Translated by Qwen who notes: Fr. Joseph Knabenbauer, S.J. (1837–1914) was a prominent Jesuit biblical scholar whose commentaries are known for combining patristic exegesis with critical textual analysis. This commentary reflects the late 19th-century Catholic scholarly approach, balancing traditional patristic interpretation with historical-critical observations regarding the text, Jewish customs, and the psychological dynamics of the narrative.
Fr. Joseph Knabenbauer: Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapter 9
Introduction to the Chapter
"After the Lord showed the illuminating power of His doctrine by word, here consequently He confirms it by deed, by illuminating a blind man corporally." (Thomas Aquinas)
In this narrative, the native simplicity and clarity are rightly praised (The Fathers). In it, the malice, contumacy, and completely voluntary blindness of the Pharisees are depicted to the highest degree—indeed, a blindness sought with all their strength. It shows not only the hatred with which they pursue Jesus but also with what effort they strive to prevent anyone from believing in Him (9:22). The common people are held back from faith by their tyranny. Their astute malignity is excellently confounded by the native simplicity and sound judgment of that beggar.
It should be observed in the Pharisees: with what indefatigable zeal the impious strive to obscure the truth; with what fury, when convinced, they are agitated against the assertors of truth; and with what impotent pride they do not allow those who think themselves to be something to have better things suggested to them by those whom they despise.
In the blind man, it should be observed: what is the power of truth, and how it makes even those who otherwise feared everyone strong and intrepid (Jansenius).
Jn 9:1: "And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth."
This narrative is so closely connected to the antecedents that there can scarcely be a doubt that this event happened to Christ as He was going out from the temple. For after the Evangelist narrated "and He went out from the temple" (8:59), he immediately proceeds and adds (v. 1): "And Jesus passing by saw a man blind from birth." He connects this so closely with 8:59 that, according to some editions, not even the name Jesus is repeated, but must be supplied from the antecedent "Jesus autem abscondit se" (But Jesus hid Himself).
Therefore, it must be said with Chrysostom: having gone out from the temple, He healed the blind man. (Similarly Fillion, Maldonatus, Scholz). And scarcely with Fillion and others can a longer interval be assumed. Nor is what Jansenius urges for a longer interval valid: that the disciples were not present when He went out from the temple, but are present now. For it seems incredible that Christ came to the temple without disciple companions (cf. ch. 8), taught the people, disputed with the Jews. Does not that very accurate narration, which proposes the single things that were disputed in ch. 8, testify sufficiently of itself that the Evangelist was present at the disputes?
That man was known as blind from birth, as follows from the disciples' interrogation. Jesus saw him: surely not by chance, for He wished by a new miracle, as Chrysostom notes, to soften their immensity of hardness and conciliate faith to His words. And He directs His eyes to him in such a way, and looks upon him, so that the disciples are rendered attentive to him (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jansenius, Toletus).
Jn 9:2: "And His disciples asked Him: Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"
Therefore the disciples are in the same error in which, for example, the friends of Job versed: that all affliction is a punishment of sin (Thomas Aquinas). That diseases also are inflicted in punishment of sins is certain, as they could gather also from the fact that Jesus warned (5:14): "Behold, you are made whole; sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to you," which He adds after He said "Behold, you are made whole." Whence it easily follows that that disease was a punishment of sins.
But having progressed further, they consider every disease to have the character of a penalty for personal sin. It could easily come to the disciples' mind that infants are punished for the sins of parents. For God threatens that He will punish iniquity unto the third and fourth generation (Deuteronomy 5:9); and in Genesis 19, on account of the vices of the Sodomites, even infants perished; on account of the sin of David, the little child died (2 Kings 12:14), etc. Moreover, by the vices of parents it can happen that sons are born infected with various defects and diseases.
Furthermore, among the rabbis it is pervulgated (common knowledge) that children are born maimed, twisted, or mutilated in some part on account of the sins of parents (cf. Lightfoot, Horae hebr. ad h. l.; Wünsche, p. 537; Edersheim II, p. 178 seq.).
But how could they ask whether he himself had sinned that he should be born blind? Concerning a certain pre-existence of souls, in which state they could sin, there could scarcely be speech among the Jews (Cyril). Nor concerning the migration of souls from one body to another, which migration Josephus indeed contends is affirmed by the Pharisees (Bell. jud. 2, 8, 14), but in another place he seems to deny that opinion to them (Antiq. 18, 1, 3).
Did they think someone was punished for future sins foreseen by God? This opinion is offered by some for the sake of explanation (Theodoret, Maldonatus). The words themselves persuade that it is possible for someone to sin before he is born. For the rabbis teach that the evil affection begins to dominate from birth; for in Genesis 4:7 it is said: "Sin lies at the door" (cf. Lightfoot, Wünsche, l. c.). The occasion or support of which opinion could also be what is held in Genesis 25:22: "The children struggled together within her"; and Hosea 12:3: "In the womb he supplanted his brother."
Otherwise, Chrysostom and Thomas Aquinas accept the question: the disciples are asking what the cause of the blindness is in this case, because the blind man himself could not have sinned before he was born, nor is the son punished for the sins of the parents (Deuteronomy 34:16; Ezekiel 18:20: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father"). But it is manifest that if they wished to express this, they ought to have spoken in quite another way. Therefore, the words are to be retained in their native notion, and it must be said that the disciples could have opined in some obscure and vague way that it was possible that he himself was at fault why he was born blind.
Toletus thinks they drank in that opinion from those places in which it is said: "In iniquities I was conceived" (Psalm 50:7); "No one is clean, not even an infant of one day" (Job 14:4); "All are sinners." He adds moreover that on account of original sin God often afflicts infants with corporal penalties, which Augustine taught correctly (lib. 22 de Civit. cap. 22). Which is true in this sense: because on account of original sin various diseases, miseries, and evils are induced, from which it can happen that infants are born infected with many corporal vices also. Only original sin, which is in all infants, cannot be assigned as the cause why this blind man was born blind.
Jn 9:3: "Jesus answered: Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be born blind."
Jesus dispels that error by which they consider every calamity to be inflicted on account of committed sin by His response: "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents," namely, that he should be born blind.
Which words "that he should be born blind" (ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ) are read inserted in the text itself by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cyril, but that the works of God should be manifest in him. That is, he was born blind for this purpose, that etc. It was to be shown in him what kind of things the works of God are, of how great power, and again of how great goodness (Jansenius).
Many are born subject to various defects: blind, lame. For natural forces sometimes fail, or other causes exist by which it is impeded that the birth reaches due perfection. What thus exists by natural causes, God directs by His providence and goodness to a higher end. He permitted blindness in that blind man so that from it the works of God, the glory of God, the glory of the Son of God, Christ, might be manifested. For man also, this defect was an occasion of spiritual good.
Because therefore defects of this kind arise from natural causes, it is not to be sought here how God without injustice can inflict such a penalty without any fault of man, nor is it necessary to say man does not have a right, nor that God denies what is due, but only does not give all things which He could have given (cf. Toletus). Christ therefore indicates to what end that defect was directed by God, nor yet does it follow thence that the blindness was effected immediately and directly by God.
Some think "ἵνα" (that/in order that) cannot be well accepted unless of an event ekbatikos (consequential) (Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Maldonatus), but there is no reason for receding from the native notion, as Thomas and Toletus already show.
Jn 9:4: "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day. The night comes, when no man can work."
"Which manifestation of the works of God Christ ought to effect:" "I must work the works of Him that sent Me."
Greek: Often ἡμᾶς (us) is read, but usually only in the first member, sometimes in both (Cyril). By which reading Jesus assumes His apostles into the society of the work, by which the works of God ought to be perfected, and shows that the work begun by Him, who was sent by the Father to inaugurate it, ought to be continued by the apostles.
"But I must work in them while it is day; the night comes, when no man can work." And indeed He names here the time of bodily life as "day," but the day of death as "night." For day is assigned to works, night to leisure and sleep; therefore they say the time of life in which one must work is day, but the time of sleeping, in which one ceases from all work, is night (Cyril).
Therefore Christ says also for Himself: "While I live, I must work" (Chrysostom). And He calls the time of His bodily presence in the world "day," but the time of death "night," in which by the decree of the Father He was to cease from the works of doctrine and miracles, so that He would not exhibit them corporally by Himself (Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus).
And when it is said "the night comes when no one [can work]," the sentence and general application is already sufficiently enunciated, either for individuals or for the human race (cf. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Maldonatus).
Jn 9:5: "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
And the reason is given why Christ must work while it is day, i.e., while He versed in this mortal life: "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
But He is light because He illuminates by doctrine and works. But light cannot not shine. Therefore by the same necessity Christ performs the works of the Father; those who are darkened ought to be illuminated by faith before I pass from the world.
What then? When He is in heaven, is He not the light of the world? He is indeed, but now He speaks of His conversation on earth, at the same time exhorting to faith and signifying His approaching death (Euthymius).
That these words are said of the earthly life of Jesus, most meritously hold (cf. Cyril, Theodoret, Maldonatus, Thomas, Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus, Scholz). Others however explain it of the whole time until the consummation of the ages (Augustine, Bede, Rupert, Schegg). But since Christ speaks of the works which He Himself ought to perform before His death, even in v. 5 the same time must be understood, which by the very locution "ὅταν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὦ" (when I am in the world) is signified. For it is said: sent into the world, come into the world, speak in the world, pass out of this world, leave the world. And while He is in it, that He may leave the world, He says: "Now I am no longer in the world" (Jn 17:11; cf. Jn 3:17, 19; Jn 6:14; Jn 8:26; Jn 11:27; Jn 12:46; Jn 13:1; Jn 16:28, etc.). Now by these locutions the sense is rendered indubitable, even if you do not respect the connection with v. 4.
And because He is light, He shines; He performs the works of God, even if the eyes badly affected are offended and blinded by the splendor of light. For on account of those, the benefit of light cannot be subtracted from the rest.
Jn 9:6: "When He had said these things, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man."
Whence He proceeds to perform the miracle.
"When He had said these things:" Therefore, what is contained in v. 3-5 teaches us in what manner this miracle ought to be considered. He had already hinted often that the end of His temporal life was approaching (Jn 7:33; 8:28; 9:4). Therefore now He wishes to perform a work by a more distinguished sign, by which all may be most greatly struck, so that it may be most firmly established concerning it, and its truth can be called into question by no one.
"He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed the clay upon his eyes."
Jansenius notes well: Moreover, lest anyone wonder that the blind man thus permitted himself to be treated by the Lord and his eyes to be anointed with clay, it should be adverted that the Evangelist, studying brevity, did not write all things which were said or done concerning those things which he narrates, but left many things for us to understand (similarly Toletus). Thus the blind man knows who made the clay; therefore it was said to him by the disciples or the crowd; perhaps Jesus interrogated him whether he wished to receive sight, and other things of this sort, which are easily supplied.
In various ways Jesus performs miracles: by word alone He healed the sick man (5:8); not so here. He effects the healing in that manner by which malevolent emulators of human traditions are offended and blinded with wonderful stupidity (v. 16, 24), and by which the faith and obedience of the blind man shines forth, and the healing itself becomes known more widely, while the blind man, not without the admiration of many, goes with eyes anointed with clay, or allows himself to be led to the pool, and soon returns seeing. Which single things contribute to manifesting the work of God which Christ works, as He Himself indicates (v. 39).
Other reasons are accustomed to be adduced:
That Christ restored the eyes in that manner by which God formed the body of the first man, and thus proved Himself God and Creator (cf. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Theodoret, Maldonatus, Thomas, Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus).
That He healed in a manner which was rather contrary to the effect; for eyes are not opened by clay but closed (cf. Cyril, Jansenius).
Also here Jesus wished to show that His body, inasmuch as it is an organ of divinity, obtained a certain salutary virtue (Thomas; similarly Cyril, Scholz).
But these things are commemorated by the Evangelist also for this reason: that those Gnostic errors about matter being evil in itself may be excluded and exploded (Scholz).
Jn 9:7: "And He said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe (which is interpreted, Sent). He went therefore, and washed, and came seeing."
He is sent to the pool of Siloe. Josephus says the valley of Tyropoeon extends to the fountain of Siloe (Bell. jud. 5, 4, 1). It is said that the modern Ain Silwan occupies almost the place of the ancient pool of Siloe (cf. Riess, Bibelatlas).
The name is read in Nehemiah 3:15 (שֶׁלַח), Isaiah 8:6 (שִׁילוֹחַ/שְׁלֹחַ), whence the explanation Sent (Ἀπεσταλμένος) is sought. The Evangelist elsewhere also explains Hebrew names in Greek (cf. 1:38, 41; 11:16), whence one might suspect the same custom is observed here. But in this place nevertheless he is considered to indicate something else. By that washing the blind man receives sight; he receives sight after he approached the "Sent" (Missus), whence by the name itself the true Sent (Missus), the giver of the benefit, is hinted at (cf. Chrysostom, Augustine, Jansenius, Toletus, Scholz, Fillion).
This typical or symbolic reason is the more easily recognized because in the feast of Tabernacles water was drawn from Siloe with solemn pomp (see on Jn 7:37); "You shall draw waters with joy from the fountains of the Savior" (Isaiah 12:3).
"With great faith the man obeys." "He went therefore, and washed, and came seeing."
It is useless to seek with some whether he first bent his steps home to his parents or to the temple to give thanks to God. Some conclude first because in v. 8 there is mention of neighbors who saw him; but these neighbors do not cease to be neighbors even if they saw him in the temple or somewhere in the city.
Jn 9:8: "The neighbors therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat and begged?"
The Evangelist names those who knew the blind man best: the neighbors who dwelt near his house; those who frequently saw him because he was a beggar. Explain "because" (ὅτι) causally (Jansenius, Toletus, Scholz). They wonder therefore that now they see him sound of eyes, whom up to then they knew captured of eyes.
Jn 9:9: "Some said: This is he. But others said: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he."
"Others said: This is he."
"But others: No, but he is like him." By that admiration and question made, some affirm, some deny, as almost always happens in a matter unusual and difficult to believe, according as individuals either perceive the thing and conditions better, or are by nature more prompt to believing or to doubting and denying. However, for those who did not see the man very frequently, there was a greater reason for denying, because, as Augustine says, the restored eyes changed his countenance.
The question is determined by the blind man (Thomas Aquinas). "But he said: I am he." A grateful voice (Augustine): "I am who was blind and begged, and now I see."
Jn 9:10: "They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened?"
"When this was heard, it is innate to nature and sculpted in minds that the cause be sought."
Jn 9:11: "He answered: That man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe and wash. And I went, and washed, and I see."
"He answered: That man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe and wash. And I went, and washed, and I see."
He did not say "He spat on the ground," for then he had not seen; but he learned by the sense of touch that clay was made and placed upon his eyes (Thomas Aquinas; similarly Theophylact, Euthymius).
They heard: "He made clay, He anointed my eyes." Those were present who now seem imbued with that Mishnaic prohibition concerning Sabbath (24, 3; Surenhusius II, p. 75; Wünsche, p. 538): that it is indeed permitted to pour water, but not to knead. Whence they opinionated the Sabbath was violated (v. 16).
Jn 9:12: "They said therefore to him: Where is he? He said: I know not."
"They said to him: Where is He?" The very question and the manner in which they designate Jesus betrays their malevolent mind.
He says: "I know not."
Jn 9:13: "They bring him to the Pharisees, who had been blind."
"Since they could not present Jesus to the Pharisees as vindicators of the law of the Sabbath, at least they present the healed blind man" (Cyril; similarly Thomas, Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus).
Jn 9:14: "Now it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes."
"Therefore for the sake of explanation it is subjoined:" "Now it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes."
Maldonatus notes: It seems to be indicated that it was not the Sabbath, but some other day after the Sabbath, when they led him to the Pharisees. Which conclusion however does not seem certain.
They explain the matter and the manner to the Pharisees. These, hearing that it was done on the Sabbath, are not induced by the greatness of the miracle to interrogate again, but so that they may have a more certain handle for accusation, which is indicated by the particles "again therefore."
Jn 9:15: "Again therefore the Pharisees asked him how he had seen. But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see."
"Again therefore the Pharisees asked him how he had seen." Behold, they do not care for the miracle, the benefit conferred, the work so stupendous and singular; they inquire only into the manner of doing.
The man narrates the thing simply: "But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see."
"And I see" (καὶ βλέπω): In v. 11 "I received sight" (ἀνέβλεψα). Therefore in v. 11 perhaps it is permitted to neglect that ana- (up/again), especially because concerning sight received again it is said among profane authors also "πάλιν ἀναβλέπειν" (to look up again) (Ar. Plat. 95, 117; cf. Pape s. v.). Others however warn it is not ineptly said that he receives sight to whom it was absent, or only present in potency, which is commonly attributed to the act of nature (cf. Scholz).
Those who act maliciously, as Thomas notes, are silent about what is good; they manifest evil if any seems to exist, and even convert good into evil. Thus certain more petulant ones (Chrysostom), suppressing the good which could be against Jesus, manifest [the clay].
Jn 9:16: "Therefore some of the Pharisees said: This man is not of God, who keeps not the Sabbath. But others said: How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them."
"Therefore some of the Pharisees said: This man is not from God," because "He keeps not the Sabbath." Which reason however seemed too stupid to others.
"But others," who were not deliring with those but more teachable (εὐμαθέστεροι), judged more equitably (Cyril), said: "How can a man that is a sinner do such signs?"
They merit warning that not only concerning one but concerning many signs is speech, and also concerning those which were done on the Sabbath (cf. Jn 5:10). It approaches that Jesus performs these and provokes to them for His mission from God, whence it was most fitting for those malevolent ones to oppose such a question.
It is opposed therefore by those who believed in Jesus from the Pharisees; for also from the rulers many believed in Him, but did not confess openly on account of fear of the Jews (cf. Jn 12:42; 19:38). Schegg opines those others were from the plebs, but the narration from v. 13 treats those things which the Pharisees do; these interrogate, and with the question posited and response given, we expect to be referred what those sensed who had interrogated.
"And there was a schism among them," i.e., among those who had interrogated, among the Pharisees. Therefore these others had only so much strength that they did not concede to the sentiment of the others. As above among the people opinions about Jesus were divided, so now also among the Pharisees (cf. Jn 7:12).
The obstinacy of the Pharisees is the more liable to blame in this event, because they do not have even that shadow of excuse which they pretended (Jn 7:48).
Jn 9:17: "They say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a prophet."
"They say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes?"
When there was a schism among themselves, those obstinate ones posit this question, so that perhaps from the very response they may take new matter for calumniating Jesus. For a great prejudice against Jesus would seem to be generated if the healed man himself abstained from the praise of the benefactor. And certainly they hoped it would come to pass that he would not dare to praise Him concerning whom they themselves had already publicly enunciated another judgment. For they thought, since they were many, [and he] one, and that poor and vile and a beggar, they would easily draw him to their parts. They wished to induce him to effute something evil about Jesus (Apollinaris in Catena of Corderius).
Thus similarly judge (Cyril, Augustine, Bede, Maldonatus, Scholz). That this is sought by those evil Pharisees, and Ruperts says well: they strove to support the infirmity of their cause by the staff of his tongue, accounting much for themselves by that schism, if not even he who perceived so much benefit from Him would feel anything good concerning Him.
Others however think this is sought by the good, who wish to summon a patron for their sentiment that a sinner cannot do such signs (Euthymius, Thomas, Toletus). They insist because he is interrogated concerning him "that opened the eyes," not "that made clay."
But the prior acceptance is much more probable, and is commended also from v. 18.
"But the man disappointed their expectation, nor was he terrified by any means by the authority or superciliousness of the Pharisees."
"But he said: Because He is a prophet." I.e., a man sent by God, who speaks and acts in the name and mandate of God.
Behold, a simple man, using sound reason, perceives that most easily which by that sign is indubitably manifested.
Jn 9:18: "The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight."
"They received another response than they had hoped." Whence:
"Therefore the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had seen."
The particle "therefore" is to be noted; for from the superior things he deduces the sequels, so that the sense is: hearing the blind man favor the part saying Jesus is from God, since they did not have another refuge, they denied the fact (Toletus; similarly Jansenius, Scholz). Behold, the little foxes strive to escape through another hole, lest they be compelled to see the glory of the Son of God. They resorted to this exit: that they did not believe, and by not believing they made as if doubtful that he had been blind and had seen. For the fame of so great a thing, although it could not be altogether hidden, nevertheless seemed able to be obscured in some way by this dissimulation (Rupert).
When that man immediately openly proclaimed Jesus a prophet, some are of the sentiment that the Jews thought fraud lay beneath and the healing was feigned, so that authority might be conciliated to Jesus, as if a conspiracy existed between the man and Jesus (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Maldonatus, Scholz, Fillion, Weiss).
"They did not believe until they called the parents of him that had seen." They were unwilling to believe the miracle; therefore nothing else was remaining to clothe this their sentiment unless they might summon the parents. They hoped they could compel them to make nothing of the truth and speak from their sentiment (Cyril), or at least that from the responses of the parents something might be gathered to cast obscurity upon the event. Therefore they interrogate them more ferociously (Cyril).
Jn 9:19: "And they asked them, saying: Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"
They strike with fear, wishing to compel as if by force and necessity that they respond what they desire to hear: that he was not born blind (Cyril).
Some think three things are sought (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Thomas, Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus, Fillion), but by the phrase itself and the matter it suffices to say two are inquired (Schegg, Scholz).
They interrogate rigidly also that phrase "who you say etc.," it implies and notes that they were accustomed to say this falsely. Nor do they say simply "how does he see," but "how then does he now see," as if they were to say: either it is false that he now sees, or that he was born blind; but it is constant that he sees; therefore it is necessary that it be false that he was born blind (Jansenius).
The Testimony of the Parents
"But the more they strive to obscure and oppose the truth, the more it is confirmed, and their individual attempts to overthrow the matter demonstrate the thing more clearly and evidently." Cyril compares them to assailants of a fortified city, who surround it on all sides and besiege it in every way; thus these men, thrown into all audacity by their perversity, besiege the miracle, but in vain. Thereby the power of the miracle is placed more in the open as insuperable.
The parents respond in such a way that they completely confirm the fact, yet neither offer any appearance for obscuring the matter nor for their own accusation.
Jn 9:20: "His parents answered them, and said: We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind."
Jn 9:21: "But how he now sees, we know not; or who has opened his eyes, we know not. Ask him: he is of age; let him speak for himself."
Therefore, what they know they openly confess, invited to this by the reason of duty. But to know the physician belongs to him who has experienced the grace and benefit in himself. Therefore, what was more consistent, that he should report it, as one who had more certain knowledge, this they order him to explain (Cyril). And thus they place themselves outside of danger, since it cannot be imputed as a crime to them that they remit the question to him who was more trustworthy in that matter (Euthymius).
And why they responded so cautiously and circumspectly, the Evangelist explains, at the same time teaching to what height the hatred of the Sanhedrists against Jesus had now arrived.
Jn 9:22: "These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews. For the Jews had already conspired together, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue."
"These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews." For the Jews had already conspired together (synetetheinto): it had been agreed among them (Euthymius). They do not take the word concerning a true decree of the Sanhedrists, but it was a care to the Sanhedrists that this their counsel or purpose might be made known to all, by which they might more effectively coerce faith in Jesus: "that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue" (aposynagogos), excluded from the sacred assembly (cf. Ezra 10:8).
Two degrees or orders of this excommunication are distinguished in the Talmud: Nidduj (expulsion) and Cherem (anathema, malediction). The expelled one was obliged to walk in mourning garb and was generally prohibited from the sacred rites; the one laden with the malediction was completely prohibited from the sacred rites and excluded from all consortium with other Israelites. However, it is uncertain which mode of excommunication was in use in the time of Christ. By the word itself only exclusion from the synagogue is indicated, therefore the prior mode is indicated (cf. Scholz, Wünsche, p. 539). But it is clear that from this exclusion from the sacred rites, inconveniences not small existed also for the custom and commerce of common life. For to them was branded a note of impiety and infamy among the pious, and they were held as sacrilegious. Whence certainly there was cause why the parents should sedulously seek to avert such danger.
Jn 9:23 They are to be excused, although they showed a less grateful mind toward the giver of the benefit. The Evangelist himself seems to excuse them, adding:
Verse 23: "Therefore his parents said: He is of age; ask him."
By their very inquiry they showed two things most manifestly: that the man was born blind and was endowed with sight by Jesus. Neither can they deny. What therefore remains for their malevolent and obstinate character? They at least strive to obtain this: that the man does not become a herald of Jesus' praise, so that the miracle may be given to oblivion.
The Second Interrogation of the Healed Man
Jn 9:24: "They called therefore again the man who had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner."
"They called therefore again the man who had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God." The formula "Give glory to God" is a formula as if of adjuration, by which one is admonished in a solemn manner to the confession of truth: that he stands before God, that His majesty is to be revered, lest therefore he lie before Him, but by affirming the truth he honor God, who is Truth itself (Maldonatus, Jansenius, Toletus). In which sense it is also read in Joshua 7:19, and similarly 1 Kings 6:5.
But what they wish to extort from him by this adjuration is that he not say Jesus is a prophet, but that he confess him as a sinner. Therefore, abusing their authority, they say with emphasis: "We know"—the Sanhedrists, doctors in Israel, magistrates. Behold the fabricators of lying, how they go about that they may make this man, not a proselyte or guest, but a citizen and domestic of the grace of God, a son of perdition with them, forcing him that he may commute the truth of God into a lie. For what do they agitate unless that they make this man testify with their lie and say that this man is not from God (Rupert). Therefore they wish that he affirm with them that Jesus is a sinner (Caietan, Toletus, Lapide, Calmet).
Often the words are so accepted that he is ordered to deny that he received the benefit (Augustine), or to confess that he was healed by God, not by Jesus; that Jesus did nothing or used prestidigitation (cf. Chrysostom, Cyril, Thomas Aquinas), or that the whole matter is fraud (Maldonatus, Fillion). But things of this sort or similar are not expressed in the words, nor can it be believed that they would proceed to such insanity that they would wish to persuade the man that he himself did not receive the benefit nor had been blind.
The simple man responds very prudently and moderately, lest he seem to irritate them and provoke them to anger.
Jn 9:25: "He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not. One thing I know: that whereas I was blind, now I see."
"He said therefore to them: If he is a sinner, I know not." That which is principal and which they wish to suppress, he gravely sets forth. Nevertheless, as Cyril adverts, tempering his speech with joined modesty and rendering the honor due to the grade of prefecture, he aptly says: "If he is a sinner, I know not." What is seen in me does not permit me to assent to your words. Nor does he say this by doubting, but in the guise of doubting (en schemati distazonos), repelling such trifles (Euthymius). "I say nothing now concerning that matter, nor do I pass sentence" (Chrysostom, Jansenius).
The Man's Indignation
Jn 9:26: "They said therefore to him: What did he to thee? How did he open thy eyes?"
"Because therefore they could not overthrow or abolish the thing done, they return again to exploring the mode of curing, as if anyone hunting a wild beast on all sides runs accurately now here, now there" (Chrysostom). For they hope, namely, that by repeated question the man will perhaps narrate the matter otherwise, or add something which they can draw into calumny, or employ for demonstrating falsity (Jansenius). They act as judges are accustomed, who disturb the accused by repeated questions so that he may contradict himself and be convinced.
Jn 9:27: "He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard. Why would you hear it again? Will you also become his disciples?"
"What therefore? Does he not speak further loosely to those conquered and prostrate?" For until the matter needed examination and inquiry, he declared the matter moderately; but after he seized them and retained a splendid victory, he attacks them boldly (Chrysostom; similarly Theodoret, Maldonatus, Theophylact). "And indignant against the hardness of the Jews, and from blind [now] seeing, not bearing the blind" (Augustine).
"He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard." Greek: "And you have not heard" (ouk ekousate), as some read, that is, you were unwilling to hear, or as some lesser codices have: "And you have not believed" (ouk episteusate), "You do not believe" (ou pisteuete), as the Vulgate offers. But the Greek can also be read by interrogation: "Have you not heard?" Which explanation is probable because "to hear" is employed twice in the same sense. For he proceeds: "Why do you wish to hear again?" The repeated interrogation also betrays a mind commoved and justly indignant against them.
"You see the confidence (parrhesian) of the beggar against the scribes and Pharisees." So firm a thing is truth, so infirm is lying (Chrysostom). Indeed, he boldly pricks them (Toletus), and asks with irony: "Will you also wish to become His disciples?" He says "also you," namely, with ironic admiration, whom he well knows to be most hostile to Jesus. Some accept "also you" thus: that he now declares himself a disciple of Jesus. What is "Will you also?" unless: "Because I already am" (Augustine; similarly Chrysostom, Jansenius, Maldonatus). But surely the beggar man does not attribute such honor to himself that he now thinks himself accepted by Jesus as a companion and associate. And indeed he could say "also you" by reason of those who were already disciples, as Jansenius also warns. Nothing could be said more contumelious to the Pharisees, inflated with the opinion of knowledge, and which would sting proud men more, than that they would wish or be able to become disciples not to say of Christ, whom they pursued with such hatred, but even of any man whatever (Maldonatus).
The Pharisees' Reviling
Jn 9:28: "And they reviled him, and said: Be thou his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses."
Jn 9:29: "We know that God spoke to Moses; but as for this man, we know not from whence he is."
"And they reviled him, and said: Be thou His disciple." They pronounce that one with contempt; but they themselves, elated with intolerable fastidiousness, foolishly say: "We... We know" (Cyril). "We are disciples of Moses. We know that God spoke to Moses; but this man, we know not from whence He is."
The Blind Man's Logical Defense
Jn 9:30: "The man answered, and said to them: Why, herein is a marvelous thing, that you know not from whence he is, and he has opened my eyes."
"He most aptly pierces their perversity." "He answered that man and said to them: Why, herein is a marvelous thing" (en touto). It seems to be explained: "In this matter," since the matter so holds itself as it has been exposed, in this condition of the thing done. Others refer it to the following "because" (cf. Scholz). The notion of "for" (gar) in the response is that native signification of affirming which is derived from the origin of the particle ge ara. For it looks to those things which the other had said before and contains, with affirmation, the conclusion which ought to be made from things so compared (Klotz, Devar. II, p. 232, 242). Therefore that gar is put here for "certainly," "truly," not undeservedly have Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus asserted; you will say more fully: "Certainly therefore." The Greek article "the marvelous thing" (to thaumaston) is not without emphasis; he says the matter is plainly marvelous, unusual, which ought to be an offense to all, a thing almost incredible: "that you know not from whence He is," by whom, namely, He was sent, "and He has opened my eyes."
Moses proved by miracle that he was sent by God; this they know; thence they believe God spoke to him. Jesus also performs miracles, affirming that He is sent by God; but this man they know not from whence He is. How perversely and maliciously they act, that blind man perceives most excellently; therefore he gravely pierces them with those things which sound reason dictates.
Jn 9:31: "Now we know that God does not hear sinners. But if a man be a lover of God, and does His will, him He hears."
"We know indeed," etc. "I, an idiot man, know, and you also know." For frequently in the Sacred Letters it is read that the prayer of him who declines from the law is execrable; that God does not hear because "your hands are full of blood," "iniquities have divided between you and God," "if I have looked upon iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me," "does God hear the clamor of the impious?" "The Lord is far from the impious," etc. (cf. Proverbs 15:29; 28:9; Psalm 65:18; Job 27:9; Isaiah 1:15; 59:2, etc.; cf. Rupert, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Schegg, Scholz).
He recalls to their mind what some from those very men had said before: "How can a man that is a sinner do such signs?" (v. 16; Chrysostom). In what sense it is true that sinners are not heard, some inquire. They advert: if sinners seek remission, they now do not seek as sinners but as penitents (2 Chronicles 6:37; Luke 18:14). Also it is clear that miracles can be done by sinners (Matthew 7:22); but God can never permit that they be done for confirming the sanctity of a perverse man, nor for strengthening errors (cf. Thomas Aquinas, Theophylact). "But if any man be a lover of God, and does His will, him He hears." For "the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and His ears unto their prayers," "because he hoped in Me, I will deliver him, he shall cry to Me and I will hear him," etc. (cf. Psalm 33:16; 90:14-15; Ecclesiasticus 15:20, etc.).
Jn 9:32: "Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one born blind."
Jn 9:33: "If this man were not of God, he could do nothing."
"Now he sets forth how great and of what quality a miracle Jesus worked in him." "Since the world began was it not heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind." Neither Moses nor any of the prophets is said or reported to have wrought such things in the Sacred Letters. He was not a little indignant that Jesus was attacked with so many reproaches, whence he hastens to patronize Him, and in a way opposes the glorious deeds of the Savior to the deeds of Moses, demonstrating that the greater He is in performing miracles, the more excellent He is (Cyril; similarly Maldonatus). But rightly you would say these things had not yet occurred to the blind man.
He concludes the series of arguing triumphantly against them: "Unless this man were from God, he could not do anything." Namely, that which exceeds human powers and requires singular help and intervention of God, i.e., He could not do any miracle.
"They are caught and convicted; they cannot respond, nor deny the thing done, the healing; but while the tongue sticks for responding, it is loosened for reviling" (Maldonatus).
Excommunication
Jn 9:34: "They answered, and said to him: Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."
"They answered, and said to him: You were born in sins altogether." Behold thus they solve the argument of the blind born. Indeed nothing else remained to them, because among them hatred lethal against Jesus was long since fixed and ratified, from which hatred they are unwilling to be moved. "Altogether" in soul and body, because blindness appears as a document of sins in the body (cf. Thomas Aquinas, Toletus). Others wish it to be insinuated simultaneously that he from birth up to then had added sins to sins (cf. Maldonatus).
With emphatic indignation they proclaim: "And do you teach us?" A vile man, abject, altogether in sins from first age, do you teach us, excelling in the opinion of sanctity and science, to say in one word: Pharisees, i.e., egregious men segregated from the ignorant multitude (Maldonatus).
"And they cast him out." By the word "they cast him out" (exebalon exo), expulsion and ejection from the temple or from the place where the inquiry was made seems to be signified (Theophylact, Jansenius). "They send him out" (ekpempousin auton) (Cyril); "they cast out the teacher" (Augustine); "they cast out from the place" (Maldonatus, Barradas, Scholz). Others understand excommunication, i.e., ejection from the synagogue (Bede, Rupert, Euthymius, Toletus, Caietan, Calmet, Fillion). This exclusion from the religious assembly indeed we saw designated otherwise in v. 22, but on account of v. 35 nevertheless it can seem to indicate more than sole expulsion from the presence of the Pharisees.
It is fulfilled in the doctors of Israel, as Cyril noted, that word: "Woe to you lawyers, because you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves have not entered, and those who were entering you have hindered" (Luke 11:52). But him whom the Jews cast out, Christ endows with a greater benefit.
Jesus Finds the Man
Jn 9:35: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And when He had found him, He said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?"
Jn 9:36: "He answered, and said: Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?"
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and when He had found him, He said to him: Do you believe in the Son of God?" Greek: See variant reading: "In the Son of Man," i.e., in the Messiah (cf. Jn 12:34), from which place it is clear that this designation of the Messiah was not altogether unknown to the people.
He shows a mind prompt and prepared.
"He answered, and said: Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" From the sound of the voice he could recognize that he was interrogated by him by whom he had been healed, whence he addresses Him with great reverence, prepared to apply all faith to His word. A mind is exhibited simple and candid, which after that multiple malice and contumacy of the Pharisees hardened offers delight to the reader.
Jn 9:37: "And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen Him; and He it is that talks with thee."
Jn 9:38: "And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored Him."
"And Jesus said to him: And you have seen Him" (heorakas): "Not before, but now" (Euthymius; similarly Maldonatus, Scholz). It is namely the perfect tense by which a completed action enduring is declared; now you have seen and even now you see (cf. Fillion). "And He who speaks with you, He it is" (ekeinos), that one is.
"And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored Him." Jesus, who speaks to him externally, teaches and illustrates him internally by His grace (cf. Toletus). He believes interiorly and exteriorly; by word and habit he professes faith. For with the heart belief is unto justice, but with the mouth confession is unto salvation (Romans 10:10).
Judgment and Spiritual Sight
Jn 9:39: "And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind."
"Now Jesus subjoins what in this event also is manifested." "And Jesus said: For judgment I have come into this world, that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind."
For the very presence, doctrine, and operation of Christ becomes a true judgment, by which some are saved, others perish by their own obduration and contumacy. Christ came into the world for effecting this judgment. Simeon already enunciated the same sentence: "This child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel" (Luke 2:34).
The mode of speaking is drawn from the thing just done, and there is a transition from corporal sight to spiritual sight, to the illustration of the mind by faith. "They who see and become blind" are, as is clear from the narrated matter, those who seem wise to themselves and therefore for their pride reject those most clear documents and arguments of Christ, the legate of God. Opposed to them are "they who see not": simple men, alien from fastidiousness. The sentence and opposition is the same which is seen in that: "He has filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He has sent away empty" (Luke 1:53). Those who desire Messianic goods, recognizing their poverty, will be partakers of them; but those who think they need nothing, as if rich and satiated with caducous goods, these will lack true goods.
In the same way Christ speaks here, with a metaphor taken from vision: those who acknowledge themselves lacking knowledge and salutary wisdom, by these they will be illuminated; those who boast themselves wise, rejecting the truth, will versed more and more in darkness day by day. Its proof and most lucid example of this saying is held in the narration itself.
To some, that particle "that" (hina) causes trouble; they recur to the distinction that the particle is to be accepted not telikos (finally/purposively) but ekbatikos (consequentially). From the advent and doctrine of Christ contrary effects follow; this is certainly true. But as it seems hard to reduce the prior member concerning the salutary effect to mere consequence, so it is not sufficiently consultative to deprive the particle hina of its native notion.
But it ought to be attended that what more often happens we rightly say God permits evils, permits obcaecation; but such permission ought to be so conceived that God, who gave free will and foresaw the abuse of liberty, also makes those things which follow from this abuse, namely sins, subservient to His governance, i.e., that He so orders things inasmuch as the evils themselves manifest the wisdom, power, and justice of God. Moreover, from the mode of speaking of Scripture, God is also said to do those things which, although with conditions changed or greater grace applied they would not happen, nevertheless with those conditions not induced He permits to happen. If these things are considered, that particle can now no longer be an offense (cf. what I said on Isaiah 6:9-10). For the sin of man supposed, God truly wills for His sanctity and justice, which are with sin joined by a certain internal and necessary nexus (cf. on Mark 4:12).
The Pharisees' Final Question
Jn 9:40: "And some of the Pharisees, who were with Him, heard: and they said to Him: Are we blind also?"
Jn 9:41: "Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin. But now you say: We see. Your sin remains."
"Pharisees were present hearing these things; they understood that they were noted when they opposed the blind man, and that Christ opposed the blind man, who from blind was made seeing, to others, that is, to his adversaries, and they advert that spiritual blindness is cast upon them."
"And some of the Pharisees, who were with Him, heard: and they said to Him: Are we blind also?" With an arrogant mind they ask this that they may ridicule Jesus; also from the response it is gathered.
"Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you would not have sin." He who ignores invincibly certainly does not sin; he to whom the truth is not announced, he does not have the sin of rejected truth. But the Pharisees boast themselves wise, and on account of this their wisdom they proudly reject the most open documents of the truth enunciated by Christ, and therefore their sin remains.
The word "remains" (manet) declares the delay, habit, inhesion of that which was before already present (Maldonatus). It is not taken away nor can it be taken away as long as they arbitrate themselves seeing. For on account of that knowledge which they have feigned for themselves, that happens to them which Paul says: "Ignoring the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they are not subject to the justice of God" (Romans 10:3). Equally to them ought to be applied that: "If any man seem to himself to be wise in this world, let him become foolish, that he may be wise" (1 Corinthians 3:18), i.e., let him desert his worldly and estimated wisdom, let him hand himself over with a simple mind to the discipline of the true teacher; then he will be able to become truly wise.
As elsewhere Pharisees are exhibited who, thinking themselves just, do not need penance (Matthew 3:9; 5:20; Luke 18:9-11; John 8:33), so in this place as such who, endowed with knowledge of divine things, wish to lack the institution of Christ. For by saying "We see," you do not seek the physician; in your blindness you remain.
Conclusion: Allegorical Interpretation and Historicity
"Again Christ Himself in Jn 9:39 transfers the healing of the blind symbolically to spiritual illumination." Whence it is not wonderful that the ancients, besides the literal sense, also propose an allegorical explanation. For they see in this blind man represented: now the people of the Gentiles (Cyril, Rupert, Maldonatus, Theophylact), now the human race (Augustine, Bede), now each individual man (Theophylact).
Let Jansenius be heard: "This blind man designates either the people of the Gentiles or any elect one, who when he was blind from birth, Christ looking upon him with the eyes of His benignity for the glory of God to be declared in him, receives sight, while recognizing the eyes of his mind to be obscured by the sordidness of sin, he approaches by the precept of Christ to the font of Baptism, and in it is washed. Who when he has been baptized and illuminated, ought to think that he will be exposed to temptations, and the name of Christ is to be confessed by him constantly before His enemies, nor to be denied on account of fear of them, even if on account of this it should be necessary to be made excommunicate, according to that: "You shall be hated by all men for my name's sake," etc. But if anyone constantly preaches and confesses Christ, Jesus will find such a one rejected by men on account of Himself, and in this life will console him, endowing him with a more perfect knowledge of Himself, and after this life will receive him to Himself, showing him His divinity. Thus simultaneously it is shown how this narration can be usefully transferred to doctrine and morals."
The ancients, retaining the truth of the matter, were accustomed to add an allegorical or moral explanation. But some of the recent writers, denying the thing truly done, have attempted to draw the whole narration to allegory. A key as if for opening the narration is offered in Jn 9:39; thus it is described by a certain fictitious narration the mode by which the blind are made seeing spiritually while the incredulous are more hardened and obtenebrated. To others it has pleased that in this allegory or parable is adumbrated the struggle of the primitive Christian community with the doctrine and opposition of the Pharisees; others prefer that it be shown in the blind man how the Christian community through the apostolate arrive at illumination, at the communication of the spirit of Christ.
But it suffices to read the narration that anyone may perceive that the Evangelist by no means wishes to consign to letters a certain form of doctrine comprehended by the mind, but to place accurately before the eyes a thing truly done according to singula (individual details).
To others it has seemed the life of Jesus to be so vacant of deeds and inert, or the Evangelist so destitute of all knowledge of things, that they have deemed it necessary to assert that this narration is derived from Mark 7:33 as if from its font, or ficted according to the similitude of the narration of chapter 5, or Acts 3:11 and 5:12, or so that the marvelous thing narrated in Mark 8:23 be referred anew, but nevertheless in a mode more composed for admiration.
If a certain thin similitude of two events suffices for denying either, what now will remain from the histories of things done? How great a knowledge of things the Evangelist was conscious to himself to have, he declares sufficiently in 21:25, and already 20:30, who has so great a copy of things reposed in mind, has no need of matter drawn from another, nor will he feign according to the example of another thing done as if covering his own poverty.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment