Chapter IX: 1‐7. *Jesus cures a man born blind

8‐13. *Comments of the man’s neighbours, who bring him to the
Pharisees.*

14. *It was on the Sabbath day the cure was wrought.*

15‐23. *Interview between the man and the Pharisees. They refuse
to believe that he had been blind, and summon his parents in order
to ascertain the truth. The parents declare that he had indeed
been born blind.*

24‐34. *Again therefore the Pharisees interrogate the man himself,
and at length, wincing under his remarks and indignant with him
for his favourable opinion of Jesus, they expel him from their
assembly.*

35‐38. *Jesus finds him, and now illumines the darkness of his
soul.*

39‐41. *The blindness of the Pharisees.*

1. Et praeteriens Iesus vidit 1. And Jesus passing by, saw a hominem caecum a nativitate: man who was blind from his birth.

1. Some think that the events about to be narrated occurred shortly after Christ left the temple (viii. 59) and had been rejoined by His disciples, who are supposed to have left when He disappeared. This view seems to us more probable than that which places the events about to be narrated on a different day from those referred to in the close of the preceding chapter. When we are told that Jesus went out of the temple (viii. 59), and passing by, saw a man blind from his birth, the natural inference is, that the Evangelist is speaking of Christ’s passing along after He left the temple. This view is confirmed too by the fact, that *Jesus* should not be read in this verse, being spurious according to all critics, but must be supplied from the preceding chapter.

The man was *blind from his birth*, so that it was no mere passing affection of the eyes, from which he suffered; and thus the miracle was the more striking.

2. Et interrogaverunt eum 2. And his disciples asked discipuli eius: Rabbi, quis him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, peccavit, hic, aut parentes this man, or his parents, that eius, ut caecus nasceretur? he should be born blind?

2. How the disciples knew the man had been *born blind*, we are not told. To excite greater compassion, and probably to obtain alms, he may have been himself proclaiming the fact. It was reasonable enough that the disciples should think of the sins of the man’s parents as the reason why he was born blind, for God Himself tells us that He is “jealous, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation” (Exod. xx. 5). And we know that David was punished by the death of his child (2 Kings xii. 14). But why should the disciples imagine that the man might have been born blind on account of _his own_ sins? Some think that the disciples may have been imbued with the false notions of the Jews regarding the transmigration of souls, and have thought that this man’s soul had sinned in some previous state of existence, and been therefore imprisoned in a blind body. But it is unlikely that the disciples at this time, the third year of our Lord’s public life, were still in such ignorance.(70) Others think that the question means: was he born blind for some sin which it _was foreseen_ he would commit? Others think that the question was hastily put without advertence to its absurdity. Others that the meaning is: was it for his own, or, _since that is out of the question_, was it for the sin of his parents that this man was born blind?

3. Respondit Iesus: Neque hic 3. Jesus answered: Neither peccavit, neque parentes eius: hath this man sinned, nor his sed ut manifestentur opera Dei parents; but that the works of in illo. God should be made manifest in him.

3. Christ replies that neither the man himself nor his parents had sinned, so as to explain his blindness—ἵνα, as a _cause_ why he should be born blind; but his blindness was ordained, or at least permitted, for the sake of the miracle which Christ was now about to work.

4. Me oportet operari opera 4. I must work the works of eius qui misit me, donec dies him that sent me, whilst it is est: venit nox, quando nemo day: the night cometh when no potest operari. man can work.

4. *Day* is here the span of Christ’s mortal life: *night* the time after death, when Christ was no longer to perform works visibly before men. Of course, as God, Christ still works, “sustaining all things by the word of His power” (Heb. i. 3), but of this Divine operation there is no question here.

5. Quamdiu sum in mundo, lux 5. As long as I am in the sum mundi. world, I am the light of the world.

5. *The light.* See i. 4, 5. Christ was the spiritual light, and as a symbol and proof of His office of spiritual light‐giver, He was now about to open the eyes of the blind man to the light of day.

6. Haec cum dixisset, exspuit 6. When he had said these in terram, et fecit lutum ex things, he spat on the ground, sputo, et linivit lutum super and made clay of the spittle, oculos eius. and spread the clay upon his eyes.

6. *He spat on the ground.* Of course such ceremonies as that here recorded were wholly unnecessary to Christ for effecting the cure. Why He sometimes used them it is hard to say; perhaps to help to excite the faith of those who were being cured. “Those who impiously jeer at the use of ceremonies, and material elements in connection with spiritual effects, which they symbolize, have a clear refutation in this action, and several similar actions on the part of our Divine Redeemer for similar effects (Mark vii. 33; viii. 23).” (McEvilly).

7. Et dixit ei: Vade, lava in 7. And said to him: Go, wash natatoria Siloe (quod in the pool of Siloe, which is interpretatur Missus). Abiit interpreted, Sent. He went ergo, et lavit, et venit therefore, and washed, and he videns. came seeing.

7. St. John interprets for his readers the Hebrew name (שׂלוח) of the pool. Some have regarded the interpretation as the gloss of a copyist or interpreter; but there is practically no authority for doubting that it was written by St. John. Doubtless the pool bore this name for some mystic reason; by the natural salubrity of its waters, or by a supernatural virtue, like Bethesda (v. 2), it may have typified _Him who was sent_ from God to heal men. The pool which still retains its old name _Birket Silwan_, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. St. Jerome speaks of the spring which supplied it as situated at the foot of Mount Sion, and mentions also the intermittent character of the spring. See Isaiah viii. 6. In another place St. Jerome speaks of Siloe as situated at “the foot of Mount Moria,” so that there is no reason for doubting that the pool was situated in the valley called Tyropaeon, which separated Mount Sion from Mount Moria, just where _Birket Silwan_ is still to be seen. See also Josephus, _Bella Jud._, v. 4. 1. The blind man journeying towards the pool, with clay upon his eyes, must have attracted the attention of many, and thus helped to make the miracle more public. That one born blind, and accustomed to move about Jerusalem, would be able to find his way to the pool, there is no reason to doubt; in any case there need be no difficulty raised on this point, as he could probably have readily found some one willing to guide him.

8. Itaque vicini, et qui 8. The neighbours therefore, viderant eum prius quia and they who had seen him mendicus erat, dicebant: Nonne before that he was a beggar, hic est qui sedebat et said: Is not this he that sat, mendicabat? Alii dicebant: and begged? Some said: This is Quia hic est. he. 9. Alii autem: Nequaquam, sed 9. But others _said_: No, but similis est ei. Ille vero he is like him. But he said: I dicebat: Quia ego sum. am he. 10. Dicebant ergo ei: Quomodo 10. They said therefore to aperti sunt tibi oculi? him: How were thy eyes opened? 11. Respondit: Ille homo qui 11. He answered: That man that dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et is called Jesus, made clay, unxit oculos meos, et dixit and anointed my eyes, and said mihi: Vade ad natatoria Siloe, to me: Go to the pool of et lava, Et abii, et lavi, et Siloe, and wash. And I went, I video. washed, and I see.

11. *He answered: That man* (ὁ ἄνθρωπος is the true reading) *that is called Jesus.* He yet recognises in Christ only a holy man, but refers to Him as one who was well known and much spoken of.

12. Et dixerunt ei: Ubi est 12. And they said to him: ille? Ait: Nescio. Where is he? He saith: I know not. 13. Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos 13. They bring him that had qui caecus fuerat. been blind to the Pharisees.

13. Why they brought him to the Pharisees is not certain; probably in order to have the facts sifted more closely, and perhaps to have Christ condemned of violating the Sabbath (verse 14).

14. Erat autem sabbatum, 14. Now it was the sabbath quando lutum fecit Iesus, et when Jesus made the clay and aperuit oculos eius. opened his eyes. 15. Iterum ergo interrogabant 15. Again therefore the eum pharisaei quomodo Pharisees asked him, how he vidisset. Ille autem dixit had received his sight. But he eis: Lutum mihi posuit super said to them: He put clay upon oculos, et lavi, et video. my eyes, and I washed, and I see. 16. Dicebant ergo ex 16. Some therefore of the pharisaeis quidam: Non est hic Pharisees said: This man is homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non not of God, who keepeth not custodit. Alii autem dicebant: the sabbath. But others said: Quomodo potest homo peccator How can a man that is a sinner haec signa facere? Et schisma do such miracles? And there erat inter eos. was a division among them. 17. Dicunt ergo caeco iterum: 17. They say therefore to the Tu quid dicis de illo qui blind man again: What sayest aperuit oculos tuos? Ille thou of him that hath opened autem dixit: Quia propheta thy eyes? And he said: He is a est. prophet.

16, 17. The Pharisees themselves disagree as to the character of Christ, and ask the man who had been cured (note how he is still spoken of as blind, just as in the Blessed Eucharist (vi. 52) the flesh of Christ is spoken of as bread, not because it is any longer bread, but because of what it is known to have been shortly before) what he thought of Him who cured him. His reply is that Christ is a prophet (προφητής without the article), a man sent by God; not _the_ Prophet, for he did not yet recognise Christ as the Messias.

18. Non crediderunt ergo 18. The Jews then did not Iudaei de illo quia caecus believe concerning him, that fuisset et vidisset, donec he had been blind and had vocaverunt parentes eius qui received his sight, until they viderat: call the parents of him that had received his sight.

18. The Pharisees now doubt the _fact_ of the cure, and send for the man’s parents to inquire if he had indeed been born blind.

19. Et interrogaverunt eos, 19. And asked them, saying: Is dicentes: Hic est filius this your son, who you say was vester, quem vos dicitis quia born blind? How then doth he caecus natus est? Quomodo ergo now see? nunc videt? 20. Responderunt eis parentes 20. His parents answered them eius, et dixerunt: Scimus quia and said: We know that this is hic est filius noster, et quia our son, and that he was born caecus natus est: blind. 21. Quomodo autem nunc videat, 21. But how he now seeth, we nescimus: aut quis eius know not: or who hath opened aperuit oculos, nos nescimus: his eyes, we know not: ask ipsum interrogate: aetatem himself; he is of age, let him habet, ipse de se loquatur. speak for himself.

19‐21. Three questions are put to the parents; to two they reply: that this is their son, and that he was born blind; but to the third they return no answer, though, doubtless, they believed their son’s account of the cure.

22. Haec dixerunt parentes 22. These things his parents eius, quoniam timebant said, because they feared the Iudaeos: iam enim Jews: For the Jews had already conspiraverant Iudaei, ut si agreed among themselves, that quis eum confiteretur esse if any man should confess him Christum, extra synagogam to be Christ, he should be put fieret. out of the synagogue.

22. *Put out of the synagogue*; that is to say, deprived of all religious intercourse by a sort of excommunication.

23. Propterea parentes eius 23. Therefore did his parents dixerunt: Quia aetatem habet, say: He is of age, ask him. ipsum interrogate. 24. Vocaverunt ergo rursum 24. They therefore called the hominem qui fuerat caecus, et man again that had been blind, dixerunt ei: Da gloriam Deo: and said to him: Give glory to nos scimus quia hic homo God. We know that this man is peccator est. a sinner.

24. The man himself is again interrogated. The words: *Give glory to God* are a sort of adjuration; as if they said—remember you are in the presence of God, and speak the truth. See Jos. viii. 19. And yet while, pretending to be anxious to hear the truth, they tried to overawe the poor man by declaring that they are convinced already that Christ is an impostor and sinner.

25. Dixit ergo eis ille: Si 25. He said therefore to them: peccator est, nescio: unum If he be a sinner, I know not: scio, quia caecus cum essem, one thing I know, that whereas modo video. I was blind, now I see.

25. *Being blind*, τυφλὸς ὤν. The _present_ part. is used relatively to the time when he blind.

26. Dixerunt ergo illi: Quid 26. They said then to him: fecit tibi: Quomodo aperuit What did he to thee? How did tibi oculos? he open thy eyes? 27. Respondit eis: Dixi vobis 27. He answered them: I have iam, et audistis: quid iterum told you already, and you have vultis audire? numquid et vos heard: why would you hear it vultis discipuli eius fieri? again? will you also become his disciples?

27. *You have heard* (Gr. καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε, _You did not heed_). *Will you also become his disciples?* These words are ironical. The man saw that the Pharisees were hostile to Jesus, and his natural gratitude towards his benefactor made him impatient with them.

28. Maledixerunt ergo ei, et 28. They reviled him dixerunt: Tu discipulus illius therefore, and said: Be thou sis: nos autem Moysi discipuli his disciple; but we are the sumus. disciples of Moses.

28. *They reviled him* (ἐλοιδόρησαν) *therefore, and said: Be thou that man’s disciple*.

29. Nos scimus quia Moysi 29. We know that God spoke to locutus est Deus: hunc autem Moses: but as to this man, we nescimus unde sit. know not from whence he is.

29. The meaning is: We know not whether this man is sent by God or the devil.

30. Respondit ille homo, et 30. The man answered, and said dixit eis: In hoc enim to them: Why herein is a mirabile est quia vos nescitis wonderful thing that you know unde sit, et aperuit meos not from whence he is, and he oculos: hath opened my eyes.

30. *You* is emphatic; you the teachers of God’s people!

31. Scimus autem quia 31. Now we know that God doth peccatores Deus non audit: sed not hear sinners: but if a man si quis Dei cultor est, et be a server of God, and doth voluntatem eius facit, hunc his will, him he heareth. exaudit.

31. *Now we know that God doth not hear sinners.* These are the words of the blind man, and we are not bound to hold that they state what is true: that they were spoken by the man, the inspired Evangelist tells us; and the _fact_ that they were spoken is all that is covered by inspiration. But the words are generally true in the sense in which the context proves they were used. For God does not generally hear sinners so as to work miracles at their will; and this is what the words mean. That God never hears the prayers of sinners, is not stated here, and is not true.

32. A saeculo non est auditum 32. From the beginning of the quia quis aperuit oculos caeci world it hath not been heard, nati. that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind. 33. Nisi esset hic a Deo, non 33. Unless this man were of poterat facere quidquam. God, he could not do anything.

33. *Anything*; that is to say, such as the miracle performed upon me.

34. Responderunt, et dixerunt 34. They answered, and said to ei: In peccatis natus es him: Thou wast wholly born in totus, et tu doces nos? Et sins, and dost thou teach us? eiecerunt eum foras. And they cast him out.

34. *Thou wast wholly born in sins*, ὅλος (_totus_); that is to say, altogether, entirely, as thy blindness proves. And dost thou, steeped from thy birth in sin and ignorance, presume to teach us, the sainted doctors of the Law? *And they cast him out.* Some take the sense to be, that they excommunicated him, but the obvious meaning is, that they drove him from their presence, wherever it was that they were assembled.

35. Audivit Iesus quia 35. Jesus heard that they had eiecerunt eum foras: et cum cast him out: and when he had invenisset eum, dixit ei: Tu found him, he said to him: credis in Filium Dei? Dost thou believe in the Son of God?

35. Christ as God knew, of course, that the man had been expelled by the Pharisees; but He waited till He heard it as man, and then went to seek for and reward the poor fellow, who had so intrepidly defended Him before them. Instead of *Son of God*, some manuscripts of great authority read _Son of Man_; but it is more probable that the former is the correct reading. We may here remark how Christ, who had cured the blindness of the body without requiring faith now asks for faith in Himself before He will dispel the deeper darkness of the soul. “Qui fecit te sine te, non justificat te sine te; fecit nescientem, justificat volentem” (St. Aug., Serm. 15, _de verbis Apost._).

36. Respondit ille, et dixit: 36. He answered, and said: Who Quis est, Domine, ut credam in is he, Lord, that I may eum? believe in him?

36. Probably the man recognised the voice of his benefactor, whom he had not seen until now, and he at once shows himself prepared to do what he understands Christ’s question to suggest. He believed that Christ who had cured him, and whom he regarded as a prophet, would not deceive him as to who was really the Son of God. Lord (Gr. κύριε) ought rather to be rendered “Sir.” It is a term of respect, but does not at all imply that the man already recognised Christ to be his Lord and God, as is clear from the context.

37. Et dixit ei Iesus: Et 37. And Jesus said to him: vidisti eum, et qui loquitur Thou hast both seen him; and tecum, ipse est. it is he that talketh with thee.

37. *Thou hast both seen.* The meaning is: Thou _seest_ Him, the Greek perfect having here the force of a present. See 1 John iii. 6. Christ’s reference to the man’s _seeing_, was doubtless designed to stimulate his gratitude, and help him to faith.

38. At ille ait: Credo Domine. 38. And he said: I believe, Et procidens adoravit eum. Lord. And falling down he adored him.

38. He *adored* Christ as God. Though the word προσεκύνησεν, which is here rendered “adored,” does not, in our opinion, necessarily imply supreme worship in the Greek of either the Old or New Testament,(71) still the context here determines it to that meaning. For Christ had just declared Himself to be the Son of God, and it is _as such_ the man worships Him.

39. Et dixit Iesus: In 39. And Jesus said: For iudicium ego in hunc mundum judgment I am come into this veni: ut qui non vident world, that they who see not, videant, et qui vident caeci may see: and they who see, may fiant. become blind.

39. *For judgment I am come into this world.* The blind man had recovered sight in two senses—bodily and spiritual—and Christ, as the occasion naturally suggested, now goes on to speak of spiritual blindness. Christ’s words here are not contradictory of iii. 17 or viii. 15, because here there is question of a different judgment. In those passages there is question of the judgment of _condemnation_, for which Christ did not come at His first coming; here there is question of the judgment of _discernment_ (κρίμα, not κρίσις), and for this He had come at His first coming. The sense of the present passage then is: I am come to separate the good from the bad; to make known who love God, and who do not; to show and to effect that those who have been regarded as spiritually blind, and who, indeed, in many cases, have been so, may have the eyes of their souls opened to the light of truth, while those who have been thought, and who think themselves, to see (such as you Pharisees), may be shown to be indeed spiritually blind, and may really _become more blind_, by being involved in deeper darkness through their own unbelief. This latter effect—that they should become more blind—was not directly intended by Christ, but it was foreseen and permitted, and this is enough to justify Christ’s expression: “That they who see may become blind.” Compare Rom. v. 20: “Now the law entered in that sin might abound.”

40. Et audierunt quidam ex 40. And some of the Pharisees, pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant who were with him, heard; and et dixerunt ei: Numquid et nos they said unto him: Are we caeci sumus? also blind? 41. Dixit eis Iesus: Si caeci 41. Jesus said to them: If you essetis, non haberetis were blind, you should not peccatum: nunc vero dicitis: have sin: but now you say: We Quia videmus. Peccatum vestrum see. Your sin remaineth. manet.

40, 41. The Pharisees ask: *Are we also blind?* and Jesus replies: *If you were blind, you should not have sin*; that is to say, if you were blind through invincible ignorance, or, as we prefer to hold, if you were blind _in your own estimation_, if you _recognised_ your spiritual blindness, you should not have sin, because I would wipe it out; but now that you _say_ you see, and rely upon yourselves, your sin remaineth.