might learn not to be wise beyond the things which are written. While therefore it is day, says He, let us work the works of Him that sent us; for the night will come, when no man can work. In these words He calls the time of bodily life, day; and the time we are in death, He calls night. For since the day was given for works, but the night for rest and sleep, therefore the time of life in which we ought to work what is good, people call day; and the time of sleeping, in which nothing whatever can be done, they call night. For he that hath died is justified from sin, according to the saying of Paul, being found unable to do anything, and therefore unable to sin.

Thus Holy Scripture really does recognise a theory of a metaphorical day, and in no less degree a corresponding theory of night. And if taken into consideration at the right moment each of these metaphorical interpretations exhibits the aspect of the questions under investigation in a manner free from error. But concerning unsuitable subjects, and when it ought not to be done, to attempt violently to drag round to a spiritual interpretation that which ought to be taken historically, is nothing else than unlearnedly to confuse what is profitable if understood simply, and to spoil its usefulness through excess of ignorance. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “I must work the works of Him that sent Me.” That is, “I must manifest Myself, and do the things which may show that I do the same things with the Father”; not things “similar,” but, “the same,” an expression which marks greater unvaryingness, and which is used of those who do not differ ever so little. Who then after this will face Him, when he seeth that He hath the same power with the Father? For not only did He form or open eyes, but gave also the gift of sight, which is a proof that He also breathed in the soul. Since if that did not work, the eye, though perfected, could never see anything; so that He gave both the energy which is from the soul, and gave the member also possessing all things, both arteries and nerves and veins, and all things of which our body is composed. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

John Chrysostom: “I must work while it is day.” What mean these words? To what conclusion do they lead? To an important one. For what He saith is of this kind. “While it is day, while men may believe on Me, while this life lasteth, I must work.” “The night cometh,” that is, futurity, “when no man can work.” He said not, “when I cannot work,” but, “when no man can work”: that is, when there is no longer faith, nor labors, nor repentance. For to show that He calleth faith, a “work,” when they say unto Him, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” He replieth, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.” How then can no man work this work in the future world? Because there faith is not, but all, willingly, or unwillingly, will submit. For lest any one should say that He acted as He did from desire of honor, He showeth that He did all to spare them who had power to believe “here” only, but who could no longer “there” gain any good thing. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

Tertullian: But when He goes on to say, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad,” He certainly proves that it was not the Father that appeared to Abraham, but the Son. In like manner He declares, in the case of the man born blind, “that He must do the works of the Father which had sent Him; " and after He had given the man sight, He said to him, “Dost thou believe in the Son of God? “Then, upon the man’s inquiring who He was, He proceeded to reveal Himself to him, as that Son of God whom He had announced to him as the right object of his faith. In a later passage He declares that He is known by the Father, and the Father by Him; adding that He was so wholly loved by the Father, that He was laying down His life, because He had received this commandment from the Father. — Against Praxeas

John 9:5

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 5) But if we work now, now is the day time, now is Christ present; as He says, As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. This then is the day. The natural day is completed by the circuit of the sun, and contains only a few hours: the day of Christ’s presence will last to the end of the world: for He Himself has said, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. (Mat. 28:20) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: What is that night wherein, when it comes, no one shall be able to work? Hear what the day is, and then thou wilt understand what the night is. But how shall we hear what the day is? Let Himself tell us: “As long as I am in this world, I am the light of the world.” See, He Himself is the day. Let the blind man wash his eyes in the day, that he may behold the day. — Tractates on John 44

Cyril of Alexandria: Shall we then think that Christ is now not at all in the world, or do we believe that He, having ascended to heaven after His restoration to life from the dead, no longer dwells among those in this present life? And yet being very God, He fills and tends not only the heavens and what is beyond the firmament, but also the world which we inhabit. And just as while He associated in the flesh with men, He was not absent from heaven, so if we think rightly we shall hold the opinion that even though He is out of the world as regards the flesh, His Divine and ineffable Nature is yet no less present among those who dwell in the world. Yea, it overrules the universe, being absent from nothing that exists, neither having abandoned anything, but present everywhere in all things; and, filling all the visible universe and whatever may be conceived of as beyond it, is fully contained by Itself alone.

The next thing therefore is to understand what it is that the Lord says in these words. Having cast aside as a stale thing the suspicion of the Jews, and shown that they were foolishly entangled in unsound doctrines; having given counsel to His own disciples that it was more becoming for them to strive to love the things that please God, and to leave off pursuing a search into what was altogether beyond them; and having in a manner warned them that the time for work will slip away from those who do nothing, unless they devote all their zeal to the wish to do well, while they are in the flesh in the world;—-He holds up Himself as an Example in the matter. For behold, He says, I also work at My own proper work, and since I have come to give light to those things that were in want of light, it behoves Me to cause light to dwell even in the eyes of the body, if they are diseased with the terrible lack of light, whensoever any of the sufferers come before Me.

We will accordingly understand what was said as spoken with reference to the occasion, and in a simple sense. For that the Only-Begotten is indeed a real Light, with the knowledge and power to illumine not only the things that are in this world, but also every other supramundane creature, is not to be doubted. And if we accommodate the sense of the words to the matter in hand, I do not think we shall be found guilty of setting forth anything unworthy of credit. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Ephrem the Syrian: And he brought forth the light from the dust, just as he had done in the beginning, when there was a shadow of the heavens. “Darkness was spread out over everything.” He gave a command to the light, and it was born from the darkness. Thus also here, he formed clay from his saliva, and he supplied was what lacking in creation, which was from the beginning, to show that what was lacking in nature was being supplied by his hand. — COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 16.28

John Chrysostom: “As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” As also He said to others, “Believe while the light is with you.” Wherefore then did Paul call this life “night” and that other “day”? Not opposing Christ, but saying the same thing, if not in words yet in sense; for he also saith, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand.” The present time he calleth “night,” because of those who sit in darkness, or because he compareth it with that day which is to come. Christ calleth the future “night,” because there sin has no power to work; but Paul calleth the present life night, because they are in darkness who continue in wickedness and unbelief. Addressing himself then to the faithful he said, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand,” since they should enjoy that light; and he calleth the old life night. “Let us put away,” he saith, “the works of darkness.” Seest thou that he telleth them that it is “night”? wherefore he saith, “Let us walk honestly as in the day,” that we may enjoy that light. For if this light be so good, consider what that will be; as much as the sunlight is brighter than the flame of a candle, so much and far more is that light better than this. — Homily on the Gospel of John 56

Theodore of Heraclea: He calls himself light both because he enlightens the souls of those who believe and because he was about to open the eyes of the one who was blind from birth. — FRAGMENTS ON John 71

John 9:6

Ammonius of Alexandria: He spat on the ground and made mud out of the saliva and he daubed the mud onto the eyes of the blind man. He wanted to show with the mud that he himself is the one who made Adam from the earth. His statement that “I am the one doing this” seemed to make his hearer hostile to him. But have shown himself to be the one through this work that he did—this, finally, did not give offense. Therefore, he fashioned eyes in that way rather than simply healing them. And he did not only make the eyes or open them but also graced them with the ability to see. This is positive proof that he had also breathed a soul into Adam. For he would never have seen, even if the eye had been completed, unless that life-giving spirit that breathed into Adam was at work. — FRAGMENTS ON John 317

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Our Lord spat upon the ground, and made clay of the spittle, because He was the Word made flesh. The man did not see immediately as he was anointed; i. e. was, as it were, only made a catechumen. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: The Lord came: what did He do? He set forth a great mystery. “He spat on the ground,” He made clay of His spittle; for the Word was made flesh. “And He anointed the eyes of the blind man.” The anointing had taken place, and yet he saw not. — Tractates on John 44

Caesarius of Arles: In the ground we understand the law, and grace is designated in the saliva. What does the law effect without grace? What does the ground do without the saliva of Christ? What does the law do without grace, except make people still more guilty? Why? Because the law knows how to obey but not how to help; the law can point out sin, but it cannot take sin away from people. Therefore, let the saliva of Christ go down to the ground and gather together the earth. Let he who made the earth remake it, and he who created it reform and recreate it. Likewise, in the saliva is understood the word of God, his real human body on earth. For this reason let the saliva of Christ down in order that the law may be fulfilled. “He made clay with the saliva.” What is saliva mixed with clay, except the incarnate Word? That blind man presented an image of the whole human race, and, therefore, the saliva was mixed with clay, and the blind man was made to see: the Word became incarnate, and the world was illumined. — SERMON 172.3

Cyril of Alexandria: Accepting the cure wrought upon this blind man as a type of the calling of the Gentiles, we will again tell the meaning of the mystery, summing it up in few words. First then because it was merely in passing, and after leaving the Jewish temple, that He saw the blind man: and again from this circumstance also, that without in-treaty and no man soliciting Him, but rather of His own accord and from a spontaneous inclination, the Saviour came to a determination to heal the man; hence we shall profitably look upon the miracle as symbolical. It shows that as no intreaty has been made by the multitude of the Gentiles, for they were all in error, God, being indeed in His nature good, of His own will has come forward to show mercy unto them. For how at all or in what way could the vast number of Greeks and of Gentiles beseech God for mercy, having their mind darkened by gross ignorance, so as to be in no wise able to see the Illuminator? As therefore certainly the man who has been healed, being blind, does not know Jesus, and by an act of mercy and philanthropy receives an unhoped-for benefit; so also has it happened to the Gentiles through Christ. On the sabbath too was the work of healing accomplished, the sabbath being capable thereby completely to exhibit to us a type of the last age of the present world, in which the Saviour has made light to shine on the Gentiles. For the sabbath is the end of the week, and the Only-Begotten took up His abode and was manifested to us all in the last time, and in the concluding ages of the world. But at the manner of the healing it is really fit that we should be astonished and say: O Lord, how great are Thy works; in wisdom hast Thou performed them all.

For some one perhaps will say: Why, although able to set all things right easily by a word, does He mix up clay from the spittle, and anoint the eyes of the sufferer, and seem to prescribe a sort of operation; for He says, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam? Surely I deem that some deep meaning is buried beneath these words, for the Saviour accomplishes nothing without a purpose. For by anointing with the clay He makes good that which is (so to speak) lacking or vitiated in the nature of the eye, and thus shows that He is the One Who formed us in the beginning, the Creator and Fashioner of the universe. And the power of the action possesses a sort of mystical significance; for that which we said just now with reference to this, and what we consider may be understood by it, we will mention again. It was not otherwise possible for the Gentiles to thrust off the blindness which affected them, and to behold the Divine and holy light, that is, to receive the knowledge of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, except by being made partakers of His Holy Body, and washing away their gloom-producing sin, and renouncing the authority of the devil, namely in Holy Baptism. And when the Saviour stamped on the blind man the typical mark which was anticipative of the mystery, He meanwhile fully exhibited the power of such participation by the anointing with His spittle. And as an image of Holy Baptism He commands the man to run and wash in Siloam, a name whose interpretation, the Evangelist, being very wise and Divinely-inspired, felt it necessary to give. For we conclude that the One Sent is no other than God the Only-Begotten, visiting us and sent from above, even from the Father, to destroy sin and the rapacity of the devil: and recognising Him as floating invisibly on the waters of the sacred pool, we by faith are washed, not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh, as it is written, but as it were washing away a sort of defilement and uncleanness of the eyes of the understanding, in order that for tho future, being purified, we may be able in pureness to behold the Divine beauty. As therefore we believe the Body of Christ to be life-giving, since it is the temple and abode of the Word of the Living God, possessing all His energy, so we declare it to be also a Patron of light; for it is the Body of Him Who is by nature the True Light. And as, when He raised from death the only son of the widow, He was not satisfied with merely commanding and saying: Young man, I say unto thee, Arise; although accustomed to accomplish all things, whatsoever He wished, by a word; but also touched the bier with His hand, showing that even His Body possesses a life-giving power: so in this case He anoints with His spittle, teaching that His Body is also a Patron of light, even by so slight a touch. For it is the Body of the True Light, as we said above. The blind man accordingly departs with what haste he can, and washes, and without delay performs all that was bidden him, showing as it were in his own person the ready obedience of the Gentiles, concerning whom it is written: He inclined His ear to the preparation of their hearts. The wretched Jews then were hard of heart, but they of the Gentiles were altogether docile in obedience and bear witness of it in experience. The man having forthwith, removed his blindness, washing it away together with the clay, now returns, seeing. For it was Christ’s pleasure that thus it should come to pass. Excellent therefore is faith, which makes God-given grace to be |21 strong in us; and harmful is hesitation. For the double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, as it is written, and shall receive nothing whatever from the Lord. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (viii. Moral. c. xxx. [49.]) Or thus: By His spittle understand the savour of inward contemplation. It runs down from the head into the mouth, and gives us the taste of revelation from the Divine splendour even in this life. The mixture of His spittle with clay is the mixture of supernatural grace, even the contemplation of Himself with our carnal knowledge, to the soul’s enlightenment, and restoration of the human understanding from its original blindness. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Irenaeus: And for this reason did the Lord most plainly manifest Himself and the Father to His disciples, lest, forsooth, they might seek after another God besides Him who formed man, and who gave him the breath of life; and that men might not rise to such a pitch of madness as to feign another Father above the Creator. And thus also He healed by a word all the others who were in a weakly condition because of sin; to whom also He said, “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee:” pointing out by this, that, because of the sin of disobedience, infirmities have come upon men. To that man, however, who had been blind from his birth, He gave sight, not by means of a word, but by an outward action; doing this not without a purpose, or because it so happened, but that He might show forth the hand of God, that which at the beginning had moulded man. And therefore, when His disciples asked Him for what cause the man had been born blind, whether for his own or his parents’ fault, He replied, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” Now the work of God is the fashioning of man. For, as the Scripture says, He made [man] by a kind of process: “And the Lord took clay from the earth, and formed man.” Wherefore also the Lord spat on the ground and made clay, and smeared it upon the eyes, pointing out the original fashioning [of man], how it was effected, and manifesting the hand of God to those who can understand by what [hand] man was formed out of the dust. For that which the artificer, the Word, had omitted to form in the womb, [viz., the blind man’s eyes], He then supplied in public, that the works of God might be manifested in him, in order that we might not be seeking out another hand by which man was fashioned, nor another Father; knowing that this hand of God which formed us at the beginning, and which does form us in the womb, has in the last times sought us out who were lost, winning back His own, and taking up the lost sheep upon His shoulders, and with joy restoring it to the fold of life. — Against Heresies Book V

John Chrysostom: Those who intend to gain any advantage from what they read, must not pass by even any small portion of the words; and on this account we are bidden to “search” the Scriptures, because most of the words, although at first sight easy, appear to have in their depth much hidden meaning. For observe of what sort is the present case. “Having said these words,” It saith,” He spat on the ground.” What words? “That the glory of God should be made manifest,” and that, “I must work the works of Him that sent Me.” For not without a cause hath the Evangelist mentioned to us His words, and added that, “He spat,” but to show that He confirmed His words by deeds. And why used He not water instead of spittle for the clay? He was about to send the man to Siloam: in order therefore that nothing might be ascribed to the fountain, but that thou mightest learn that the power proceeding from His mouth, the same both formed and opened the man’s eyes, He “spat on the ground”; this at least the Evangelist signified, when he said, “And made clay of the spittle.” Then, that the successful issue might not seem to be of the earth, He bade him wash. But wherefore did He not this at once, instead of sending him to Siloam? That thou mayest learn the faith of the blind man, and that the obstinacy of the Jews might be silenced: for it was probable that they would all see him as he departed, having the clay spread upon his eyes, since by the strangeness of the thing he would attract to himself all, both those who did and those who did not know him, and they would observe him exactly. And because it is not easy to recognize a blind man who hath recovered sight, He first maketh by the length of way many to be witnesses, and by the strangeness of the spectacle exact observers, that being more attentive they may no longer be able to say, “It is he: it is not he.” Moreover, by sending him to Siloam, He desireth to prove that He is not estranged from the Law and the Old (Covenant), nor could it afterwards be feared that Siloam would receive the glory, since many who had often washed their eyes there gained no such benefit; for there also it was the power of Christ that wrought all. On which account the Evangelist addeth for us the interpretation of the name; for having said, “in Siloam,” he addeth, “Which is, Sent.” That thou mayest learn that there also it was Christ who healed him. As Paul saith, “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. x. 4.) As then Christ was the spiritual Rock, so also was He the spiritual Siloam. To me also the sudden coming in of the water seems to hint an ineffable mystery. What is that? The unlooked for (nature) of His appearance, beyond all expectation. — Homily on the Gospel of John 57

John Chrysostom: But observe the mind of the blind man, obedient in everything. He said not, “If it is really the clay or the spittle which gives me eyes, what need of Siloam? Or if there be need of Siloam, what need of the clay? Why did he anoint me? Why bid me wash?” But he entertained no such thoughts, he held himself prepared for one thing only, to obey in all things Him who gave the command, and nothing that was done offended him. If any one ask, “How then did he recover his sight, when he had removed the clay?” he will hear no other answer from us than that we know not the manner. And what wonder if we know it not, since not even the Evangelist knew, nor the very man that was healed? What had been done he knew, but the manner of doing it he could not comprehend. So when he was asked he said, that “He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see”; but how this took place he cannot tell them, though they ask ten thousand times. — Homily on the Gospel of John 57

Origen of Alexandria: I think this has been said to establish that Christ’s saliva had a quality of healing power. Even though the blind man did not himself ask to receive his sight, yet he will be found praiseworthy in delivering himself to Jesus anointing his eyes with clay and in doing without hesitation what had been enjoined him, without Jesus having even said that he would receive sight.… Let us therefore wash off the clay smeared in our eyes in the water of the pool of him [i.e., Jesus] who has been sent so that after this we may be able to see again. But you will understand by the clay the beginning of the rudiments of the oracles of God, according to which we as babies are fed with milk. But when the childish things are done away with and we eat solid food, we wipe away the clay so that we may return to Jesus as one who sees. — FRAGMENT 63 ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

John 9:7

Ambrose of Milan: Why did He Who restored life at command, Who gave health by His word, saying to the dead, “Come forth,” and Lazarus came forth from the grave, saying also to the sick of the palsy, “Arise and take up thy bed,” and the sick of the palsy rose and himself began to carry his bed, whereon, when all his limbs were paralyzed, he had been wont to be carried; why, I say, did He spit on the ground and make clay, and anoint the eyes of the blind man, and say to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, which is by interpretation, Sent. He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing”? What is the reason of this? Great indeed is the reason, if I mistake not, for he who is taught by Jesus comes to see more clearly.

Observe at the same time both His Divinity and His sanctity; as being Himself Light He touched and so communicated light to others; as being a Priest He fulfilled by the figure of Baptism the mysteries of spiritual grace. He spat, that you might learn that the inner parts of Christ are light; and clearly indeed does he see who receives cleansing thereby. His spittle cleanses, and so does His discourse, as it is written, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”

But His making clay and anointing the eyes of the blind was intended to signify to us that the Same Who made man of clay, restored him to health by anointing with clay, and to signify also that this flesh of our clay must receive the light of eternal life by the Sacrament of Baptism. Do you also draw near to Siloam, that is, to Him Who was sent from the Father, as it is written, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me.” Let Christ wash you that you may see. Come to Baptism, the time itself is at hand, make haste and come that you may say, “I went, and washed, and I received sight”; that you may also say, “whereas I was blind, now I see,” that you may say, as that man on whom light was poured said, “the night is far spent, the day is at hand.”

The night was blindness. It was night when Judas received the sop from Jesus, and Satan entered into him. To Judas, in whom the Devil was, it was night; to John, who lay on the breast of Christ, it was day. To Peter also it was day, when he saw the light of Christ on the mount. To others it was night, but to Peter it was day. To Peter himself however it was night when he denied Christ. But the cock crowed, and he began to weep, that he might correct his error, for now the day was at hand. — Letter 80.4-7

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): But he was sent to the pool which is called Siloam, i. e. he was baptized in Christ; and then he was enlightened. The Evangelist then explains to us the name of this pool: which is by interpretation, Sent: for, if He had not been sent, none of us would have been delivered from our sins. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: He sent him to the pool which is called Siloam. But it was the evangelist’s concern to call our attention to the name of this pool; and he adds, “Which is interpreted, Sent.” You understand now who it is that was sent; for had He not been sent, none of us would have been set free from iniquity. Accordingly he washed his eyes in that pool which is interpreted, Sent-he was baptized in Christ. If, therefore, when He baptized him in a manner in Himself, He then enlightened him; when He anointed Him, perhaps He made him a catechumen. — Tractates on John 44

Ephrem the Syrian: For Siloam did not open [the eyes of] the blind man, just as the waters of the Jordan did not purify Naaman, but rather it was the command [by our Lord] that brought the healing. Also, it is not the waters of our atonement that bring purification; rather, it is the names invoked over it that produce atonement for us. — COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 16.29

Irenaeus: As, therefore, we are by the Word formed in the womb, this very same Word formed the visual power in him who had been blind from his birth; showing openly who it is that fashions us in secret, since the Word Himself had been made manifest to men: and declaring the original formation of Adam, and the manner in which he was created, and by what hand he was fashioned, indicating the whole from a part. For the Lord who formed the visual powers is He who made the whole man, carrying out the will of the Father. And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the layer of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, “Go to Siloam, and wash;” thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the layer. And for this reason when he was washed he came seeing, that he might both know Him who had fashioned him, and that man might learn [to know] Him who has conferred upon him life. — Against Heresies Book V

Origen of Alexandria: But to heal in his absence, to tell him to go away and wash and to provide the healing only once he has washed—this was the work of someone who wanted to be sure that no one would be ignorant of the miracle that had taken place. For as he commanded the paralytic to take up his bed on the day when it was not lawful to do this—so that each man charging him with the transgression might learn the greatness of the miracle—in the same way he commanded this man who was at a distance from the pool to go there and wash. — FRAGMENT 63 ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

John 9:8

Augustine of Hippo: “The neighbors therefore, and those who saw him previously, for he was a beggar, said, Is not this he who sat and begged? Some said, It is he: others, No; but he is like him.” The opening of his eyes had altered his countenance. “He said, I am he.” His voice utters its gratitude, that it might not be condemned as ungrateful. — Tractates on John 44

John Chrysostom: The strangeness of what had been brought to pass led them even to unbelief, though so much had been contrived that they might not disbelieve. They said, “Is not this he that sat and begged?” O the lovingkindness of God! Whither did He descend, when with great kindness He healed even beggars, and so silenced the Jews, because He deemed not the illustrious, nor the distinguished, nor the rulers, but men of no mark to be fit objects of the same Providence. For He came for the salvation of all.

And what happened in the case of the paralytic, happened also with this man, for neither did the one or the other know who it was that healed him. And this was caused by the retirement of Christ, for Jesus when He healed always retired, that all suspicion might be removed from the miracles. Since how could they who knew not who He was flatter Him, or join in contriving what had been done? Neither was this man one of those who went about, but of those who sat at the doors of the Temple. Now when all were doubting concerning him, what saith he? “I am he.” He was not ashamed of his former blindness, nor did he fear the wrath of the people, nor did he decline showing himself that he might proclaim his Benefactor. — Homily on the Gospel of John 57

Theodore of Mopsuestia: After having gone and washed, he encountered grace. And yet his neighbors and those who were with him when he was begging did not all come to the same conclusion about him. There were some who said that he was indeed the blind man, but others, because of the miracle that had happened to him, said it was not him but someone like him. He, however, says that it is him, not because the event itself compelled him to but because he was eager to proclaim before everyone what had happened. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.8

John 9:9

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 8) His eyes being opened had altered his look. But he said, I am he. He spoke gratefully; a denial would have convicted Him of ingratitude. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Hard indeed to be believed are such surpassing wonders, and that [which exceeds man’s experience], from whatever source it comes, finds the intellect to be intolerant of it, and is scarcely treated with honour when convincingly forced upon people’s minds. For the attempt to investigate what is beyond the grasp of reason indicates a state of mind akin to insanity. Hence, I think, the unbelief of some who had previously known the blind man haunting the cross-roads, and who were astonished afterwards when they beheld him unexpectedly able to discern objects with clear vision. And they are divided, from uncertainty regarding the event, and some who consider more carefully the greatness of the deed say that it is not the same man, but one remarkably like him whom they had known. For indeed it really is not strange that this opinion should be expressed by some, who by rejecting the truth were compelled through the greatness of the miracle to adopt an involuntary falsehood. Others again keep their minds free from obvious objections, and in reverence and fear they recognise the wonder, and say that it is the same man. But he who was healed quickly settled the question, by making his own statement, most worthy of credit as concerning himself. For no man can be ignorant of his own identity, even though very ill in delirium. Thus in every way the marvellous deed, discredited on account of the unusual degree of power it displayed, testifies that the Wonder-worker is to be reckoned among the great. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: Then, also, if any had their eyes blinded in the deepest darkness, He restored them to their former sight. He also loosened the tongues of the dumb, so that they discoursed and spoke eloquently. He also opened the ears of the deaf, and caused them to hear; He cleansed the polluted and the blemished. And He performed all these things not by His hands, or the application of any remedy, but by His word and command, as also the Sibyl had foretold: “Doing all things by His word, and healing every disease.” — The Divine Institutes Book 4 (Chapter XV)

John 9:10

Augustine of Hippo: “Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered, The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and saw.” See, he is become the herald of grace; see, he preaches the gospel; endowed with sight, he becomes a confessor. That blind man makes confession, and the heart of the wicked was troubled; for they had not in their heart what he had now in his countenance. — Tractates on John 44

Cyril of Alexandria: With difficulty they consent to believe that he was the same man whom they had known aforetime, and abandoning their hesitation on this point, they ask how he had got rid of his blindness, and what was the manner of such an unhoped-for event. For it seems usual for those who are astonished to make careful inquiries and to investigate the manner of what has been done; and these persons resolved to do the same, not without the guidance of God, in our opinion, but in order that even unwillingly they might learn the power of Our Saviour from the narration and clear announcement which the blind man made to them. This thou mayest accept as a beautiful type of the converts from among the Gentiles becoming teachers to the people of Israel, after escaping from their former blindness and receiving the illumination which comes from Our Saviour Christ through the Spirit. And that what we have said is true, the events themselves will loudly proclaim. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Ephrem the Syrian: Those who could see were clearly being drawn to the blind man, who saw inwardly. The blind man was being drawn secretly to those who could see but who were blind inwardly. He [the blind man] washed away the clay from his eyes and appeared to himself. They washed the blindness from their hearts and gained approval for themselves. When our Lord opened up the eyes of one blind man clearly in that moment, he opened up [the eyes of] many blind people secretly. For that blind man was [surely] blind. He was like a source of profit for our Lord, for by him our Lord acquired many blind people [by healing them] from the blindness of their heart. — COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 16.30

John Chrysostom: “They said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus.” What sayest thou? Doth “a man” work such deeds? As yet he knew nothing great concerning Him. “A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes.” Observe how truthful he is. He saith not whence He made it, for he speaks not of what he doth not know; he saw not that He spat on the ground, but that He spread it on he knew from sense and touch. “And said unto me, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” This too his hearing witnessed to him. But how did he recognize His voice? From His conversation with the disciples. And saying all this, and having received the witness by the works, the manner (of the cure) he cannot tell. Now if faith is needed in matters which are felt and handled, much more in the case of things invisible. — Homily on the Gospel of John 57

John 9:11

Cyril of Alexandria: He appears still to be ignorant that the Saviour is by nature God, for otherwise he would not have spoken of him so unworthily. He probably thought of Him and esteemed Him as a holy Man, forming this opinion perhaps from the somewhat indistinct rumour concerning Him that went about all Jerusalem, and was repeated everywhere in the common talk. Moreover we may observe that those afflicted of body and struggling with abject poverty never feel overmuch zeal in occupying themselves about making acquaintance, their unmitigated poverty exhausting as it were their mental faculties. Therefore he speaks of Him merely as a Man, and describes the manner of the healing. He must surely have been compelled by the magnitude of the miracle to attribute a glory beyond the nature of man to the Wonder-worker, but from giving credit to the belief that holy men were enabled by God to work miracles, he was probably drawn to look upon Jesus as one of them. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John 9:12

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. s. 8) Lo, he is become a proclaimer of grace, an evangelist, and testifies to the Jews. That blind man testified, and the ungodly were vexed at the heart, because they had not in their heart what appeared upon his countenance. Then said they unto him, Where is He?

(Tr. xliv. 8) Here he is like one anointed, but unable yet to see: he preaches, and knows not what he preaches. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Thus he represents the state of the catechumen, who believes in Jesus, but does not, strictly speaking, know Him, not being yet washed. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Not from devout feelings do they inquire for Jesus, nor are they moved to inquire where and with whom He was uttering discourses, so that they might go and seek some profit from His doings; but being blinded in the eyes of their understanding, even much worse than he had formerly been in those of his body, they are inflamed with most unjust anger, and rage like untamable beasts, thinking that Our Saviour had broken a commandment of the law, that one namely which forbids any work whatever to be done on the sabbath. And they raved immoderately, because He had dared actually to touch clay, rubbing the dirt round with His finger, and in addition to this had also directed the man to wash it off on the sabbath. Wherefore in anger and desperation they spit out the words, Where is He? without making any excuse for speaking so rudely. For in their pettiness they bestow abuse upon Him Who rightly deserved the highest honour, though they must have admired Him if they had been sincere and had known how to honour God’s power with befitting praises. But thrusting aside in their extravagant maliciousness that which I think they ought in fairness to have thought and done, they devote themselves to untimely zeal. And falsely supposing that they were performing a duty in supporting the law which had somehow been wronged, they inquire for Jesus as one who had worked on the sabbath and thus wronged the excellent commandment by healing the man. Certainly they may have supposed that God was (so to speak) cruel and not compassionate on the sabbath, and was very angry when he saw a man healed, who was made in His own image and likeness, and on whose account the sabbath was instituted. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath, according to the saying of the Saviour. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Ephrem the Syrian: His saliva was thus the key for closed eyes, for with water he healed the eye. From the water [he formed] clay and brought to wholeness what had been lost. When [later] they were spitting at his face, the blind eyes that had been opened by his saliva would accuse them. — COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 16.32

John Chrysostom: “They said unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.” They said, “Where is he?” having already murderous intentions against Him. But observe the modesty of Christ, how He continued not with those who were healed; because He neither desired to reap glory, nor to draw a multitude, nor to make a show of Himself. Observe too how truthfully the blind man maketh all his answers. — Homily on the Gospel of John 57

Theodore of Mopsuestia: They were asking him, “Where is he?” His reply was that he did not know because he had not seen him, since at the time [of the healing] he was blind. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.12

John 9:13

Augustine of Hippo: “They brought to the Pharisees him who had been blind. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees also asked how he had received his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Therefore said some of the Pharisees;” not all, but some; for some were already anointed. What then said those who neither saw nor were anointed? “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath.” He it was rather who kept it, who was without sin. For this is the spiritual Sabbath, to have no sin. In fact, brethren, it is of this that God admonishes us, when He commends the Sabbath to our notice: “Thou shalt do no servile work.” These are God’s words when commending the Sabbath, “Thou shalt do no servile work.” Now ask the former lessons, what is meant by servile work; and listen to the Lord: “Every one that committeth sin is the servant of sin.” But these men, neither seeing, as I said, nor anointed, kept the Sabbath carnally, and profaned it spiritually.

“Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” These were the anointed ones. “And there was a division among them.” The day had divided between the light and the darkness. — Tractates on John 44

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): It fell to the Pharisees to confirm or deny the miracle. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: They bring the man to the rulers, not that they might learn what had been done to him, and admire it; for it was not likely that men travailing with extreme envy against our Saviour Christ could ever be pleased by any such thing; but that they might publicly convict Jesus, as they thought, of a transgression of the law, and accuse Him of being a wrong-doer in having made clay on the sabbath. For rejecting the idea of the miracle because of its incredibility, they lay hold of the deed as a transgression, and for a proof of what had been done they exhibit the man upon whom He had dared to perform the miracle. At the same time they think to succeed in gaining a reputation for piety according to Jewish customs, and proceed to strain the legal commandment to the utmost. For in Deuteronomy He Who by Nature is Very God, enjoining the minds of the pious not to be drawn aside to another, nor to think there were any gods besides Him, but bidding them to serve Him only in truth, and to hate bitterly those who should dare to counsel them differently, thus speaks: If thy brother by thy father or mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or thy wife in thy bosom, or friend who is equal to thine own soul entreat thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, thou shalt not consent to him, neither shalt thou hearken to him, and thine eye shall not spare him, and thou shalt feel no regret for him, neither shalt thou at all protect him; thou shalt surely report concerning him. And so the Jews, looking only at the errors of others, and foolishly treating everything by the regulation laid down concerning one thing, brought before the magistrates those who were detected in any action contrary to the law, thinking that thereby they were honouring the Lawgiver. For this reason I think they enquired for Jesus, saying, Where is He? but being unable to find Him anywhere, they take as it were in the second place him upon whom the wonder had been wrought, that he might seal with his own voice the testimony to the breach of the law which had been committed by the actions of the One Who healed him on the sabbath. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lvii. 2) The Jews, whom they asked, Where is He? were desirous of finding Him, in order to bring Him to the Pharisees; but, as they could not find Him, they bring the blind man. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind; i. e. that they might examine him still more closely. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 9:14

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 4, 5) It was Christ, who divided the day into light and darkness. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: When the blessed Evangelist is making it manifest to us that they were immoderately vexed at the making of clay on the sabbath, he fitly hints at the absurdity of the thing, by adding: Now it was the sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The Evangelist adds, And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes; in order to expose their real design, which was to accuse Him of a departure from the law, and thus detract from the miracle: as appears from what follows, Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 9:15

Cyril of Alexandria: And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes and I washed, and do see.

They receive eagerly, as if it were a sort of food for their envy, his confession of the marvel, and gladly seize upon the excuse for their rage against Jesus. For the man who had been blind relates everything on this occasion very simply, and speaks very abruptly, in brief expressions praising as. it were his Physician: for he is somewhat astounded at the nature of the deed. Probably he may have thought in his mind that Jesus had miraculously enabled him to see by anointing him with clay, an unusual medicament; and it seems to me that it was very significantly and with sharp meaning that he said He made clay, and anointed mine eyes. For it was as though one might suppose him to say: I know that I am speaking to a malicious audience, but nevertheless I will not on that account conceal the truth. I will requite my Benefactor with my thanks; I will be above unseasonable silence. I will honour by my confession the Physician, Who did not trouble me by an elaborate process of healing, or perform the operation by the knife and surgery, or effect what was necessary by compound mixtures of drugs, or adopt any ordinary method, but rather exhibited His power by strange devices. He made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. It is perhaps worthy of notice that the man very rightly added, as the climax to his description of these events, the words: And do see. For it is almost as though he said: I will prove to you that the power of the Healer was not exerted in vain; I will not deny the favour I received, for I now possess what I formerly longed for; I, he says, who was blind from birth and afflicted from the womb, having been anointed with clay, am healed, and do see. That is, I do not merely show you my eye opened, concealing the darkness in its depth, but I really see. I am henceforth able to look upon the things which formerly I could only hear about. Lo! the bright light of the sun is shining around me: lo! the beauty of strange sights surrounds my eye. A short time ago I scarcely knew what Jerusalem was like; now I see glittering in her the temple of God, and I behold in its midst the truly venerable altar. And if I stood outside the gate, I could look around on the country of Judea, and should recognise one thing as a hill and another as a tree. And when the time changes to evening, my eye will no longer fail to notice the beauty of the wondrous objects on high, the brilliant company of the stars, and the golden light of the moon. Thereupon I shall be amazed at the skill of Him Who made them; from the beauty of the creatures I as well as others shall acknowledge the Great Creator. So that however little breadth of imagination or elegance of argument he uttered, his language is pregnant with all this power when he adds: and do see, after saying: He made clay and anointed mine eyes. For the preacher’s style of argument, which we employ, does not exclude all that is graceful in imagination, or reject it as useless. He therefore who had received mercy from Christ, when questioned before the priests, speaks as we have said, declaring in a truly innocent manner, and to the best of his ability, the power of the One Who had healed him. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Cyril of Alexandria: Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him, How didst thou receive thy sight?

They busy themselves about the manner of the healing, stirring up as it were the fire of malice which was in them to a greater heat, and ask unnecessary questions, not failing, as it seems to me, to recognize the miracle. For is it not altogether absurd to suppose that they, who had come bringing to them the man who aforetime was blind, had not expressed at all the reason for which they had brought him? But as if they were not sufficient to accuse Christ, the magistrates compel him to confess with his own mouth what had been done, believing that by this means the malicious accusation would have greater force. For observe that they do not ask simply and barely if he had been healed, but they seek rather to hear how he received his sight; this was what they were particularly anxious to hear:—-“He made clay, and anointed mine eyes.” For it was in this that they foolishly conceived all the transgression of the law to lie, and imagining that laws from above were violated, they thought they were righteously vexed, and that punishment ought to be inflicted on Him Who vexed them. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Cyril of Alexandria: Here, it is as though the man is saying: I will prove to you that the power of the Healer was not exerted in vain. I will not deny the favor I received, for I now possess what I formerly longed for. I who was blind from birth and afflicted from the womb, having been anointed with clay, am healed, and I see. That is, I do not merely show you my eye opened, concealing the darkness in its depth, but I really see. From now on I am able to look at things that formerly I could only hear about. Look! The bright light of the sun is shining around me. Look! The beauty of strange sights surrounds my eye. A short time ago I scarcely knew what Jerusalem was like. Now I see the temple of God glittering within it, and I behold in its midst the truly venerable altar. And if I stood outside the gate, I could look around on the country of Judea and recognize one thing as a hill and another as a tree. And when the time changes to evening, my eye will no longer fail to notice the beauty of the nighttime sky, the brilliant company of the stars and the golden light of the moon. When I do, I shall be amazed at the skill of him who made them “from the greatness and beauty of created things.” I as well as others shall acknowledge the great Creator. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): But mark the firmness of the blind man. To tell the truth to the multitude before, from whom he was in no danger, was not so great a matter: but it is remarkable, now that the danger is so much greater, to find him disavowing nothing, and not contradicting any thing that he said before: He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Ho is more brief this time, as his interrogators were already informed of the matter: not mentioning the name of Jesus, nor His saying, Go, and wash; but simply, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see; the very contrary answer to what they wanted. They wanted a disavowal, and they receive a confirmation of the story. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 9:16

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 9) Some, not all: for some were already anointed. But they, who neither saw, nor were anointed, said, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Rather He kept it, in that He was without sin; for to observe the sabbath spiritually, is to have no sin. And this God admonishes us of, when He enjoins the sabbath, saying, In it thou shall do no servile work. (Exod. 20:10) What servile work is, our Lord tells us above, Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. (c. 8:34) They observed the sabbath carnally, transgressed it spiritually. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them.

Even these still think too meanly, speaking and reckoning as of a mere man; only, being convinced by the marvellous deed, they give the palm to Christ rather than to the law; and, putting the proof afforded by the Divine sign in opposition to the sabbath rest on this occasion, they appear in a better light as just judges. Yet, was it not acting greatly in opposition to the precepts laid down respecting the sabbath, to withdraw altogether the charge of transgression, and to acquit Him of sin, Who had not hesitated, when He thought fit, to do something even on the sabbath? But, coming to this conclusion by reasoning which seems unanswerable and has much common sense in it, they argue thus. For it is manifest and acknowledged beyond question, that to those who neglect the Divine law, and set at nought precepts ratified from on high, God would never give the power to achieve anything wonderful. To Christ, however, in the opinion of the Jews, He gave such power, although He slighted the law respecting the sabbath. Certainly the doing something on the sabbath, does not necessarily involve sin, but neither can any one doubt that the doing of good works is far better than remaining unemployed on that day. At all events, as the Saviour Himself somewhere else says, it is permitted to the Levites to minister on the sabbath, and they exercise their functions on that day without blame, or rather their remaining unemployed would be blamable. For would any one find fault if they were detected sacrificing oxen on the sabbath, or even attending to other kinds of offerings? He would on the other hand more probably accuse them if they were not doing their duty and fulfilling the regulations of Divine service. When therefore things dedicated according to the law for the good of certain persons are brought to the Divine altar even on the sabbath without prohibition, is it not more fitting still that a kind action should be performed unto a man, for whose sake the marvellous deed might be acceptable even on the sabbath? By just reasoning therefore, some of the Jews are inclined to an excellent judgment, and putting off by an effort from the eyes of their understanding the mist of ignorance that characterises their nation, they admire the glory of the Saviour, (although as yet not very ardently, for they speak of Him less worthily than they ought;) and they separate themselves from those who are actually condemning Him. For the one part unholily allowed themselves to be swayed by envy more than by just reasoning, and treat as a transgression that which in its nature could not in any wise be blamed; whereas the others, rightly considering the nature of the action, condemn such a foolish accusation.

It is of course possible that it was with reference to some other matter that they chose to say: How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? Perhaps, to put it briefly, they are eager to defend the general practice of holy men. For, say they, if we allow that it is quite possible for habitual transgressors to make themselves glorious by extraordinary actions and to be seen working marvellous deeds, what is there any longer to hinder those fond of making accusations from bringing charges against most of the prophets, or indeed by and bye attacking the blessed Moses himself, and lightly esteeming one so venerable, even though he was borne witness to by the most mighty actions of all? These men therefore may be contending for the reputation of the fathers as at stake in Christ, treating the circumstances respecting Him as a sort of pretext for showing their love towards them. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Cyril of Alexandria: Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath.

In their folly they say He is not from God, Who has the power to work the works of God; and although they see the Son crowned with an equal measure of glory with the Almighty Father, they are not ashamed unreasonably to cast upon him the blame of impiety; and disregarding the report of the miracle, they attack the Wonder-worker with their peculiar envy, and carelessly accuse as an evildoer Him Who knew no sin. They foolishly believe the whole law to have been broken by His daring to move one finger on the sabbath, although they would themselves loose their ox from the stall and lead it away to water; moreover, if a sheep fell into a pit, as it is written, with much eagerness they would lift it out. So they strain out the gnat, according to the Saviour’s word; for this was their ordinary custom. With much folly and very desperately they do not give credit to Christ for the marvellous deed, nor from the work of healing do they henceforth acknowledge Him to be what He is; but they cavil pettily about the sabbath, and, as if in their opinion all virtue was observed by merely remaining unemployed on the sabbath, they totally deny His relationship to God, saying that He was not from God; although they ought rather to have understood that the One before them had authority over His own laws, and that it was pleasing and acceptable to God to do good even on the sabbath, and not to leave without hope one who needed mercy. For whenever will any of you refuse to praise the doer of good deeds, or what set time can exercise a tyranny against virtue? Yet while they admire the ancient hero Joshua, who captured Jericho on the sabbath, and commanded their forefathers to do such things as are customary for conquerors, and himself by no means observed the proper sabbath rest; they persistently attack Christ, and as their personal ill-feeling prompted them, not only strive to take away from Him the glory due to God, but also to rob Him of the honour due to holy men. And being stirred up by their mere malice to speak very inconsiderately, they pour forth a charge of impiety against Him Who justifies the world, and for that very purpose came from the Father to us. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Cyril of Alexandria: The Jews admire the ancient hero Joshua who captured Jericho on the sabbath and commanded their forefathers to do such things as are customary for conquerors—and Joshua himself by no means observed the proper sabbath rest. Yet, those who admire Joshua persistently attack Christ. Their personal ill will toward Christ prompted them not only to try and take away from him the glory due to God but also to rob him of the honor due to holy people. And speaking inconsiderately through their malice, they pour forth a charge of impiety against him who came to us from the Father and who justifies the world. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lvii. 2) Passing over the miracle in silence, they give all the prominence they can to the supposed transgression; not charging Him with healing on the sabbath, but with not keeping the sabbath. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? They were impressed by His miracles, but only in a weak and unsettled way. For whereas such might have shown them, that the sabbath was not broken; they had not yet any idea that He was God, and therefore did not know that it was the Lord of the sabbath who had worked the miracle. Nor did any of them dare to say openly what his sentiments were, but spoke ambiguously; one, because he thought the fact itself improbable; another, from his love of station. It follows, And there was a division among them. That is, the people were divided first, and then the rulers. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 9:17

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 9) Or they sought how they could throw reproach upon the man, and cast him out of their synagogue. He declares however openly what he thinks: He said, He is a Prophet. Not being anointed yet in heart, he could not confess the Son of God; nevertheless, he is not wrong in what he says: for our Lord Himself says of Himself, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. (Luke 4:24) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “They say then unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him who hath opened thine eyes?” What is thy feeling about him? what is thine opinion? what is thy judgment? They sought how to revile the man, that he might be cast out of the synagogue, but be found by Christ. But he steadfastly expressed what he felt. For he said, “That he is a prophet.” As yet, indeed, anointed only in heart, he does not thus far confess the Son of God, and yet he speaks not untruthfully. For the Lord saith of Himself, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.” — Tractates on John 44

Cyril of Alexandria: And he said, He is a prophet.

They receive a sharp arrow into their hearts, who do not admit fair and just reasoning, and are eager to seek that only which gratifies their malice. For, as it is written, the crafty man shall not meet with prey. For their zealous design is upset, contrary to their expectation; and they are greatly disappointed of their hope when to their surprise they receive the reply: He is a prophet. For the man who had been healed, judging very rightly, agrees with the opinion of the other party. For they, not unwisely considering the nature of the action, maintain that a man who was a sinner could not perform such a deed: and he upon whom the marvel has been wrought, all but pursuing the same track of argument, declares Jesus to be a prophet, not yet having accurately learned Who He is in truth, but adopting a notion current among the Jews. For it was customary with them to call wonder-workers prophets, deeming that their holiness was thereby borne witness to by God. Accordingly, just as they wisely determine not to dishonour the majesty of the Divine sign out of reverence for the sabbath, but argue from it that He Who wrought it was altogether guiltless of sin; so also I suppose this man, thrusting aside the petty cavil respecting the sabbath, with worthier thoughts gives glory to Him Who had freely given him sight, and, having allotted him a place amongst holy men, calls him a prophet. He seems to me, moreover, not to have thought too highly of the regulations of the law; for [otherwise] he would not have admired Jesus so much, or raised his Physician to the rank of a prophet in spite of his apparent transgression of the sabbatical law. Having certainly derived benefit from the marvellous deed, and having arrived at a better state of mind than that of the Jews, he is therefore obliged to admit a superiority to legal observances in the Wonder-worker, Who, in doing good works, deemed an infringement of the law altogether blameless. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Cyril of Alexandria: They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him, in that He opened thine eyes?

They imagine those who are disposed to judge fairly to be wandering in their wits, and they seem to me to have forgotten altogether Him Who says: Judge righteous judgment; and having been taken captive as it were in the bonds of envy, they cannot endure to listen at all to any word that honours Christ. Turning away from any one wishing to speak of His miracles as from some one most hostile to themselves, and mistrusting their own powers of explanation, they haughtily address their words to the man that had been healed. Again they ask what had been many times told them, having already proclaimed their belief that He Who had performed an action contrary to the sabbath was both worthless and wicked. They think that in this way the blind man will join them in condemning Him, and take his cue from their words; that he will suppress all outward signs of gratitude, out of fear and trembling before their anger, and readily charge Jesus with contempt of the law, because of its being the sabbath. Evil therefore was the design of the Pharisees, and it cannot be doubted that it was foolish also. For how could the voice of one thankless man weaken the force of the miracle? And would not Christ’s Divine glory appear, if it so happened that the blind man, overcome by fear, should deny the kindness he had received, in order to avoid suffering anything from those wont to inflict pain? But envy is powerful to persuade those who are bursting with it to eagerly do any thing in their passion, even though it involves conduct very fairly open to ridicule. The mind which is free from such thoughts, however, is not entangled by foolish arguments; but, ever preserving its natural excellence untarnished, is borne directly towards a right conclusion, and does not go beyond the limits of truth. Mean therefore and insolent are the Pharisees, thinking that those who choose to think and speak rightly are wandering in their wits, and endeavouring to compel the man to speak evil words concerning Him Who had miraculously bestowed on him an unhoped-for blessing. But he was disposed to express gratitude and had been brought nigh to a clear knowledge by means of the miracle. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: We must go over the Scriptures not in a chance way or carelessly, but with all exactness, that we be not entangled. Since even now in this place one might with show of reason question, how, when they had asserted, “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath,” they now say to the man, “What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes?” and not, “What sayest thou of him, that he hath broken the Sabbath?” but put now that which was the ground of the defense, not that of the accusation. What then have we to reply? That these (who speak) are not the men who said, “This man is not of God,” but those who separated themselves from them, who also said, “A man that is a sinner cannot do such miracles.” For desiring to silence their opponents the more, in order that they may not seem to be partisans of Christ, they bring forward the man who had received proof of His power, and question him. Observe now the wisdom of the poor man, he speaketh more wisely than them all. First he saith, “He is a Prophet”; and shrank not from the judgment of the perverse Jews who spake against Him and said, “How can this man be of God, not keeping the Sabbath?” but replied to them, “He is a Prophet.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

Theodore of Mopsuestia: While they were discussing things, they turned to the blind man again, as if they chose him as their arbiter, and they said to him, “What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” Should we admire him for the work he performed? Or is he a sinner because he violated the sabbath? So about the one “who opened your eyes,” that is, since he opened your eyes, what do you have to say about him? What is your opinion? The blind man wisely answered the question, saying, “He is a prophet,” that is, that is the kind of respect I have for him, and it encapsulates what I think of the work he performed. When they saw that the miracle itself already testified to the power of the healer and that the blind man openly revealed the grace he had received and proclaimed the greatness of his helper, they began to doubt whether that man who had been healed was really the blind man or someone else. And so they were obliged to call his parents. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.13-18

John 9:18

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. s. 10) i. e. had been blind, and now saw. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: The envy against the Healer which is hot within them does not allow them to believe what is acknowledged by all; and, swayed by the frenzy of madness, they of course care little for the discovery of truth, and speak falsely against Christ. First they applied pressure to the man himself, and now they are seen to be no less rashly distressing his parents, but with the very opposite result to that which they intended. They propose a most superfluous question to the man’s parents, and they seem to me, in their unbounded folly, to dishonour the very law which they so venerated and so extravagantly upheld. For the neighbours, as it is written, brought him that aforetime was blind, and setting him face to face with those who were asking these questions, they reported most clearly that he had been born blind, and bore witness that now he had received sight. Thus, whereas the law distinctly says that every matter is established by the mouth of two or three witnesses, they set aside the testimony not merely of two or three but probably of many more, and go for further evidence to the parents of him who was healed, thus acting contrary to the law as well as to good manners. But the law is nothing to them when they are eager to accomplish something agreeable to their private pleasures. For when the testimony borne to the miracle, by the voices both of the neighbours and of the man who was healed, put them out of countenance sorely against their will; they expected to be able to persuade those now being questioned, to make light of truth, and rather to speak as they wished them to speak. For see in how overbearing a manner they put their question, saying: Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? For they all but avow their certain intention to treat them very dreadfully, and they frighten them with unbounded fear, calling as it were by compulsion and violence for that which they wished to hear, namely the answer: “He was not born blind.” For they had but one object and that an impious one, namely, to loosen the hold which Christ had on the multitudes, and to turn away the simple faith of such as were now overcome with admiration. And just as men who strive to take some well-fortified city environ it on every side and besiege it in all manner of ways; at one time they are eager to undermine the foundations, at another they strike blows with battering-rams against the towers: so the shameless Pharisees lay siege to the miracle with all their evil devices and leave no method of impiety untried. But it was not possible to disparage as unworthy of credit what was well known to all, or to distort that at which many had marvelled into a less certain conviction. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “And they did not believe that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they had called his parents.”

Observe in how many ways they attempt to obscure and take away the miracle. But this is the nature of truth, by the very means by which it seems to be assailed by men, by these it becomes stronger, it shines by means of that by which it is obscured. For if these things had not taken place, the miracle might have been suspected by the many; but now, as if desiring to lay bare the truth, so do they use all means, and would not have acted otherwise, supposing they had done all in Christ’s behalf. For they first attempted to cast Him down by occasion of this mode (of cure), saying, “How opened he thine eyes?” that is, “was it by some sorcery?” In another place also, when they had no charge to bring against Him, they endeavored to insult the mode of the cure, saying, “He doth not cast out devils save by Beelzebub.” And here again, when they have nothing to say, they betake themselves to the time (of cure), saying, “He breaketh the Sabbath”; and again, “He is a sinner.” Yet He asked you, who would slay Him, and who were ready to lay hold of His actions, most plainly, saying, “Which of you convinceth Me of sin?” and no man spake, nor said “Thou blasphemest because thou makest thyself without sin.” But if they had had it in their power to say so, they would not have held their peace. For they who because they heard that He was before Abraham would have stoned Him, and said that He was not of God, who boasted that they, murderers as they were, were of God, but who said that One who did such wonders, after that He had wrought a cure, was not of God, because He kept not the Sabbath, if they had had but a shadow of a charge against Him, would never have let it pass. And if they call Him a sinner because He seemed to break the Sabbath, this charge also is shown to be unsound, when those who are ranked with them condemn their great coldness and littleness of soul. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John Chrysostom: Being therefore entangled on every side, they afterwards betake themselves to something else more shameless and impudent. What is that? They “did not believe,” It saith, “that he had been blind, and received his sight.” How then did they charge Christ with not keeping the Sabbath? Plainly, as having believed. But why gave ye not heed to the great number of people? to the neighbors who knew him? As I said, falsehood everywhere defeats itself by the very means by which it seems to annoy the truth, and makes the truth to appear more bright. Which was now the case. For that no one might say that his neighbors and those who had seen him did not speak with precision, but guessed from a likeness, they bring forward his parents, by whom they succeeded against their will in proving that what had taken place was real, since the parents best of all knew their own child. When they could not terrify the man himself, but beheld him with all boldness proclaim his Benefactor, they thought to wound the miracle by means of his parents. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:19

John Chrysostom: “Is this your son?” (and they said not, “who once was blind,” but) “of whom ye say that he was born blind?”

As if they were acting deceitfully, and plotting on behalf of Christ. O ye accursed, utterly accursed! What father would choose to invent such falsehoods against his child? For they almost say, “Whom ye have made out blind, and not only so, but have spread abroad the report everywhere.” “How then doth he now see?”

O folly! “Yours,” saith one, “is the trick and the contrivance.” For by these two things do they attempt to lead the parents to a denial; by using the words, “Whom ye say,” and, “How then doth he now see?” Now when there were three questions asked, whether he was their son, whether he had been blind, and how he received his sight, the parents only acknowledge two of them, but do not add the third. And this came to pass for the sake of the truth, in order that none other save the man that was healed, who was also worthy of credit, should acknowledge this matter. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:20

Cyril of Alexandria: They acknowledge as true that which was in no wise doubtful and for which it was hardly likely they would suffer anything disagreeable; for they say that they recognise their own offspring, and do not deny what really was the case at his birth, but distinctly affirm that he was born with the affliction. Nevertheless they shrink from relating the miracle, leaving the nature of the deed to speak for itself, and maintaining that it would be much more suitable to put the question as to how he had been healed to their son himself. Fear of danger is certainly a powerful motive to turn men aside from what it befits them to do. Being greatly alarmed by the harshness of the Pharisees, they do not observe that which is somewhere well said: Strive for the truth unto death. It is likely that they did suffer something of another sort; for the poor man is always timid, and, losing through, his poverty the power to offer bold resistance, often takes refuge in an unwilling silence, and a forced acquiescence: as if already completely crushed in spirit by the vexation of poverty, he seems insensible to being burdened with other misfortunes. We suspect that the parents of the blind man suffered something of this sort, even though their answer on the whole is composed with great plausibility. For every one would agree that the recognition of the man as their son was a matter as to which it was far more reasonable to interrogate them than the man himself, whereas the question as to the Physician was one not so much, for the parents to answer as for him who had experienced the benefit of the wonderful operation. Thus they distinctly acknowledge what they know, inasmuch as they are fairly called upon for this; but what he could tell more truly, since he had the more accurate knowledge, about that they call upon him to give information. And it is not without Divine guidance. I think, that they added to their speech the words: He is of age. For this too seems to indicate the impiety of the Pharisees. Because, if he that received sight was qualified by his time of life to form a sound opinion; when he relates the miracle and how he was treated, he will not speak with the mind of a boy, but with an understanding now well matured, and probably able to support by argument those speakers with whom he agrees. This then will of necessity tend to show the utterly shameless incredulity of the Pharisees. For behold! they will believe neither the neighbours nor the blind man himself, although it is not with an immature intellect that he gives evidence, nor on account of a boyish understanding does he easily glide into falsehood; but he is of age, a fact which prevents his being ignorant of the nature of affairs. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: Now when there were three questions asked, whether he was their son, whether he had been blind, and how he received his sight, the parents only acknowledged two of them, but do not add the third. And this came to pass for the sake of the truth, in order that none other save the man that was healed, who was also worthy of credit, should acknowledge this matter. And how would the parents have favored Christ, when even of what they knew some part they spake not through fear of the Jews? What say they?

“We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now seeth we know not, or who hath opened his eyes we know not; he is of age, he shall speak for himself.”

By making him to be worthy of credit, they begged off themselves; “He is not a child, say they, nor incapable, but able to testify for himself.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:21

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 10) As f to say, We might justly be compelled to speak for an infant, that could not speak for itself: but he, though blind from his birth, has been always able to speak. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: Besides having spoken falsely, they committed another sin by exposing their son to obvious harm. But I think this also has a reason. When the Savior opened the eyes of the blind man, he did not open those of a child but of one full grown so that he might see as a full-grown man. But such was also the case with other blind men who received sight. However, it is true that he being of full age can speak for himself, and especially so when Jesus makes him receive his sight. For he needs no one else to negotiate for him. — FRAGMENT 67 ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

John 9:22

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The Evangelist shows that it was not from ignorance, but fear, that they gave this answer. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 10) It was no disadvantage to be put out of the synagogue: whom they cast out, Christ took in. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, whom ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see? His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: but by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.” What is this: “They feared the Jews”? “They feared the Jews,” that is, the Pharisees. As it is written elsewhere, “Many of the rulers also believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue.” O evil fear! The Jews expel from the synagogue, and Christ receives into heaven. Nevertheless the love of human glory hindered many even who believed from confessing. — Tractates on John 44

Cyril of Alexandria: Well and fitly does our Lord Jesus the Christ utter this woe at the heads of the Pharisees: Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the hey of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. For again let the devout person consider if the beauty of truth will not correspond to these words; for Christ could never be deceived. For behold! besides the unwillingness of any one of them to teach the doctrine of the presence of the Christ among them, they both terrify with cruel fear those who could perceive Him by the brilliance of His actions, and, by imposing a severe compulsion in their savageness, hinder any member of their company who seemed disposed to do so from acknowledging His miracles. For by putting out of the synagogue him who was right-minded and therefore disposed to believe, the wretches do not blush of their own authority to alienate in a manner from God him who cleaves to God; and to persuade him that the Lord of all is a partaker of the madness against all which they themselves possess. The admirable Evangelist however defends such, and says that the persons questioned were overcome by fear and therefore unwilling to say that the Christ had healed their son: so that by exposing the magnitude of the fury of the Jews, he might make it evident to those that come after. For what could be more inhuman than the conduct of these men, who deem right-minded persons worthy of punishment, and bring under the necessity of being punished, such as at all understand Him Who was proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets? And we shall find from the sacred Scriptures that the unholy design of the Jews was not unknown to the holy Prophets. For He Who searcheth the hearts and reins, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart, to Whom all things are naked and laid open, saith by Isaiah: Woe to the rebellious children: thus saith the Lord, Ye took counsel, but not of Me; ye made covenants, but not by My Spirit; to add sin to sin. For he who saith that Jesus is Lord most certainly will speak in the Holy Spirit, according to the words of Paul; but any one who professes the contrary will not speak in the Holy Spirit, (how could it be possible?) but rather in Beelzebub. Surely then the covenants of the Jews were not made by the Holy Spirit, for they added sins to sins. They first of all draw down the doom of disobedience upon their own heads, and then they communicate it to others by forbidding them to confess the Christ. Surely the design is full of the grossest impiety, albeit the Psalmist laughs at those who to their disappointment engage in a fruitless undertaking, saying: Thou O Lord shalt confound them in Thy wrath, and the fire shall devour them; their fruit shalt Thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men: for they intended evil against Thee; they imagined a device which they are not able to perform. For they were quite unable to carry out a design which fought against God, although often and in ten thousand ways they attempted to obscure the glory of Christ. Therefore they were turned back, that is, were driven from the face and presence of the Lord of all, justly being addressed with the words: Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which ye kindled. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “These words spake they, because they feared the Jews.”

Observe how the Evangelist again brings forward their opinion and thoughts. This I say, because of that speech which they before uttered, when they said, “He maketh Himself equal to God.” For had that also been the opinion of the Jews but not the judgment of Christ, he would have added and said, that “it was a Jewish opinion.” When therefore the parents referred them to him that had been healed, they called him again the second time, and did not say openly and shamelessly, “Deny that Christ healed thee,” but would fain effect this under a pretense of piety. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

Theodore of Heraclea: Thus evil mastered the rulers who not only disabled themselves through unbelief but also through their threatening shut the way of salvation for the rest. — FRAGMENT ON John 82

John 9:23

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Therefore said his parents, He is of age, ask him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 9:24

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): They wished him to give glory to God, by calling Christ a sinner, as they did: We know that this man is a sinner. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Then again called they the man who had been blind, and said unto him, Give God the glory.” What is that, “Give God the glory”? Deny what thou hast received. Such conduct is manifestly not to give God the glory, but rather to blaspheme Him. “Give God,” they say, “the glory: we know that this man is a sinner. Then said he, If he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.” — Tractates on John 44

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. s. 11) Deny that thou hast received the benefit. This is not to give God the glory, but rather to blaspheme Him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Being unable to stop the man from speaking well of Christ, they attempt to attain a similar end by another method, and proceed to entice him in a sort of coaxing way to fulfil their private aim. Trying by many arguments to make him forget Christ altogether, and not even mention Him as a Physician, they say most craftily that he ought to ascribe glory to God on account of the marvellous deed, thus pretending piety. Nevertheless they bid him agree with and believe themselves, even when they maintain the highest impiety possible by saying that He is a sinner, Who came to destroy sin. They bring forward no proof whatever of this slanderous assertion, but being boasters and thinking something great and extraordinary of themselves, merely because they were leaders of the people, they command implicit confidence to be put in their discernment of character, and lay it down as a matter of duty. For the words, We know, will be found pregnant with surpassing arrogance by those who closely examine what they imply. But thou mayest in no small degree wonder at the foolish mind of the Jews from this also, that whereas they decree that glory should be ascribed to God on account of the miracle, since He alone is the doer of such deeds, they condemn One Who works the works of God by His own might; and not only do the miserable people act thus themselves, but they compel others to agree with them. Yet when they aver that by their own unaided knowledge they are sure that Christ is a sinner, they are ignorant that they assert something most harmful to themselves. For, being wont to boast greatly of their learning in the Law, and exhibiting intolerable conceit about the Sacred Scriptures, they will suffer a greater penalty; because, it being in their power to know the mystery of Christ, which by the Law and the Prophets in many ways is typified and proclaimed, they with much heedlessness cling to their self-imposed ignorance; or, if they possess accurate knowledge, are always most pertinaciously unwilling to do what they ought. For they ought rather to instruct the mind of the common people to comprehend the mysteries of Christ, and to try to lead others to the knowledge of what it behoved them to know. But they, profuse in arguments and mighty in boasts, and crying out with far too high an opinion of themselves: We know, set aside the words of the Law, account the voice of Moses as nothing, and think the declarations of prophets to be as vain as those of the thoughtless mob; for they quite fail to take notice of what the voice of the prophet foretels will happen at the time of Our Saviour Christ’s coming, for he says: Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be distinct. For the paralytic was healed at the pool of Bethesda, and after passing through thirty and eight years in his infirmity, as it is written, by one word of the Saviour he took up his bed and leaped away like a hart: yet when they ought to have admired Jesus for that, they lamented the breach of the sabbath, and, holding that the law had been transgressed, disparaged the excellence of the miracle. At another time, when an evil spirit had been cast out of him, the dumb man spake; but they fell into such terrible folly as not to gain even a little profit from it. The blind man received sight, the prophetic announcement was fulfilled, the word of the Spirit was brought to pass to the uttermost, and what? Again at this they go mad, they condemn the Wonder-worker, they attribute sin to Him Who is able to shine forth with Divine brightness, and Who displays as actually now present that which had been expected long ages before. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “Give,” saith one, “the glory to God.”

For to have said to the parents, “Deny that he is your son, and that he was born blind,” would have seemed very ridiculous. And again, to have said this to himself would have been manifest shamelessness. Wherefore they say not so, but manage the matter in another way, saying, “Give God the glory,” that is, “confess that this man hath wrought nothing.”

“We know that this man is a sinner.”

“Why then did ye not convict Him when He said, ‘Which of you convinceth Me of sin?’ Whence know ye that He is a sinner?” After that they had said, “Give God the glory,” and the man had made no reply, Christ meeting praised him, and did not rebuke him, nor say, “Wherefore hast thou not given glory to God?” But what said He? “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” that thou mayest learn that this is “to give glory to God.” Now had He not been equal in honor to the Father, this would not have been giving glory; but since he that honoreth the Son honoreth the Father also, the blind is with good reason not rebuked. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:25

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The man, that he might neither expose himself to calumny, nor at the same time conceal the truth, answers not that he knew Him to be righteous, but, Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: The benefit which the man formerly blind had received from Christ appears to have been twofold: his understanding was in some way enlightened at the same time as his bodily eyes, and as he possesses the, light of the physical sun in his fleshly eyes, so the intellectual beam, I mean the illumination by the Spirit, takes up its abode within him, and he receives it into his heart. For hear how he resists the abominable conduct of the magistrates out of his great love towards Christ, and how cleverly he reproaches them as being well-nigh intoxicated and beside themselves. But he frames h.is speech with proper respectfulness, and giving them their due honour as the ruling order, courteously says: Whether He he a sinner, I know not. We do not argue from this that the man was unaware that Jesus was not a sinner, but shall rather suppose that he so addressed those men with the following design. For he may be imagined to speak thus. Though compelled against my will to acquiesce in what is wrong, I will not endure to slander my Benefactor: I will not join myself to those who wish to dishonour Him Who deserves all honour: I will not say that such a Wonderworker is a sinner: I will not give an unjust vote against One Who is mighty to work the works of God. The miracle wrought in me does not permit me to consent to your words: I was blind and I see. It is not another man’s account of His doings that I have believed: I am not carried away by the reports of mere strangers: it is not cures effected upon others that I am led to admire. I myself, he says, am a proof of His power: I stand here seeing, having been formerly blind, as a sort of monument, exhibiting the excellence of His love for men, and flashing forth the greatness of His Divine power. Something like this I conceive to be the real significance of the words used by him who had received his sight. For to say: Whether he be a sinner I know not; and immediately to add: One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see, is not in the style of a simple statement, but shows a deeper meaning of very wise reasoning. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.”

Surely the blind man was not terrified? That be far from him. How then doth he who said, “He is a Prophet”, now say, “Whether he be a sinner, I know not”? He said so, not as being in such a state of mind, nor as having persuaded himself of this thing, but desiring to clear Him from their charges by the testimony of the fact, not by his own declaration, and to make the defense credible, when the testimony of the good deed done should decide the matter against them. Since if after many words when the blind man said, “Except this were a righteous man he could not do such miracles”, they were so enraged as to reply, “Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us?” what would they not have said, if he had spoken so from the beginning; what would they not have done? “Whether he be a sinner or not, I know not”; as though he had said, “I say nothing in this man’s favor, I make no declaration at present, yet this I certainly know and would affirm, that if he were a sinner he could not have done such things.” Thus he kept himself free from suspicion, and his testimony uncorrupted, as not speaking from partiality, but as bearing witness according to the fact. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

Theodore of Mopsuestia: He says, in effect, I do not want to declare what I do not know; nor can I keep silent or hide what I know. I really do not know whether he is what you say he is. In fact, I did not come to know him as a sinner. I was blind, and through my hope I received sight; I know this first of all. It is up to you to judge whether a sinner can do that, because this is what you assert he is.He gave a quite prudent answer by moderating his words so that he might not appear to be in disagreement with those who questioned him. Through his silence he nonetheless suggested that [Jesus] could not have done what he did if he really were a sinner. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.25

John 9:26

Augustine of Hippo: “Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again?” See how bold one becomes who is filled with light; see how the blind was not afraid of the Jews his parents fear. To wit, they interrogated him as to what good they might gain from his answers; not, of course, that they might themselves receive sight, but that they might draw him to say something that might furnish them with the means of accusing him, namely Christ, because he made clay and anointed the blind man’s eyes.

“Will ye also be his disciples?” What means this “also,” save as if he said, Already I am: will ye also be? Contumely to them, health to the man. — Tractates on John 44

Cyril of Alexandria: They again resort to questioning, and inquire about the manner of the Divine sign; not doing this out of good feeling or a laudable curiosity, but placing and reckoning the speaking well of Christ by any living being as baser than any villainy and worse than any wickedness, they stir up all these matters afresh; thinking perhaps that the man would no more repeat the same words, but would vary his account of the event, and say something inconsistent with his former answers, so that they might lay hold of the contradiction and denounce him as an impostor and a liar. For, supercilious in their excessive cleverness, they imagined the force of the miracle to depend on the mere words of the man, as though it were not evident from the fact of what had been done. And moreover, I think that they may have experienced something of this sort: such as are not backward in hating others unjustly, when they are making inquiries about anything done by them which does not seem to have been rightly done, wish to hear it from the witnesses not once only but over and over again, whetting as it were into keener action the anger which seems too feeble. For, conscience, ever testing our motives, makes us uncomfortable, and ceases not to accuse us of injustice, even though from passionate prejudice we may feel a certain pleasure in the unjust action. The man who had been healed is accordingly provoked and urged against his will to go over the story again and to answer the same questions, while they almost make signs to one another to observe closely whether something illegal might not have been done in the working of this Divine sign on the sabbath. For conscience checks the savage design that rages within them, and (so to speak) puts a bridle on them, though they are unwilling to admit its interference. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes?”

What was his reply? Having conquered and cast them down, he no longer speaks to them submissly. As long as the matter needed enquiry and arguments he spake guardedly, while he supplied the proof; but when he had conquered and gained a splendid victory, he then takes courage, and tramples upon them. What saith he?

“I have told you once, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again?”

Seest thou the bold-speaking of a beggar towards Scribes and Pharisees? So strong is truth, so weak is falsehood. Truth, though she take hold but of ordinary men, maketh them to appear glorious; the other, even though it be with the strong, shows them weak. What he saith is of this kind: “Ye give no heed to my words, therefore I will no longer speak or answer you continually, who question me to no purpose, and who do not desire to hear in order to learn, but that you may insult over my words.”

“Will ye also be His disciples?”

Now he hath ranked himself among the band of disciples, for the “will ye also?” is the expression of one who is declaring himself to be a disciple. Then he mocked and annoyed them abundantly. For since he knew that this struck them hard, he said it, wishing to upbraid them with exceeding severity; the act of a soul courageous, soaring on high and despising their madness, pointing out the greatness of this dignity, in which he was very confident, and showing that they insulted him who was a man worthy to be admired, but that he took not the insult to himself, but grasped as an honor what they offered as a reproach. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:27

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. s. 11) Will ye also? i. e. I am already, do ye wish to be? I see now, but do not envy (video, non invideo). He says this in indignation at the obstinacy of the Jews; not tolerating blindness, now that he is no longer blind himself. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Would ye also become His disciples?

He has now confessed distinctly, and without any evasion, that he has been made a disciple, if not by argument yet in consequence of the marvellous deed; and has become a believer, accepting his miraculous sight in the place of instruction. For when he said to them: Would ye also become His disciples? he as it were revealed his own condition of mind, that he was not only willing to become, but actually had already become, a disciple. And in some degree even before he had fulness of faith, acting upon the precept: Freely ye received, freely give, he was prepared at once and very unselfishly to communicate his advantages to them. He affirms unhesitatingly and often his account of the marvellous deed, if they had only considered his narrative really as instruction. He certainly therefore observed in an excellent way that in the Book of Proverbs: He speaketh in the ears of them that hear.

It seems probable that some deep and hidden meaning is obscurely intimated in these words of his, and I will briefly state what it is. There were some of the magistrates who recognised that the Wonder-worker was in truth Christ, but keeping their knowledge of Him buried (so to speak) within their hearts, they as yet were unsuspected by the majority of their companions. And our witness will be the wise Evangelist himself, where he says that the rulers knew that He was the Christ, hut hecause of the Pharisees they did not confess it. The proofs of this will be strengthened also to some extent by Nicodemus, boldly exclaiming and saying to Our Lord Jesus Christ: Rabbi, we know that Thou art a Teacher come from God, and that no man can do these signs that Thou doest, except God be with Him. Certainly therefore some of the rulers knew, and the report of this was spread abroad throughout all Jerusalem. The majority of the Jews suspected that the rulers knew, but were determined not to confess it through malice and envy; and that this also is true, we will show from the evangelical writings themselves. For the blessed John himself somewhere says that Jesus stood teaching in the very temple and explaining things which, at least to the understanding of His hearers, seemed to be breaking the law. And when the magistrates of the Jews did not proceed at all against Him, nay, did not venture so much as to say: “O fellow, cease teaching what does not harmonize with our ancient laws,” they brought suspicion on themselves among the multitudes as we have just observed. Thus for instance it is written: Some of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this He Whom they seek to kill? And lo, He speaketh openly and they say nothing unto Him. Can it he that the rulers know that this is the Christ? Surely he all but says, “Those whose lot it is to be leaders know that He is indeed the Christ; see, although they are generally considered to be desirous of killing Him, He is speaking with very great boldness and they do not rebuke Him even so much as by words.” Accordingly, this suspicion being spread abroad through all Jerusalem, the blind man had at some time heard it, and had this report about these men ringing in his ears. Gracefully therefore reproving them, as we may suppose, he says: “Surely it is to no purpose that ye bid me again utter the same words and again speak the praise of the marvellous deed: or do ye indeed consider the narrative a pleasure, thirsting even now for instruction from Him, although, overcome by fear of others, ye allow ungrateful cowardice to stand in the way of such excellent knowledge?” — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Cyril of Alexandria: He answered them, I told yon even now, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again?

It seems superfluous now, he says, to tell the story over again to an incredulous audience, and it is useless for you to inquire so often concerning these things, when you do not gain anything whatever, although you learn and have conclusive evidence. But you bid me now again reiterate the same words for no good purpose, as experience proclaims. For hereby the man who had been healed thoroughly convicts the Pharisees of unreasonableness, of turning away their ears from the truth, as it is written, not being laudably angry at the law being broken, but by these questions bidding him who wished to speak well of the Wonder-worker to appear in the character of an accuser, rather than accepting him as an admirer. For this was in truth their aim, since the transgression of the law was altogether a matter of indifference to them, and passed over as quite unimportant. On this account they set aside just judgment and were only bent on gratifying their prejudice; forgetting God, Who says: The priest’s lips shall guard judgment and they shall seek the law at his mouth. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John 9:28

Augustine of Hippo: “They reviled him, and said, Be thou his disciple: we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not whence he is.” “We know that God spake unto Moses.” And whence know ye that? Because Moses wrote of Me, as the Lord Himself said; and Moses, did I believe, ye would believe Me also: for Moses wrote of me. Thus, then, the servant was believed, the Lord despised; and yet, in truth, the Lord was believed from whom this same servant was believed. — Tractates on John 44

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 12) A malediction only in the intention of the speakers, not in the words themselves. May such a malediction (ἐλοιδόρησαν, maledixerunt, Vulg.) be upon us, and upon our children! It follows: But we are Moses’ disciples. But ye should have known, that our Lord was prophesied of by Moses, after hearing what He said, Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. (c. 5:46) Do ye follow then a servant, and turn your back on the Lord? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: We almost see the Evangelist smile as he says this. For he beholds those whose lot it was to hold sacred offices degraded in mental stupor so far as to make an object of reviling that which was so excellent, namely discipleship under Christ; smitten with a worthy love of which, some of the saints say: How sweet are Thy words unto my throat, sweeter than honey and honeycomb unto my mouth. And again another, as if speaking to Our Lord Jesus the Christ concerning those that disobey Him, says: Consume them, and Thy word shall be to me a pleasure and delight, yea the joy of my heart. But they attach no value to His sacred words, and think that one who is being instructed by Him is worthy of blame even on that account alone; and holding so far true opinions even against themselves, they speak of the Christ as the blind man’s teacher, and Moses as their own. For in very truth the Gentiles were illuminated by Christ through the Evangelical teaching, and Israel died in the types given by Moses and was buried in the shadow of the letter. Wherefore also Paul somewhere says of them: Unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart. And there is no doubt that it was as a type of the Gentiles that we were as in a picture delineating the history of the blind man, fashioning, as in a type, the incidents connected with him to express the truth concerning them.

Yet this also is signified, that to suffer reproach for Christ’s sake is a thing delightful and most honourable; for the very means by which those who do not shrink from becoming persecutors think to vex those who love Him, become (though the persecutors know it not) sources of joy to them. Yea, those who persecute Christians cause their excellence to shine more conspicuously, and do not |44 so easily succeed in causing them injury. The abandoned Pharisees then, disparaging as seems probable themselves more than Christ, say of the blind man: Thou art His disciple; and being elated and puffed up with pride, foolishly say of themselves: But we are disciples of Moses. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “Thou art his disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples.”

“But this cannot be. Ye are neither Moses’ nor this Man’s; for were ye Moses’, ye would become this Man’s also.” Wherefore Christ before said unto them, because they were continually betaking themselves to these speeches, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me.”

“We know that God spake unto Moses.”

By whose word, whose report? “That of our forefathers,” saith one. Is not He then more to be believed than your forefathers, who confirmeth by miracles that He came from God, and that He speaketh things from above? They said not, “We have heard that God spake to Moses,” but, “We know.” Do ye affirm, O Jews, what ye have by hearing, as knowing it, but deem what ye have by sight as less certain than what ye have by hearing? Yet the one ye saw not, but heard, the other ye did not hear, but saw. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:29

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 12) We know that God spake unto Moses. As for this fellow, we know not whence He is. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Boldly do they speak again, armed with that folly which is so familiar and dear to them; and in undiminished shamelessness they once more boastfully exclaim: We know. And when they add: that God hath spoken unto Moses, thereby recognising that he deserved great honour, they in another way again insult him, seeing that they take no account of his precepts. For they ignorantly condemn One Whom as yet they know not, or rather they dishonour Him in spite of what they have learnt concerning Him, although the Law forbids them to act unjustly and quarrelsomely towards any or to judge at all in this way. Something of this sort they say again now: “confessedly God hath spoken unto Moses; there is no sufficient reason for any to be in doubt on this point; He enacted laws by him, and laid down regulations how every thing is to be done. Certainly therefore, he says, he is a transgressor of the sacred Scriptures, who has contrary opinions to those expressed by Moses: and manifestly the law concerning the sabbath has been broken, for thou wast healed on the sabbath: it is righteous not to acknowledge one who is detected in this matter and therefore condemned. Now we have good reason to say that He has not observed the Divine law.” Then, when they say of Christ: We know not whence He is, they surely do not say so as being ignorant Who or whence He was, for they are elsewhere found publicly confessing that they know all about Him. Is not this the carpenter’s Son, Whose father and mother we know? How then doth He say, I am come down out of heaven? Certainly therefore we can not accept this statement: We know not whence He is, as indicative of ignorance, |45 but we shall look upon it as the expression of the arrogance which was in them. For, throwing contempt on their own previous judgment, and setting it altogether at naught, they make this statement concerning Him. Perhaps indeed their words indicate that they argued as follows; for it is only fair to their arguments that we should scrutinise them more carefully. “We know,” say they, “that God has spoken unto Moses: certainly therefore we must believe without hesitation what was spoken by him, and observe the commandments given him from God. But this Man we know not, for God hath not spoken unto Him, nor have we recognised any such thing with regard to Him.” But the Pharisees, wont to be wise in their own conceit, and boasting much of their knowledge of the Divine word, ought to have considered that God the Father thus speaks, when by the all-wise Moses He proclaims the future advent of Jesus: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak unto them as I shall command Him. And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever that Prophet shall speak in My Name, I will take vengeance on him. Surely any one might have rebuked the Jews with good reason, and said: O ye who only know how to disbelieve, if ye are so readily persuaded by the words of Moses, because God hath spoken unto him, ought ye not to believe Christ in the same way, when ye hear Him publicly declaring: The words that I say unto you are not Mine, but the Father’s Who sent Me; and again: I speak not from Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He hath given Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Certainly therefore the words of the Pharisees are a mere excuse, a fiction of vain reasoning. For if they say they ought rather to follow Moses, on this account, that God spake to him; why do they not think similarly with regard to Christ, when He distinctly says what we have just mentioned? But while in part they honour the law, and pretend to hold God’s will in high esteem, in another way they violate it and dishonour it greatly by refusing to accept its proclamation concerning their time, that namely which was announced by it concerning Christ, that by His Incarnation He should appear in the character of a Prophet. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John 9:30

Augustine of Hippo: “The man answered and said unto them, Herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man is a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth.” He speaks still as one only anointed. For God heareth even sinners. For if God heard not sinners, in vain would the publican, casting his eyes on the ground, and smiting on his breast, have said, “Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.” And that confession merited justification, as this blind man enlightenment. “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.” With frankness, constancy, and truthfulness [he spoke]. For these things that were done by the Lord, by whom were they done but by God? Or when would such things be done by disciples, were not the Lord dwelling in them? — Tractates on John 44

Cyril of Alexandria: I am astonished, he says, and very justly, that you say you do not know One Who is borne witness to by such holiness and by the Divine power shown in His actions; yet you are thought to incessantly give attention to God’s teaching, you administer the law, you make the verbal study of the sacred Words your great delight, you possess the chief power among the people and especially may be expected to know who are good teachers. For who ought to rightly know those who by God’s power work wonders, if they do not who are appointed to minister in holy things and who have been put in charge of the venerable mysteries? And by saying that he is astonished that they are altogether ignorant respecting the Divine sign, so wonderful and strange, which had been wrought upon him, the man covertly and by implication rebukes them, hinting that they were so far removed from sanctification and fitness for piety, that they shamelessly confessed themselves utterly ignorant of Him Who is truly holy, that is, Christ.

For let us lay bare what we believe to have been the concealed thought. If that is true which is somewhere well said: Every beast loveth his like, and a man will cleave to his like, how then if they were holy and good did they turn away and refuse to cleave to Him Who was holy and good? Certainly therefore that which was spoken was pregnant with a rebuke of the accursed policy and behaviour of the Pharisees. And I think another thing also will help to make this manifest. For I think that the diligent student who devotes his attention to such expressions will perceive more distinctly that which seems to be hidden in each. What then is this? Many rumours went about through all Judaea concerning our Saviour Christ, but they spoke of Him only as a Prophet. For thus the Law prophesied that He would come, saying: The Lord our God will raise up a Prophet from among your brethren; yet they hoped that when He was revealed in His proper time He would instruct them in things above the Law, and by unfolding the truer intent of the Lawgiver would educate them in worthier wise. And thou needest not wonder that there was among the Jews such a hope and opinion, when even among the other nations the same opinion was spread abroad. For instance even that Samaritan woman said: We know that Messiah cometh (which is called Christ): when He is come, He will declare unto us all things. Most clearly therefore the Jews knew that Christ would come, (for this is what Messiah meaneth), and would interpret to them the higher counsel of God; and moreover that He would also open the eyes of the blind was declared by Isaiah, who says distinctly: Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened. But there was also another opinion prevalent in Jerusalem, forasmuch as the prophet Isaiah speaks of the Ineffable Son of God the Father as quite unrecognised, saying: Who shall declare His generation? The Jews, here also distorting the force of the words in accordance with their own notions, imagined that the Christ would be altogether unrecognised, no one whatever knowing whence He was: although the Divine Scriptures establishes for us very evidently His birth in the flesh, and therefore exclaims: Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son. And that the mind of the Jews in this again was uneducated as regards the comprehension of essential truths, when they supposed that the Christ would be unrecognised, it is easy to see, from what the blessed Evangelist John declared to be evident concerning Him, when speaking to them of Jerusalem. For some of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this He Whom they seek to kill? And lo, He speaketh openly, and they say nothing unto Him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ? Howbeit we know this Man whence He is: but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence He is.

While the Jews therefore are thus absurdly laying down these opinions concerning Christ, the man who had been blind already forms [right] ideas about Him, quickly drawing inferences from the marvellous deed, and all but seizes on the words of the Pharisees in confirmation of his own reasoning. For he says: Why, herein is the miracle, that ye know not whence He is, and yet He opened mine eyes. Two signs, he says, I have, and very clear ones, of His being the Christ. For ye know not whence He is, but yet He opened mine eyes. Certainly therefore this is evidently He Who was foretold by the Law, and borne witness to by the voice of Prophets. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Irenaeus: Let our opponents-that is, they who speak against their own salvation-inform us [as to this point]: The deceased daughter of the high priest; the widow’s dead son, who was being carried out [to burial] near the gate [of the city]; and Lazarus, who had lain four days in the tomb,-in what bodies did they rise again? In those same, no doubt, in which they had also died. For if it were not in the very same, then certainly those same individuals who had died did not rise again. For [the Scripture] says, “The Lord took the hand of the dead man, and said to him, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And the dead man sat up, and He commanded that something should be given him to eat; and He delivered him to his mother.” Again, He called Lazarus “with a loud voice, saying, Lazarus, come forth; and he that was dead came forth bound with bandages, feet and hands.” This was symbolical of that man who had been bound in sins. And therefore the Lord said, “Loose him, and let him depart.” As, therefore, those who were healed were made whole in those members which had in times past been afflicted; and the dead rose in the identical bodies, their limbs and bodies receiving health, and that life which was granted by the Lord, who prefigures eternal things by temporal, and shows that it is He who is Himself able to extend both healing and life to His handiwork, that His words concerning its [future] resurrection may also be believed; so also at the end, when the Lord utters His voice “by the last trumpet,” the dead shall be raised, as He Himself declares: “The hour shall come, in which all the dead which are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth; those that have done good to the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” — Against Heresies Book V

John Chrysostom: “Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not whence He is, and He doeth such miracles.”

“That a Man, who is not one of the distinguished or noble or illustrious among you, can do such things; so that it is in every way clear that He is God, needing no human aid.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:31

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. s. 13) As yet however He speaks as one but just anointed, for God hears sinners too. Else in vain would the publican cry, God be merciful to me a sinner. (Luke 18:13) By that confession he obtained justification, as the blind man had his sight. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyprian: Since, therefore, the Lord threatens these torments, these punishments in the day of judgment, to those who obey the devil and sacrifice to idols, how does he think that he can act as a priest of God who has obeyed and served the priests of the devil; or how does he think that his hand can be transferred to the sacrifice of God and the prayer of the Lord which has been captive to sacrilege and to crime, when in the sacred Scriptures God forbids the priests to approach to sacrifice even if they have been in lighter guilt; and says in Leviticus: “The man in whom there shall be any blemish or stain shall not approach to offer gifts to God? " Also in Exodus: “And let the priests which come near to the Lord God sanctify themselves, lest perchance the Lord forsake them.” And again: “And when they come near to minister at the altar of the Holy One, they shall not bring sin upon them, lest they die.” Those, therefore, who have brought grievous sins upon themselves, that is, who, by sacrificing to idols, have offered sacrilegious sacrifices, cannot claim to themselves the priesthood of God, nor make any prayer for their brethren in His sight; since it is written in the Gospel, “God heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth.” Nevertheless the profound gloom of the falling darkness has so blinded the hearts of some, that they receive no light from the wholesome precepts, but, once turned away from the direct path of the true way, they are hurried headlong and suddenly by the night and error of their sins. — Epistle LXIII

Cyprian: Since these things are announced and are made plain to us, it is necessary that our obedience should wait upon the divine precepts; nor in matters of this kind can human indulgence accept any man’s person, or yield anything to any one, when the divine prescription has interfered, and establishes a law. For we ought not to be forgetful what the Lord spoke to the Jews by Isaiah the prophet, rebuking, and indignant that they had despised the divine precepts and followed human doctrines. “This people,” he says, honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is widely removed from me; but in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men.” This also the Lord repeats in the Gospel, and says, “Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may establish your own tradition.” Having which things before our eyes, and solicitously and religiously considering them, we ought in the ordinations of priests to choose none but unstained and upright ministers, who, holily and worthily offering sacrifices to God, may be heard in the prayers which they make for the safety of the Lord’s people, since it is written, “God heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth.” On which account it is fitting, that with full diligence and sincere investigation those should be chosen for God’s priesthood whom it is manifest God will hear. — Epistle LXVII

Cyprian: But, moreover, the very interrogation which is put in baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, “Dost thou believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy Church? “we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church, and that among heretics, where there is no Church, sins cannot be put away. Therefore they who assert that heretics can baptize, must either change the interrogation or maintain the truth; unless indeed they attribute a church also to those who, they contend, have baptism. It is also necessary that he should be anointed who is baptized; so that, having received the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be anointed of God, and have in him the grace of Christ. Further, it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the Eucharist celebrated at all among them. But we ought to know and remember that it is written, “Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head,” which the Holy Spirit before forewarned in the Psalms, lest any one going out of the way and wandering from the path of truth should be anointed by heretics and adversaries of Christ. Besides, what prayer can a priest who is impious and a sinner offer for a baptized person? since it is written, “God heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth.” Who, moreover, can give what he himself has not? or how can he discharge spiritual functions who himself has lost the Holy Spirit? And therefore he must be baptized and renewed who comes untrained to the Church, that he may be sanctified within by those who are holy, since it is written, “Be ye holy, for I am holy, saith the Lord.” So that he who has been seduced into error, and baptized outside of the Church, should lay aside even this very thing in the true and ecclesiastical baptism, viz., that he a man coming to God, while he seeks for a priest, fell by the deceit of error upon a profane one. — Epistle LXIX

Cyprian: Lucius of Membresa said: It is written, “God heareth not a sinner.” How can a heretic who is a sinner be heard in baptism? — The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian.

Cyril of Alexandria: Having already in some measure shown his delight in the proclamations made by the Prophets and the Law as now fulfilled, both in its being unknown whence Christ was, and in the eyes of the blind being opened, he collects for himself aids to faith from every quarter, and thus discovers something else also. Starting from necessary and acknowledged principles, he makes a show of going on to the inquiry as to what is profitable and fitting, and constructs what may be termed a piece of reasoning well-pleasing to God. For he maintains, and surely there are good grounds for so thinking, that the God Who loves justice and virtue never hears those who love sin; and laying this down as indisputable and universally acknowledged, he introduces as a contrast the opposite statement as true, and as gainsaid in no quarter, I mean of course that everywhere and always the Lord of all listens to such as are habitually pious. And although the conclusion to be drawn was designed to refer to the Christ alone, it was so constructed as if it had reference to a general and universal principle. For as I have already pointed out by anticipation, the man who had been blind has an unworthy conception of Christ and has not yet learnt accurately that He is by nature God; so that he thinks and speaks of Him as a Prophet, to Whom he might without blame ascribe piety: but this does not rightly apply to Christ at all, because He is by nature God, receiving the worship of the pious as it were a spiritual sacrifice. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “We know that God heareth not sinners.”

Since they had been the first to say, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” he now brings forward even their judgment, reminding them of their own words. “This opinion,” saith he, “is common to me and you. Stand fast now to it.” And observe, I pray you, his wisdom. He turns about the miracle in every way, because they could not do away with it, and from it he draws his inferences. Seest thou that at first he said “Whether he be a sinner or not, I know not”? not doubting (God forbid!) but knowing that He was not a sinner. At least now, when he had an opportunity, see how he defended Him. “We know that God heareth not sinners”: — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John Chrysostom: “But if any man be a worshiper of God, and doeth His will.”

Here he not only hath cleared Him from sin, but declareth that He is very pleasing to God, and doeth all His will. For since they called themselves worshipers of God, he added, “and doeth His will”; “since,” saith he, “it is not sufficient to know God: men must also do His will.” Then he magnifies what had been done… — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:32

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 13) Freely, stedfastly, truly. For how could what our Lord did, be done by any other than God, or by disciples even, except when their Lord dwelt in them? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Pained as it seems very keenly, and grieving as we may say over their revilings against Christ, so as to be vexed beyond endurance because they contemptuously said; Thou art His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses, he is eager to speak on behalf of his Master; hence he draws a sort of comparison between the achievements of Moses and the brilliant deeds of Our Saviour, showing that as the latter is greater in wonder-working, so far He is the better. For indeed, is it not a matter of course that he who accomplishes the greater work should be in every way superior in glory? Surely it is not to be doubted. And at the same time he probably signifies something of this sort. Whereas a very ancient prophecy foretells and declares thus concerning the coming of Christ: Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and no one ever before caused astonishment by having done any such deed; now it has been fulfilled by Him and Him only, Whom you (I know not why, he says) do not scruple to call a sinner. Moreover, a great company of holy prophets are spoken of, and a number not easily computed of just men are mentioned throughout the Sacred Scriptures, but since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. Is it not therefore certain that this is the Christ, Who accomplishes the declarations of the Prophets, Who thoroughly and completely fulfils the things proclaimed of old? For if no other besides Him opens the eyes of the blind, what henceforth shall stand in the way of faith? What shall turn us aside from accepting Him? Or how can we fail, every doubt being cast aside, to attain by the very easiest way the mystery of knowing Him?

Thus in these words also the man who was healed speaks on behalf of the Saviour Christ. And see how cleverly he puts together the argument of his plea. For it would really have been altogether outspoken and frank to say that Christ was better and more illustrious than Moses and the Prophets, but it was not unreasonable to suppose that the Pharisees, frantic at that, would have pretended that they were contending for the saints thus insulted, and with a good excuse would have attempted to punish the man, that he might not live and be looked upon as a monument of Christ’s glory and a sort of representative of the Divine power which Christ possessed: wherefore, craftily avoiding the passion that might arise, and depriving their murderous thoughts of this pretext for development, he diverts the application of the argument to what is universal and indefinite, saying: Since the world began that which Christ had wrought upon him had never been done by any one. This was nothing else than showing that Christ was certainly greater and more glorious than all, since He manifested by His actions such power and authority to be possessed by Him, as none of the saints had ever possessed. Thus he crowns his Physician with excellent honour in every thing, taking for justification the marvellous deed never before accomplished or attempted, namely, the removal of blindness. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.”

“If now ye acknowledge that God heareth not sinners, and this Person hath wrought a miracle, and such a miracle as no man ever wrought, it is clear that He hath surpassed all things in virtue, and that His power is greater than belongeth to man.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:33

Cyril of Alexandria: He who had just received sight and been miraculously freed from his old blindness, was quicker to perceive truth than they who had been instructed by the law, for see, see how by very many and wise arguments he demonstrates the utter baseness of the Pharisees’ opinion. For when they absurdly said of Christ: As for this Man we know not whence He is, he in reply severely rebukes them for their unfairness of thought, when they deny all knowledge of One Who worked such wonders; it being evident to all that one who was not from God would be unable to do any of those deeds which are only accomplished by Divine energy. For God works such deeds through the saints only, and would never bestow upon a stranger who had not yet entered on the way of godliness the ability to boast of such glories. Else let the dumbfoundered Pharisee come forward and say what is henceforth the distinction with God between the holy and the profane, the just and the sinner, the impious and the devout. For if He enables each equally to become glorious by the same means, there is no longer any distinction, but at once all things are brought into confusion, and we will say with good reason that which is written: How shall we fitly serve Him, and what will be the profit if we appear before Him? For if, as one of the Greek poets said:

Ἴση μοῖρα μένοντι, καὶ εἰ μάλα τις πολεμίζοι, [“The same share is allotted to him who remains at home as to him who fights bravely.” Homer, Iliad, ix. 318.]

and the evil and the good are held in equal honour, will it not be useless to experience bitter hardships on account of virtue? But we will not consider that these things are so, and wherefore? Because: Them that honour Me, saith God, I will honour; and he that despiseth Me shall be despised.

For my part, I would ask the self-conceited Pharisees, if God indifferently works such deeds even by the hands of sinners, why the magicians of Egypt did not achieve the same things as the great Moses? Wherefore could they not do equally wonderful works and carry off the same glory as he did? But thou wilt say that Moses’ rod when it fell on the ground became a serpent, and those of the magicians became so in like manner. We answer that their rods were not transmuted into serpents, but a deceit was practised, and something which appeared to men like the form of serpents deluded them into error; a certain magical art made their rods look like serpents: whereas Moses’ rod was truly changed into a serpent and suddenly |52 received the nature of that beast. And from the distinction which is laid down in the Sacred Scriptures thou wilt see that what I have said is true. For Moses’ rod swallowed up their rods: for since the latter were merely in the outward form of serpents, but the former was truly and in nature that which it appeared to be, it was provoked to anger that they should look no longer like rods but like living beings, and devoured them with unheard of power beyond the power of an [ordinary serpent], God rendering such a difficult thing easy to it. And again, let the Pharisee tell me why these magicians, who caused their own rods to take the outward form of serpents, did not exhibit a leprous hand made clean, but in despair openly confessed: This is the finger of God? And tell me why the priests of Baal did not bring down fire from heaven, and yet Elijah brought it down? Are therefore God’s ways certainly characterised by respect of persons? God forbid! But because He is just and a lover of just men He works His gracious miracles through the agency of the saints, but by no means through the agency of the sinful. With excellent reason therefore the man who had been blind rebukes the impudent pratings of the Pharisees and convicts them of an erroneous opinion, when they say He is not from God Who is proved to have a Divine Nature by His power of working miracles. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Theodore of Mopsuestia: So Jesus must be admired, the blind man says, as one who is superior to human thought. While you do not know where he is from, the accomplished miracle openly proves his power to me. You do not know who he is and would need testimony from others if there had been no clue of his power. But if his miracles show that he is a great man—and you still do not know where he is from or who he is—it is evident, both from the greatness of his miracles and your foolishness, that he is beyond human comprehension. And from these facts it seems clear that he cannot be called a sinner. Certainly God does not fulfill the requests of sinners but listens instead to the voice of those who show honest behavior and faithfully do his will.… Indeed, he healed a man born blind, and we know that this has never been done before, not even by Moses, whom you admire. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.30-32

John 9:34

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 14) What meaneth altogether? That he was quite blind. Yet He who opened his eyes, also saves him altogether.

(Tr. xliv. 14) It was they themselves who had made him teacher; themselves, who had asked him so many questions; and now they ungratefully cast him out for teaching. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.” What was their casting him out but driving him from their society? What cared he for that? They who expelled him could make him no consul: they expelled him; Christ received him. In fact, then, brethren, it was their anger to which his blessing was due. — Tractates on John 44

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): It is commonly the way with great persons to disdain learning any thing from their inferiors. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Hard of acceptation to most people are the wounds of refutation, and the consequent correction of error. They are certainly welcome and sweet to the wise, since they convey much profit, and have an improving tendency, although they may carry with them a painful sting. But to those who love sin they are bitter, and wherefore? Because, having fixed their mind on debasing pleasures, they turn away from any warning that draws them thence as vexatious, and deem it a loss to be diverted from their pleasures, setting no value on what is truly profitable.

For just as they who fall overboard from a ship, and, being caught by the current of a river, are not strong enough to resist it, and, thinking it dangerous to swim in opposition to the waves, are simply borne on by the current; so I think these men, of whom we were just speaking, overcome by the tyranny of their own pleasures allow those pleasures to rush on unbridled, and decline to offer any resistance whatever. Hence the wretched Pharisees are displeased, and crying out like wild beasts against him who brought forward excellent arguments, they welcome the beginnings of anger, and spouting forth the extreme rage of madness, unlawfully revile him; and somehow recurring to the haughtiness so natural to them, say that the blind man was born in sins, thus maintaining the Jewish errors, and ignorantly supporting a doctrine that will not hold together. For that no living person, either on his own account or on account of his parents, is born either blind or with any other bodily infirmity; moreover, that God does not visit the sins of their fathers upon children, not unskilfully, in my opinion at least, we have shown at some length, when we had to explain the words: Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Since therefore the man who had been born blind knew how to refute the Pharisees, he was on that account not only reviled, but cast out by them. And here again learn that what was done is typical of a true event: for that the people of Israel were going to utterly loathe the Gentiles as nurtured in sins from erroneous prejudice, any one can recognise from what the Pharisees said to that man. And they expel him, exactly as they who plead the doctrine of Christ are expelled and cast out by the Jews. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: They who for the sake of the truth and the confession of Christ suffer anything terrible and are insulted, these are especially honored. For as he who loseth his possessions for His sake, the same it is who most findeth them; as he who hateth his own life, the same it is who most loveth it; so too he who is insulted, is the same who is most honored. As fell out in the case of the blind man. The Jews cast him out from the Temple, and the Lord of the Temple found him; he was separated from that pestilent company, and met with the Fountain of salvation; he was dishonored by those who dishonored Christ, and was honored by the Lord of Angels. Such are the prizes of truth. And so we, if we leave our possessions in this world, find confidence in the next; if here we give to the afflicted, we shall have rest in heaven; if we be insulted for the sake of God, we are honored both here and there. — Homily on the Gospel of John 59

John Chrysostom: “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?”

As long as they expected that he would deny Christ, they deemed him trustworthy, calling upon him once and a second time. If ye deemed him not trustworthy, why did ye call and question him a second time? But when he spake the truth, unabashed, then, when they ought most to have admired, they condemned him. But what is the, “Thou wast altogether born in sins”? They here unsparingly reproach him with his very blindness, as though they had said, “Thou art in sins from thy earliest age” insinuating that on this account he was born blind; which was contrary to reason. On this point at least Christ comforting him said, “For judgment I am come into the world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.”

“Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?” Why, what had the man said? Did he set forth his private opinion? Did he not set forth a common judgment, saying, “We know that God heareth not sinners”? Did he not produce your own words?

“And they cast him out.”

Hast thou beheld the herald of the truth, how poverty was no hindrance to his true wisdom? Seest thou what reproaches, what sufferings he bare from the beginning, and how by word and by deed he testified? — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John Chrysostom: Now these things are recorded, that we too may imitate them. For if the blind man, the beggar, who had not even seen Him, straightway showed such boldness even before he was encouraged by Christ, standing opposed to a whole people, murderous, possessed, and raving, who desired by means of his voice to condemn Christ, if he neither yielded nor gave back, but most boldly stopped their mouths, and chose rather to be cast out than to betray the truth; how much more ought we, who have lived so long in the faith, who have seen ten thousand marvels wrought by faith, who have received greater benefits than he, have recovered the sight of the eyes within, have beheld the ineffable Mysteries, and have been called to such honor, how ought we, I say, to exhibit all boldness of speech towards those who attempt to accuse, and who say anything against the Christians, and to stop their mouths, and not to acquiesce without an effort. — Homily on the Gospel of John 58

John 9:35

Augustine of Hippo: Surely God hears sinners. But the one who spoke these words had not yet washed the face of his heart with the waters of Siloam. The sacrament had preceded in his eyes; but the effect of grace had not yet occurred in his heart. When did this blind man wash the face of his heart? When the Lord, having sent him out by the Jews, brought him to Himself. For He found him and said to him, as we have heard: “Do you believe in the Son of God?” And he replied, “Who is He, Lord, that I might believe in Him?” Surely he already saw with his eyes, but with his heart? Not yet. Wait: he would soon see. Jesus answered him, “I am He, who speaks with you.” Did he doubt? Immediately he washed his face. For He spoke with him, Siloam, which is interpreted as “Sent.” Who is sent but Christ, who often testified, saying: “I do the will of my Father who sent me.” Therefore, He was Siloam. The blind man approached with his heart, heard, believed, worshipped: he washed his face, he saw. — Sermon 136

Augustine of Hippo: But, as I have already said before, brethren, when they expel, the Lord receiveth; for the rather that he was expelled, was he made a Christian. “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” Now He washes the face of his heart. “He answered and said,” as one still only anointed, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee.” The One is He that is sent; the other is one washing his face in Siloam, which is interpreted, Sent. And now at last, with the face of his heart washed, and a conscience purified, acknowledging Him not only as the son of man, which he had believed before, but now as the Son of God, who had assumed our flesh, “he said, Lord, I believe.” It is but little to say, “I believe:” wouldst thou also see what he believes Him? “He fell down and worshipped Him.” — Tractates on John 44

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): It is commonly the way with great persons to disdain learning any thing from their inferiors. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: And finding him, He said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

The man who had been blind has been cast out by the Pharisees, but after no long interval of time Christ seeks him, and finding him, initiates him. in mysteries. Therefore this also shall be a sign to us that God keeps in mind those who are willing to speak on His behalf and who do not shrink from peril through faith in Him. For thou hearest how, making Himself manifest as though to give a good recompense, He hastens to implant in him the highest perfection of the doctrines of the faith. And He proposes the question in order that He may receive the assent. For this is the way of showing faith. Wherefore also those who are going to Divine Baptism are previously as a preparation asked questions concerning their belief, and when they have assented and confessed, then at once we admit them as fit for the grace. Hence therefore arises the significance of the event to us, and we have learnt from Our Saviour Christ Himself how right it is that this profession of faith should be made. Wherefore also the inspired Paul asserted that [Timothy] confessed the confession of these things with many witnesses, meaning the holy angels: and if it is an aweful thing to falsify what is spoken before angels, how much more so before Christ Himself? So then He asks the man who had been blind not simply if he was willing to believe, but also mentions on Whom. For the faith [must be] on the Son of God, and not as on a man like ourselves, but as on God Incarnate. Surely this is the fulness of the mystery concerning Christ. And in saying: Dost thou believe? He all but says “Wilt thou show thyself superior to the madness of those men? Wilt thou bid farewell to their incredu-lousness and accept the faith?” For the emphatic Thou implies such a contradistinction from other persons in some way. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Cyril of Alexandria: Jesus heard that they had cast him out.

The inspired Evangelist says that our Lord Jesus Christ heard, not implying certainly or of necessity that any one reported the fact to Him, but because, as one of the wise somewhere says: The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, and the ear of hearing heareth all things. Surely He hears, as the Psalmist says: He that planted, the ear, doth He not hear? and He that formed the eye, doth He not perceive? When therefore we suffer insult on His account, or endure any grievous thing from those who are wont to fight against God, we are bound to believe that most assuredly God is a looker-on, and listens as it were to the trial that comes upon us: for the very nature of the occurrence, and the sincerity of those who are dishonoured on His account, cry aloud in His Divine Ears. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

Hilary of Poitiers: The Lord had given sight to a man blind from his birth; the Lord of nature had removed a defect of nature. Because this blind man had been born for the glory of God, that God’s work might be made manifest in the work of Christ, the Lord did not delay till the man had given evidence of his faith by a confession of it. But though he knew not at the time Who it was that had bestowed the great gift of eyesight, yet afterwards he earned a knowledge of the faith. For it was not the dispelling of his blindness that won him eternal life. And so, when the man was already healed and had suffered ejection from the synagogue, the Lord put to him the question, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” This was to save him from the thought of loss, in exclusion from the synagogue, by the certainty that confession of the true faith had restored him to immortality. When the man, his soul still unenlightened, made answer, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him?” The Lord’s reply was, “Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee.” For He was minded to remove the ignorance of the man whose sight he had restored, and whom He was now enriching with the knowledge of so glorious a faith. Does the Lord demand from this man, as from others, who prayed Him to heal them, a confession of faith as the price of their recovery? Emphatically not. For the blind man could already see when he was thus addressed. The Lord asked the question in order to receive the answer, “Lord, I believe.” The faith which spoke in that answer was to receive not sight, but life. And now let us examine carefully the force of the words. The Lord asks of the man, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” Surely, if a simple confession of Christ, leaving His nature in obscurity, were a complete expression of the faith, the terms of the question would have been, “Dost thou believe in Christ?” But in days to come almost every heretic was to make a parade of that name, confessing Christ and yet denying that He is the Son; and therefore He demands, as the condition of faith, that we should believe in what is peculiar to Himself, that is, in His Divine Sonship. What is the profit of faith in the Son of God, if it be faith in a creature, when He requires of us faith in Christ, not the creature, but the Son, of God. — On the Trinity, Book 6.48

John Chrysostom: When they had cast him out from the Temple, Jesus found him. The Evangelist shows, that He came for the purpose of meeting him. And observe how He recompenseth him, by that which is the chiefest of blessings. For He made Himself known to him who before knew Him not, and enrolled him into the company of His own disciples. Observe also how the Evangelist describes the exact circumstances; for when Christ had said, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” the man replied, “Lord, who is He?” For as yet he knew Him not, although he had been healed; because he was blind before he came to his Benefactor, and after the cure, he was being worried by those dogs. Therefore, like some judge at the games, He receiveth the champion who had toiled much and gained the crown. And what saith He? “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” What is this, after so much arguing against the Jews, after so many words, He asketh him, “Dost thou believe?” He spake it not from ignorance, but desiring to make Himself known, and showing that He gently valued the man’s faith. “This great multitude,” He saith, “hath insulted Me, but of them I make no account; for one thing I care, that thou shouldest believe. For better is one who doeth the will of God, than ten thousand transgressors.” “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” As having both been present, and as approving what had been said by him, He asketh this question; and first, He brought him to a state of longing for Himself. For He said not directly, “Believe,” but in the way of an enquiry. What then said the man? “Lord, who is He, that I might believe on Him?” The expression is that of a longing and enquiring soul. He knoweth not Him in whose defense he had spoken so much, that thou mayest learn his love of truth. For he had not yet seen Him. — Homily on the Gospel of John 59

John 9:36

Cyril of Alexandria: The soul furnished with sound reason, diligently seeking the word of truth with the eyes of the understanding free, without embarrassment makes straight for it like a ship going into port, and obtains its advantages by a chase without fatigue. And again the man who had been blind will be a proof of what has been said. For when he had already by many arguments and reasonings admired the mystery concerning Christ, and moreover had been struck with astonishment at His unspeakable might, which had been experienced not by any other but by himself in himself, he is found thus ready to believe and without delay proceeds to do so. For see, see, he earnestly asks upon whom he should fasten that faith which had been already built up within him. For this alone was lacking to him, and he was previously prepared for it, as we have said. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lix. 1) But the blind man did not yet know Christ, for before he went to Christ he was blind, and after his cure, he was taken hold of by the Jews: He answered and said, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? The speech this of a longing and enquiring mind. He knows not who He is for whom he had contended so much; a proof to thee of his love of truth. The Lord however says not to him, I am He who healed thee; but uses a middle way of speaking, Thou hast both seen Him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: Since he could not yet say “I believe” but as in ignorance answered, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?” he was therefore on the borderline, so to speak, between unbelief and belief. — FRAGMENT 71 ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Theodore of Mopsuestia: The blind man, recognizing his voice—remember he had not seen him yet—said, “And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.” With good reason he thought that he who had given him sight even though he was beyond hope could also show him the Son of God. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.34-37

John 9:37

Cyril of Alexandria: Being asked upon whom it was proper to believe, Jesus points to Himself, and not simply by saying “It is I,” but by saying that the Person Whom the other was looking at and by Whom he was being addressed, was the Son of God; in every way consulting beforehand our advantage, and in divers manners constructing aids towards a faith both free from error and unperverted, lest while thinking ourselves pious we might fall into the meshes of the net of the devil, by foolishly turning aside from the truth of the mystery. For even now some of those who think themselves Christians, not accurately understanding the scope of the Incarnation, have dared to separate from God. the Word that Temple which was for our sakes taken from woman, and have divided Him Who is truly and indeed One Son into two sons, even because He was made Man. For with great folly they disdain to acknowledge as probable that which the Only-Begotten disdained not even to do for our sakes. For He, being in the form of God, according to that which is written, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that He might become a Man like us, of course without sin: but they in their strange opinions find fault in a sort of way with His Divine and philanthropic design, and thrusting away the Temple taken from woman from the true Sonship as far as they can in their thoughts, they do not accept His humiliation: and conceiving an opinion far removed from the truth, they say that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, that is, the Word Begotten of His Essence, is One; and that the son born of woman is another again. Still, when the inspired Scripture proclaims the Son and Christ to be One, are they not full of all impiety who sever into two Him Who is truly and indeed One Son? For inasmuch as He is God the Word, He is thought of as distinct from the flesh; and inasmuch as He is flesh, He is thought of as distinct from the Word: but inasmuch as the Word of God the Father was made flesh, the two will cease to be distinct through their ineffable union and conjunction. For the Son is One and only One, both before His conjunction with flesh, and when He came with flesh; and by flesh we denote man in his integrity, I mean as consisting of soul and body. Certainly therefore on account of this pretence, with the greatest foresight, the Lord here again when asked, “Who is the Son of God?” did not say, ’’ It is I,” for it would then perhaps have been possible for some ignorantly to suppose that the Word alone Who shone forth from God the Father was thereby signified; but showed Himself forth in the very manner which to some seems so doubtful, by saying: Thou hast seen Him, and also indicated that the Word Himself was dwelling in the flesh by speaking again and adding: And He it is that speaketh with thee. Thou seest therefore what a unity the Word possesses; for He makes no distinction but says that Himself is both that which presents itself to bodily eyes, and that which is known by speech. Certainly therefore it is altogether ignorant and impious to say as some inconsiderately do say: “O Christ’s man,” for being God He was made man without being severed from His Divinity, and is the Son also with flesh: for in these things is the most perfect confession and knowledge of faith in Him. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee.”

He said not “I am He,” but as yet in an intermediate and reserved manner, “Thou hast both seen Him.” This was still uncertain; therefore He addeth more clearly, “It is He that talketh with thee.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 59

John 9:38

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 15) First, He washes the face of his heart. Then, his heart’s face being washed, and his conscience cleansed, he acknowledges Him as not only the Son of man, which he believed before, but as the Son of God, Who had taken flesh upon Him: And he said, Lord, I believe. I believe, is a small thing. Wouldest thou see what he believes of Him? And falling down, he worshipped Him. (Vulgate) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Basil of Caesarea: Worship follows faith, and faith is confirmed by power. But if you say that believers also know, they know from what they believe; and vice versa, they believe from what they know. We know God from his power. We, therefore, believe in him who is known, and we worship him who is believed. — LETTER 234.3

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): An example to us, not to pray to God with uplifted neck, but prostrate upon earth, suppliantly to implore His mercy. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Quick to make a confession, I mean as regards his faith, and warm in showing piety, is the man who had been blind. For when he knew that the One present with him and visible to his eyes was truly the Only-Begotten Son, he worshipped Him as God, although beholding Him in the flesh without the glory which is really God-befitting. But having had his heart illumined by Christ’s indwelling power and authority, he advances to wise and good thoughts by fair reasoning, and beholds the beauty of His Divine and Ineffable Nature; for he would not have worshipped Him as God unless he believed Him to be God, having been prepared and led thus to think by what had happened unto himself, even the miraculously accomplished marvellous deed. And since we transferred all the circumstances connected with the blind man to the history of the Gentiles, let us now speak again concerning this. For see, I pray you, how he fulfils by the prefiguring of the worship in spirit the type to which the Gentiles were conducted by their faith. For it was the custom for Israel to serve the Lord of all according to the bidding of the Law, with sacrifices of oxen and incense and with offerings of other animals; but the faithful among the Gentiles know not this manner of service but were turned to the other, that is, the spiritual, which God says is truly and especially dear and sweet to Him. For He says: I will not eat the flesh of hulls, neither will I drink the blood of goats. And in preference He bids us offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving, that is, worship with song, to celebrate which the Psalmist through faith in the Holy Spirit sees that all the Gentiles would go up, and says as if to our Lord and Saviour: All the earth shall worship Thee, and shall sing unto Thee; yea they shall sing to Thy name. Moreover, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself shows the spiritual to be better than the legal service, when He says to the woman of Samaria: Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth. And if we rightly think, we shall conclude that the holy angels also are distinguished by this kind [of service], presenting unto God such worship as a sort of spiritual offering. For instance when the Spirit gave command to those above to bring God-befitting honour to the Firstborn and Only-Begotten, He says: And let all the angels of God worship Him. Moreover the Divine Psalmist called us to do this, saying: O come let us worship and fall down before Him. And it would not be difficult to treat of this matter at great length; but putting a convenient limit to our words, we will abstain from bringing forward any more arguments for the present. Except that we will once more repeat that the man who had been blind admirably carries out the type of the service of the Gentiles, making his worship the close companion of his confession of faith. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lix. 1) He adds the deed to the word, as a clear acknowledgment of His divine power. The Lord replies in a way to confirm His faith, and at the same time stirs up the minds of His followers: And Jesus said, For judgment have I come into this world. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “He saith, Lord, I believe; and he worshiped Him.”

He said not, “I am He that healed thee, that bade thee, Go, wash in Siloam”; but keeping silence on all these points, He saith, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” and then the man, showing his great earnestness, straightway worshiped; which few of those who were healed had done; as, for instance, the lepers, and some others; by this act declaring His divine power. For that no one might think that what had been said by him was a mere expression, he added also the deed. — Homily on the Gospel of John 59

John 9:39

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. xliv. 16, 17) The day then was divided between light and darkness. So it is rightly added, that they which see not, may see; for He relieved men from darkness. But what is that which follows: And that they which see might he made blind. Hear what comes next. Some of the Pharisees were moved by these words: And some of the Pharisees which were with Him heard these words, and said unto Him, Are we blind also? What had moved them were the words, And that they which see might be made blind. It follows; Jesus saith unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; i. e. If ye called yourselves blind, and ran to the physician. But now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth: for in that saying, We see, ye seek not a physician, ye shall remain in your blindness. This then which He has just before said, I came, that they that see not might see; i. e. they who confess they cannot see, and seek a physician, in order that they may see: and that they which see not may be made blind; i. e. they which think they can see, and seek not a physician, may remain in their blindness. This act of division He calls judgment, saying, For judgment have I come into this world: not that judgment by which He will judge quick and dead at the end of the world. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Christ, when explaining to us by the voice of Isaiah the cause of His manifestation, I mean in this world, says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me: He hath sent Me to preach good tidings unto the poor to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind. Moreover he saith somewhere in another place: Hear, ye deaf; and receive your sight O blind, that ye may see. When therefore He saith that for this cause He was chosen by God the Father, that He might proclaim recovery of sight to the blind, how is it that here He saith: For judgment came I into this world, that they which see not may see; and that they which see may become blind? Is then, some one will say, Christ a minister of sin, according to the language of Paul? God forbid. For He came to accomplish the predetermined intention of His goodness towards us, namely, to illuminate all men by the torch of the Spirit. But the Jews, being obstinate in unbelief did not accept the grace shining upon them, imprecating as it were on themselves a self-chosen darkness. For instance, it is written concerning them in the prophetic records: While they waited for light darkness came upon them: waiting for brightness they walked in obscurity. For inasmuch as He was to come according to the declaration of the Law, the Jews waited for brightness and the Light, that is, Christ. For they accepted the fact that He would come, and expected Him, but they who thought themselves pious in this matter were walking in obscurity, that is, in profound darkness, when there was no other cause why they suffered the gloom that came upon them, except that by their own unbelief they drew the affliction upon themselves. I came therefore, He says, to give sight to the blind through their faith; but the unyielding obstinacy of the stubborn and refractory, which tended greatly to unbelief, caused the coming of the Illuminator to be unto them a coming for judgment. For since they believe not, they are condemned. And this the Saviour has said more clearly to thee in other words also: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on the Son is not judged: but he that believeth not on the Son hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the Son of God. With beautiful fitness therefore He mentions this in connection with the event now under our consideration, making the deed miraculously wrought upon the blind man the basis as it were of his discourse: for He declares that man to have received sight not only as regards the body, but also as regards the mind, because he had accepted the faith; but that the Pharisees suffered just the contrary, because they did not behold His glory, although it was shining most clearly, even in that marvellous deed that was so great and so novel. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: When he had worshiped, Christ said, “For judgment I am come into the world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.”

So also saith Paul; “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of the faith of Jesus; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.” (Rom. ix. 30, 31.) By saying, “For judgment I am come into this world,” He both made the man stronger respecting the faith, and aroused those who followed Him; for the Pharisees were following Him. And the, “For judgment,” He spake with reference to a greater punishment; showing that they who had given sentence against Him, had received sentence against themselves; that they who had condemned Him as a sinner, were themselves the persons condemned. In this passage He speaketh of two recoveries of sight, and two blindnesses; one sensible, the other spiritual. — Homily on the Gospel of John 59

Origen of Alexandria: To this I have found something similar written in the Gospel according to John: “for judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may be made blind”. Therefore, just as he came for judgment, that “those who do not see” of the nations “might see”, and those who saw before, of Israel, “might be made blind”, so he came “for the fall and rising of many”. For at the coming of the Lord the Savior, those who had stood before fell down, and those who had fallen rose up. … We all have in ourselves both sight and blindness. Adam both saw and did not see. … There is an eye of the body, with which we behold these earthly things, an eye according to the sense of the flesh, of which the Scripture says: “walking vainly, puffed up by the sense of the flesh”. To this we have another, contrary and better, that savors of divine things; and because it was blind in us, Jesus came to make it see, that those who did not see might see, and those who saw might be made blind. — HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF Luke 16

Theodore of Mopsuestia: What Jesus said elsewhere, namely, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order to save it,” is not contrary to this statement. For there it states the purpose of Jesus’ coming: that all people may be saved. Here he talks about the outcome of his coming. In fact, even though this is his will, that is, to save all people, the unbelievers nonetheless must be absolutely punished because of their choice not to believe. Here he indicates what seems to be the outcome of these events. As is only reasonable, he says, I came to test individuals in order to ascertain who are blind and who are able to see. Now he who was believed to be blind, twice received eyes to see. He received bodily eyes and, to the perfection of his soul, he received saving doctrine. Those [i.e., the Pharisees] who think they see with bodily eyes, who have been entrusted with the teaching of the precepts of the law, appear to be blind, both because they do not accept the truth and because they do not believe the works that they have seen with their own eyes. — COMMENTARY ON John 4.9.39-41

John 9:40

Augustine of Hippo: That is why, when the Pharisees who were listening to what he was saying, themselves said, “We are not blind too, are we?” They were obviously like the one who had gone up to the temple and was telling God, “I thank you, because I am not like other people, unjust, adulterers, rapacious,” as though to say, “I thank you that I am not blind but can see, unlike other people of the same sort as this tax collector.” What did those ones say? “We are not blind too, are we?” And the Lord answered them, “If you were blind, you would not have any sin. Now however, because you say ‘We can see,’ your sins remain.” He did not say “your sin occurs” but remains. You see, it was already there; because when you do not confess it, it is not taken away but “remains.” — SERMON 136B.2

Augustine of Hippo: “And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world.” But didst not Thou say, Lord, “I judge no man;” and, “I am not come to judge the world, but to save the world”? We are making inquiry about Thy words: Thou saidst Thyself, “I judge no man;” Thou saidst Thyself, “I am not come to judge the world, but to save the world;” and now we hear, “For judgment I am come into this world.” Distinguish the senses; do not confound the words. Judgment for condemnation is one kind; judgment for examination, another. Attending, therefore, to the nature of His coming, in what sense is it that He says, “For judgment I am come into this world”? He explains what He says: “That they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.” On Him, therefore, who came to enlighten, it is the duty of him who lies in darkness to fix his eyes, in order that he may see. And such as are not humbly in subjection to Him whom they behold not, in order to be healed to beholding, think that they see by themselves, and from this presumption of their own sight are made blind.

“And some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said unto Him, Are we also blind?” And what said the Lord? “If ye were blind, ye would have no sin.” Why? Because ye would come to the physician, and apply for a remedy. But now, since ye say, “We see,” your sin remaineth. Why? Because, in saying, “We see,” ye seek not the physician, and remain in your blindness.

This, as best I was able, I have explained, in speaking now to those who have already been enlightened, and remember what they were, and are not ungrateful to Him who hath enlightened them. For where were they who have been enlightened, but in their sins-in their blindness? But the Enlightener was beside them. Let them hear and believe; let them draw near to Him and be enlightened. — Tractates on John 44

Cyril of Alexandria: The Pharisees keep close to the Saviour Christ and are eager to associate with Him, although they have a sharp arrow shot into their heart, and pine with vexation and envy at His glory; they associate with Him, however, gathering nourishment for their hatred, and devising various slanders against His marvellous deeds, and by these means perverting the guileless mind of such as are more ready to believe. And when they heard Christ say these words, they were cut to the heart again, for it was not likely they would fail to know that the aim of the discourse was directed against them. But when He said at first, vaguely and indefinitely: That they which see may become blind, not yet having an occasion to find fault with good reason as being insulted, they maliciously question Him, applying the force of what had been said to their own persons, and demanding as it were that He should say more clearly whether He meant that they were blind also, so that they might now condemn Him again as offending against the commandment of the Law. For being constantly familiar with every part of the writings of Moses, they knew that it was written: Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people. Either therefore expecting to be insulted they say such words, so that they |61 might seem with good reason to attack Him, and to be angry, and now without blame to take counsel against Christ; or because they really felt such excess of bitterness in their mind, and were bursting to show the malice which was in them. For when Christ said: For judgment came I into this world, that they which see not may see, and by these words indicated the restoration of sight to the blind man, they were unable to endure being reminded of the miracle, and being goaded by envy they once more rise up against Him, and endeavour to oppose Him. In His presence they do not shrink from saying what almost amounts to this: “O fellow, thou boastest strange things, having accomplished none of those deeds which Thou thinkest Thyself to have wrought. Dost Thou indeed wish, say they, to impose even upon us with Thy wonderworking? Wilt Thou be capable of saying that Thou hast healed us, for that we are blind also? Dost Thou wish that we should ascribe to Thee the glory of a physician and wonder-worker, telling lies after the manner of this man, of whom Thou sayest that he has received his sight, having been born blind? Wilt Thou dare to deal falsely with us by similar statements?” Certainly therefore the language of the Pharisees as they mock at the events relating to the blind man is evil and very bitter, and they deem the whole thing an imposture rather than a truth; for nothing convinces the obstinate. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: “Some of them that followed Him, say unto Him, Are we also blind?”

As in another place they said, “We were never servants to any man”; and, “We be not born of fornication” (c. viii. 33, 41); so now they gape on material things alone, and are ashamed of this kind of blindness. — Homily on the Gospel of John 59

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lix. 1, 2) What then they thought their great praise, He shows would turn to their punishment; and at the same time consoles him who had been afflicted with bodily blindness from his birth. For it is not without reason that the Evangelist says, And some of the Pharisees which were with him, heard these words; but that he may remind us that those were the very persons who had first withstood Christ, and then wished to stone Him. For there were some who only followed in appearance, and were easily changed to the contrary side. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 9:41

Cyril of Alexandria: The Saviour once more confounds them, tempering His reproof with skill. For He holds aloof from all reviling and puts them out of countenance by setting before them the force of the truth: He shows them that they derive no advantage from possessing sight, or rather that they fell into a worse condition than one who could not see at all. For the blind man, saith He, by not beholding any of the deeds miraculously wrought, escaped without sin, and is so far blameless; but they who have been watchers and beholders of the marvellous deed, and through great folly and evilness of disposition have not accepted the faith in consequence of them, make their sin difficult of removal, and it is really hard to escape from the condemnation which such conduct incurs. Therefore it is not hard to understand the meaning of this as regards bodily blindness and restoration to sight: and when we pass to that which is to be understood by analogy, receiving our impressions from the argument itself, we shall again repeat the same signification: that the man who does not understand may claim his pardon with excellent reason from the judge, but he who is keen of intellect and understands his duty, and then, having indulged his debasing inclination in the baser principles of his mind, and given himself to the sway of pleasures and not of duty, shall shamelessly claim compassion,—-the request for which he ought to be punished shall in no wise be granted, and he will very justly perish for having kept in himself a sin without excuse. For instance Our Lord Jesus Christ signifies exactly the same thing in the Gospels, saying: He that knew Ms lord’s will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. For the charge against him that knew not is merely that of ignorance; but against him that understood and yet inconsiderately refused to act, the charge is that of overweening presumption. Observe again how guardedly accurate was the language of the Saviour on this occasion also; for He does not say plainly, “Ye see,” but He says: Ye say, We see. For it would of course have been very much beside the mark, to ascribe understanding to those who possessed a mind so blind and emptied of light as to dare to say concerning Him: We know that this Man is a sinner. Self-condemned therefore are the Jews, who affirm of themselves that they see, but do not act at all as they ought; aye, most emphatically self-condemned, for they know the will of the Lord, but are so self-conceited that they thus resist even His mightiest miracles. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6

John Chrysostom: Then to show that it was better for them to be blind than seeing, He saith, “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin.”

Since they deemed the calamity a matter to be ashamed of, He turneth this back upon their own head, telling them, that “this very thing would have rendered your punishment more tolerable”; cutting away on every side their human thoughts, and leading them to a notion high and marvelous.

“But now ye say, We see.”

As He saith in that other place, “Of whom ye said that He was your God” (c.viii. 54); so too here, “Now ye say that ye see, but ye see not.” He showeth that what they deemed a great matter for praise, brought punishment upon them. He also comforted him who was blind from his birth, concerning his former maimed state, and then speaketh concerning their blindness. For He directeth His whole speech to this end, that they may not say, “We did not refuse to come to thee owing to our blindness, but we turn away and avoid thee as a deceiver.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 59