Commentary on the Gospel of John

After the Lord showed the illuminating power of his teaching by word, here he consequently confirms it by deed, by illuminating a blind man bodily. And concerning this illumination three things are set down. First, the infirmity; second, the healing of the infirmity, where it says "when he had said this, he spat on the ground," etc.; third, concerning the healing, the dispute of the Jews, where it says "therefore the neighbors," and so forth. Concerning the first he does two things. First the infirmity is set down; second its cause is inquired into, where it says "his disciples asked him." It should be known, concerning the first, that Jesus, hiding himself and withdrawing from the temple, while passing by, saw this blind man. And this is what it says: "and Jesus, passing by, saw a man blind from birth." Here three things are considered. First, indeed, he passed by, in order to avoid the fury of the Jews; Ecclesiasticus 8:13: "kindle not the coals of sinners by rebuking them, and be not enflamed with the flame of the fire of their sins." Second, so as to soften the hardness of the Jews by the miracle done and to be done; below, chapter 15:24: "if I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." Third, so that through the working of a sign he might confirm his words; for the deeds of the Lord give faith to those things that were said by him; Mark, last chapter, 20: "confirming the word, with signs following after." Mystically, however, according to Augustine, the human race is this blind man. For spiritual blindness is sin, Wisdom 2:21: "their own malice hath blinded them." He who is blind from birth is so because he draws sin from his origin. For this blindness came upon man through the sin of the first man, from whom we all derive our origin; Ephesians 2:3: "you were by nature," that is, by natural origin, "children of wrath."

Consequently, when it says "and his disciples asked him," the cause of this infirmity is treated, and first the cause of it is inquired into by the disciples; second it is made manifest by Christ, where it says "neither hath this man sinned." Concerning the first, three things occur to be asked. The first is the cause of the disciples' inquiry of Christ, which is, as Chrysostom says, that Jesus, going out from the temple, and seeing this blind man, looked at him very intently, as one seeing in him matter for the working of a power; so that the disciples, seeing this, namely him looking so intently, were moved to ask. Second, the diligence of the disciples, because they say "Rabbi," calling him Master, so as to indicate that they were inquiring as ones desiring to learn. Third, why, in seeking the cause of the sin, they said, "who hath sinned?" It must be said, according to Chrysostom, that because the Lord above, in chapter 5:14, namely when he healed the paralytic, had said to him: "behold, thou art made whole: sin no more," the disciples thought that this infirmity had befallen him on account of sin, supposing further that every human infirmity arises from sin, according to what Eliphaz says, Job 4:7: "who ever perished being innocent?" And therefore they were asking whether it was from his own sin or that of his parents that he was born blind. But that it should be from his own sin does not seem possible, because no one sins before he is born, since souls did not exist before bodies, nor did they sin, as some have falsely supposed: according to that of Romans 9:11: "for when they were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil ... not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger." But that he should have suffered this from the sin of his parents does not seem possible either, because it is said in Deuteronomy 24:16: "the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the parents." But it must be known that there is a twofold punishment by which men are punished. One is spiritual, as regards the soul; the other is corporal, as regards the body. And indeed, by spiritual punishment a son is never punished for his father. The reason for this is assigned in Ezekiel 18:4, that the soul of the son is not from the father, but from God. "All souls," he says, "are mine," namely by creation, so that just as the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is mine: "the soul that sinneth, the same shall be punished." This too Augustine says in a certain letter. But by corporal punishment a son is punished for his father, since as regards the body he is in a certain way a thing of the father. And this is expressly found in Genesis 19, where the sons of the Sodomites were slain for the sin of their parents in the overthrow of Sodom. Many times, too, the Lord threatens the Jews with the slaying of children on account of the sins of the parents. But as to why one is punished for another's sin, it must be known that punishment has two aspects: injury and remedy. For sometimes a limb is cut off so that the whole body may be preserved; and thus this punishment brings injury insofar as it is cut off, but it has remedy insofar as it preserves the body. Yet a physician never cuts off a more noble limb for the preservation of a less noble one, but rather the reverse. Now in human affairs, the soul is more noble than the body, and the body more noble than external things; and therefore it never happens that anyone is punished in the soul for the sake of the body, but rather in the body for the remedy of the soul. Sometimes, then, God inflicts punishments on bodies, or on external things, for the good remedy of the soul; and then punishments of this kind are not inflicted merely as injurious, but as purgative, for a remedy. Hence the very slaying of the Sodomite children was for the good of souls: not indeed as merit, but lest, as imitators of their fathers' malice, heaping up sins by living on, they should be more atrociously punished. So too, on account of the sins of parents, some are often punished.

Consequently, when it says "Jesus answered," etc., the Lord makes manifest the cause of the infirmity, and first he excludes the supposed cause; second he adds the true one; and third he explains it. He excludes indeed the supposed cause, when he answers, saying: "neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents." For the disciples had supposed this to be the cause of the infirmity, as has been said. But against this: Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned, and do need the glory of God." And in the same place, 5:12, it is said that sin passed from Adam unto all. I answer that it must be said that both the blind man and his parents were held by original sin, and had also added other actual sins by their manner of living, because "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us": 1 John 1:8. But when the Lord says "neither hath this man sinned," it must be understood that they did not sin so as to bring it about that he should be born blind; as if he were saying that his blindness was not a consequence of their sin. But the true cause he adds, saying "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him": for through the works of God we are led to knowledge of him; Romans 1:20: "the invisible things of God ... are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made"; below, chapter 5: "the works which the Father hath given me, these are they that give testimony of me." Now the knowledge of God is the highest good of man, since man's beatitude consists in it; below, chapter 17:3: "this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." And Jeremiah 9:24: "in this let him glory that glorieth, to know and to know me." If, then, infirmity happens so that the works of God may be made manifest, and through their manifestation God becomes known, it is manifest that infirmities of this bodily kind happen for a good. But it might seem to someone that the manifestation of the works of God is not a sufficient cause of an infirmity of this kind, especially since neither he nor his parents sinned, and therefore some wish to say that the word "that" is held not causally, but consequently; as if he were saying: he being blind, the works of God curing him are manifested. But this does not seem soundly said; and therefore it is better to say that it is held causally. For there is a twofold evil: namely, of fault and of punishment. But indeed God does not make the evil of fault, but permits it to happen; which he would not permit, unless he intended some good from it. Hence Augustine says in the Enchiridion: "God is so good that he would never permit any evil to be done, unless he were so powerful that he could draw good out of any evil whatsoever." Thus, then, he permits certain sins to happen out of the intention of the good which he intends: just as he permitted tyrants to rage, that he might crown martyrs. Much more, then, must it be said that the evil of punishment, which he himself does — as it is said in Amos 3:6: "there is no evil which the Lord hath not done" — he never brings about except from an intention of good. And among other goods, the best is that the works of God be made manifest, and that from them God become known. It is not, therefore, unfitting if he sends certain scourges, or permits certain sins to happen, so that good may come of it thereby. And it must be known that, as Gregory says in Book I of the Moralia, God sends scourges upon men in five ways. Sometimes indeed as the beginning of damnation, according to that of Jeremiah 7:18: "destroy them with a double destruction." And by this scourge a sinner is struck in this life in such a way that he may be punished without retraction and without end in the other; as Herod, who killed James, was punished in this life, and likewise in hell: Acts 12:23. Sometimes, however, for correction: and of this it is said in Psalm 118:71: "thy discipline itself shall teach me." Sometimes, however, someone is scourged not for the correction of past things, but for the preservation of future ones: as is read of Paul, 2 Corinthians 12:7: "lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me." Sometimes, however, for the promotion of virtue: namely, when in someone neither is past fault corrected, nor future fault prevented, while unexpected salvation follows persecution, and the power of the one saving being known, he is loved the more ardently; 2 Corinthians 12:9: "power is made perfect in infirmity"; James 1:4: "patience hath a perfect work." Sometimes, indeed, for the manifestation of the divine glory: hence here too it is said "that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Consequently, when it says "I must work," etc., he makes manifest the true cause which he had set down: and because he had made mention of the works of God, he first sets down the opportunity for manifesting the works of God; second he assigns the reason for the opportunity, or necessity, where it says "the night cometh"; third he explains it, where it says "as long as I am in the world." He says, then: therefore, namely, he was born blind, "that the works of God should be made manifest in him," which indeed had to be made manifest: for "I must work the works of him that sent me." This can indeed be referred to Christ according as he is man; and thus the sense is: "I must work the works of him that sent me," that is, the works entrusted to me by the Father; above, chapter 5:36: "the works which the Father hath given me to perform." Below, chapter 17:4, he says: "Father, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." Or it can be referred to Christ according as he is God; and thus he states the equality of his power to the Father's, so that the sense is: "I must work the works of him that sent me," that is, the works which I have from the Father. For all things which the Son does, even according to the divine nature, he has from the Father; above, 5:19: "the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing." "I must," I say, "work, while it is day." The material day indeed is caused by the presence of the sun over the earth. But the sun of justice is Christ our God; Malachi 4:2: "unto you that fear my name, the sun of justice shall arise." As long, then, as this sun is present to us, the works of God can be done in us, toward us, and by us. Now he was present to us at one time by bodily presence; and then it was day; Psalm 117:24: "this is the day which the Lord hath made: let us be glad and rejoice therein." And therefore it is necessary to work the works of God. He is also present to us through grace: and then it is the day of grace, in which, namely, it is necessary to work the works of God, "while it is day"; Romans 13:12: "the night is passed, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light"; 1 Thessalonians 5:7: "they that sleep, sleep in the night. But you are not in darkness," and so forth. But it must be known that if the presence of the sun makes the day, and its absence the night, since the sun is always present to itself, for the sun itself it is always day: and thus for the sun it is always the time of working and of shining. But as regards us, to whom it is sometimes present, sometimes absent, it does not always work and shine. In the same way, with Christ, the sun of justice, it is always day and the time of working; but not so with us: because we are not always capable of his grace, on account of an impediment on our part. Now the reason for the aforesaid opportunity he adds, saying "the night cometh, when no man can work." Just as there is a twofold day, so there is a twofold night. One is through the bodily departure of the sun of justice, as the apostles incurred it, when, Christ being bodily taken from them at the time of the Passion, they were thrown into confusion; Matthew 26:31: "all you shall be scandalized in me this night." And then it was not a time for working, but for suffering. But it is better that we say that even with Christ bodily absent through the Ascension, it was day for the apostles, insofar as the sun of justice shone upon them, and it was a time of working. And therefore it must be understood of the night which is through the spiritual separation of the sun of justice, namely through the withdrawal of grace: and this night is indeed twofold. One is through the withdrawal of actual grace, which mortal sin brings about; 1 Thessalonians 5:7: "they that sleep, sleep in the night." And when this night comes, no one can perform works meritorious of eternal life. The other night is the consummated one, when someone is not only deprived of actual grace through mortal sin, but also of the very faculty of obtaining it, through eternal damnation in hell, where there is a deep night, which will belong to those to whom it is said: "depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire": Matthew 25:41. And then no one can work, because it is not a time of meriting, but of receiving according to merits. While therefore you live, do as you are to do. Hence Ecclesiastes 9:10: "whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening." Now the reason for what has been said he explains, saying "as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world"; as if he were saying: if you wish to know what the day is, and what the night, of which I speak; I, I say, "am the light of the world": for my presence makes the day, and my absence the night; above, chapter 8:12: "I am the light of the world." "As long as I am in the world," bodily through my presence; below, chapter 16:28: "I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father." "I am the light of the world": hence this day lasted until the Ascension of Christ. Likewise, "as long as I am in the world," spiritually through grace; Matthew, last chapter, 20: "behold I am with you, even to the consummation of the world." "I am the light of the world": hence this day will extend to the consummation of the world.

Consequently, when it says "when he had said this, he spat on the ground," etc., the healing of the blind man is treated, to which five things concur in order, done by Christ. First indeed the spitting, hence it says "he spat on the ground"; second the making of clay, hence it says "he made clay of the spittle"; third the anointing of the eyes, hence it says "and he spread the clay upon his eyes"; fourth the command that he should wash, hence it says "go (said he) and wash in the pool of Siloe"; fifth, the perception of sight, hence it adds "and he went, and washed, and he came seeing": all of which indeed have a cause both literal and mystical. The literal cause indeed, according to Chrysostom, is thus. He illuminates by spittle, so as to show that he was doing this by a power going forth from himself, and that the miracle should not be ascribed to any other thing; Luke 6:19: "power went out from him." For although the Lord could have done all miracles by word alone, since he himself said, and they were made, yet frequently he made use of his body in them, so as to show that he himself, insofar as he is the instrument of the Godhead, had received a certain saving power. Now he made clay from spittle, so as to show that he who had formed the whole first man was able to form the parts lacking to a man. Hence, just as he formed the first man from clay, so he made clay in order to form the eyes of the man born blind. Now he spread the clay upon the eyes of the man born blind, so as to show that he was the maker of bodies, through that which is most excellent in bodies. For man among bodily creatures is more excellent; and among the members of man, the head is more excellent; and among the members of the head, the eye is found to be more excellent. Hence Matthew 6:22: "the light of thy body is thy eye." Therefore, by forming the eye, more excellent than the other bodily parts, he showed himself to be the creator of the whole man and of bodily nature. Now he said to him, "go, and wash thyself in the pool of Siloe," lest the earth spread upon his eyes should seem to have the healing power for the eye. Hence as long as he had the clay on his eyes, he did not see, but after he washed. Now he sent him far off to wash, namely to the pool of Siloe: first indeed to confute the hardness of the Jews; for it was necessary for him to cross the city, so that thus all might see this same blind man going along, having clay upon his eyes, and returning with his sight restored. Second, so that the obedience and faith of the blind man might be commended: for many times, perhaps, he had received clay on his face, many times he had washed himself in the pool of Siloe, and yet he had not seen. Hence he could have said: clay is rather wont to blind more, and I have washed myself there many times, and have been helped in nothing, as is read of Naaman, 4 Kings 5:10 ff. But he did not contradict, rather he simply obeyed. Hence it follows, "he went, and washed." Now he sent him to the pool of Siloe for this reason, that by that water the people of the Jews was signified; Isaiah 8:6: "this people hath cast away the waters of Siloe, that go with silence." Therefore, to show that he is not alien from the love of the Jewish people, he sends him to Siloe. Now the effect follows, because "he came seeing." This was foretold in Isaiah 35:5: "then shall the eyes of the blind be opened." The mystical and allegorical cause, however, Augustine assigns, who says that by the spittle, which is saliva descending from the head, is signified the Word of God, which proceeds from the Father, the head of all things; Ecclesiasticus 24:5: "I came out of the mouth of the Most High." The Lord, then, made clay from spittle and earth, when the Word was made flesh. Now he spread it upon the eyes of the blind man, that is, of the human race, namely the eyes of the heart, through faith in the Incarnation of Christ. But he did not yet see: because when he, as it were, anointed him, he made him a catechumen, who has faith, but is not yet baptized. And therefore he sends him to the pool which is called Siloe, that he might wash and be illuminated, that is, be baptized, and in Baptism receive full illumination. Hence, according to Dionysius, Baptism is called illumination; Ezekiel 36:25: "I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness." And therefore this Gospel is significantly read on that day in Lent on which the scrutiny of those to be baptized begins to be held, on Holy Saturday. Nor without cause does the Evangelist add the interpretation of the pool, saying that it is interpreted "Sent": because whoever are baptized must be baptized in Christ, who was sent by the Father; Galatians 3:27: "as many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ." For had he not been sent, none of us would be released from iniquity. According to Gregory, however, by the saliva is understood the savor of inward contemplation, which flows down to the mouth from the head, because it touches us, still placed in this life, with a taste of revelation, out of the love of the Creator. Hence the Lord mixed saliva with clay, and restored the eyes of the man born blind, because heavenly grace, by the mingling of his contemplation, irradiates our carnal thought, and reforms men from original blindness unto understanding, and so on.

Having set down the miraculous illumination of the blind man, here the examination of the miracle is consequently set down; and first indeed the miracle is examined by the people; second by the Pharisees and rulers, where it says "they bring him to the Pharisees"; third the blind man, on account of his confession, is instructed by Christ and commended, where it says "Jesus heard that they had cast him out." Concerning the first, he does three things, because first inquiry is made concerning the person of the one illumined; second concerning the illumination itself, where it says "they said to him therefore," etc.; third concerning the person of the one illumining, where it says "and they said to him: where is he?" Concerning the first he does three things. First the question is posed concerning the person of the one illumined; second diverse opinions are taken up regarding the question; third the question is determined. The question, indeed, is posed by the people. Whence it says: "the neighbors therefore, and they who had seen him before, that he was a beggar, said: is not this he that sat and begged?" Where two things occur to be considered. One is that from the greatness of the miracle it was rendered itself incredible: whence they said, further on, "from the age it has not been heard that any man opened the eyes of one born blind." Whence there is fulfilled in them what is said in Habakkuk 1:5: "a work is done in your days, which no one will believe when it is told." The other is the wonderful clemency of God, because the Lord works miracles not only concerning the powerful, but also concerning the lowly, while he cured with much piety even those who were beggars: in which it is shown that he who came for the salvation of men repels no one on account of poverty; James 2:5: "has not the Lord chosen the poor, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom?" Whence these also say pointedly "is not this he that sat and begged?" As if they were saying: lowly and unworthy of a cure. Against this it is said in Baruch 3:26: "there were giants named."

The opinions, moreover, are set down by the common people: whence it says, "others said: this is he," namely, he who used to beg; and this because they had often seen him begging, and likewise going about through the city, when he went with the mud to the pool, they had observed him. Whence they could no longer say, it is not he. But the opinion of others was contrary: whence they said "not at all," namely that this is he, "but he is like him." The reason for this is that, as Augustine says, the eyes restored had changed his countenance. For nothing is so knowable as sight; Ecclesiasticus 19:26: "by his look a sensible man is known."

The question is determined through the blind man; because he, namely the blind man, said, "I am he," namely, who used to beg. That word is pleasing, lest he be condemned as ungrateful. For since he could not be ungrateful for so great a benefit, nor could he show any other sign of gratitude than that he should constantly confess that he had been cured by Christ, he says "I am he," namely, who was blind, and used to beg; "and now I see"; Tobit 12:6: "bless God, you heavens, and confess to him before all the living, because he has shown you his mercy."

Consequently, when it says "they said to him therefore: how were your eyes opened?", there is treated the inquiry into the fact, namely into the illumination itself, and first the question of the Jews is set down; second the response of the blind man, where it says "he answered: that man who is called Jesus made clay," etc. It says therefore: if you are he who used to beg while blind, tell us then how your eyes were opened? But this question proceeds from curiosity, because neither he who was cured, nor we, know this manner; Ecclesiasticus 3:24: "in the many works of him do not be curious."

The response of the blind man was admirable, whence it says: "he answered: that man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes," etc. In which first indeed he shows the person illumining, saying "that man who is called Jesus." Rightly does he name him a man, whom he had known as a man, and he was a true man; Philippians 2:7: "made in the likeness of men." Although he had not seen him, since as a blind man he had gone away from him, going to Siloe, he knew him from hearing and from the conversation of men about him. Second he recounts the fact, saying "he made clay, and anointed my eyes"; where he shows himself truthful, not asserting uncertain things. For the Lord had made the clay from spittle, which indeed this man did not know; but that clay had been made, and put upon his eyes, he learned through the sense of touch; and therefore he did not say "he made clay from spittle" but simply "he made clay, and anointed my eyes"; 1 John 1:1: "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, and have looked upon, and our hands have handled...we testify and announce to you." Third he relates the command, saying "and he said to me," namely Jesus, "go to the pool of Siloe, and wash." This too is necessary for us; for if we wish to be cleansed from the blindness of the heart, it is fitting that we be washed spiritually; Isaiah 1:16: "wash yourselves, be clean." Fourth he commends his own obedience, saying "and I went, and washed," as if he were saying: from the moment I heard the command, led by desire of sight, I carried out the command. Nor is this to be wondered at: because it is said in Proverbs 6:23: "the commandment," namely fulfilled, "is a lamp, and the law a light." Fifth he confesses the effect of the benefit, saying "and I saw." And rightly is he illumined after obedience: because, as is said in Acts 5:32, "he will give the Holy Spirit to those who obey him." See the constancy of the blind man. For, as Augustine says, "behold, he has become an announcer of grace, behold he evangelizes and confesses before the Jews." That blind man was confessing, and the heart of the impious was constricted, because they did not have the light, namely in the heart, which he had in his face.

Consequently, when it says "and they said to him: where is he?" the inquiry concerning the person of the one illumining is set down; and first the question of the Jews is set down, when they say "where is he?" Maliciously do they ask, meditating his slaying; for already they had conspired against Christ; above, 8:40: "but now you seek to kill me?" Second the response of the blind man is set down, when he says "I do not know." As Augustine says, from these words it appears that just as it was done bodily in him, so it is represented spiritually at different times. For as yet the blind man is first anointed, and afterward, having washed, he sees. And indeed the anointing represents the beginning of bodily health; but the washing brings about complete health. Specifically, moreover, the anointing makes a catechumen; the washing, namely Baptism, perfects and illumines. Thus, therefore, faith is represented differently at different times. For by his saying "I do not know," imperfect faith is represented in catechumens; above, chapter 4: "you adore what you do not know." It can also signify our faith by this; 1 Corinthians 13:9: "for we know in part, and we prophesy in part."

Consequently, when it is added "they bring him to the Pharisees," there is treated the inquiry, and first they inquire of the blind man; second of the parents, where it says "the Jews therefore did not believe." Concerning the first he does three things. First the one to be examined is presented; second the intention of those inquiring is set down; third the inquiry itself is set down. The one to be examined, namely the blind man, is presented by the people to the Pharisees; whence "they bring," namely the crowds, "him who had been blind, to the Pharisees"; and this because they had asked him where Jesus was, so that if they should find him they might lead him to the Pharisees, to be condemned on account of the breaking of the sabbath. But because they did not have Christ, they lead the blind man, so that, questioning him more vehemently, they might compel him, by importunity or fear, to fabricate some falsehood against Christ; Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go therefore to the great men; for they have known the way of the Lord, the judgment of their God; and behold, these have more broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds." That their intention was perverse, moreover, the Evangelist shows, saying "now it was the sabbath when he made the clay." He says this, so as to demonstrate their evil mind, and the cause on account of which they were seeking him; namely, that they might find an occasion against him, and detract from the miracle through an alleged transgression of the law; although nevertheless, in Matthew 12:8, it is said that "the Lord is Son of Man, even of the sabbath."

The examination, moreover, is made by the Pharisees, when it says "again therefore the Pharisees questioned him," etc., and first they question concerning the fact; second concerning the person of the one who did it, where it says "some of the Pharisees therefore said." Concerning the first he does two things. First their questioning is set down; second the response of the blind man. They question him, moreover, concerning the matter of the vision obtained: whence "again the Pharisees questioned him," etc.: not that they might know, but that they might bring an accusation and impose a falsehood. The blind man answered, however, neither with words contrary to, nor discordant with, the truth. Whence "he," namely the blind man, "said to them: he put clay upon my eyes." Here first the constancy of the blind man is to be admired; for even though before the crowds, by whom he was questioned without danger, he had spoken the truth, this did not seem a great thing; but it is a matter of wondrous constancy that, placed in greater danger, namely before the Pharisees, he neither denies it nor says things contrary to what he said before, according to that word of Psalm 118:46: "I spoke of your testimonies in the sight of kings, and I was not confounded." Second his skillfulness is to be admired; for he keeps the manner of those who recount, who first relate diffusely and with all the circumstances; and if it should have to be related a second time, they speak more concisely. Whence he neither expressed the name of the one speaking, nor "because": "he said to me: go and wash," but immediately touching only the substance of the fact, he says "he made clay."

Consequently, when it is added "some of the Pharisees therefore said," etc., inquiry is made concerning the person of the one illumining, and first the diverse opinions of the Pharisees concerning Christ are set down; second the opinion of the blind man is sought out, where it says "they say to the blind man again." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the opinion of those blaspheming Christ; second the opinion of those commending him; and third he concludes that among them there was schism and dissension. Concerning the first it should be known that those who maliciously act against someone are silent, if they see anything good in his deed; and they make manifest whatever evils appear, even converting good into evil; according to that word of Ecclesiasticus 11:33: "one lying in wait turns good things into evil, and in the chosen he will lay a stain." This is what these men do also; for that which seemed good, namely the illumination of the blind man, they pass over in silence, while what could be against Christ, namely the breaking of the sabbath, they make manifest. Whence "some of the Pharisees said," namely the malicious and depraved, "this man is not from God, who does not keep the sabbath"; although nevertheless Christ did keep the sabbath. For the Lord, in forbidding work on the sabbath, intended servile work, which is sin; above, 8:34: "he who commits sin is the servant of sin." Therefore he who does works of sin on the sabbath breaks the sabbath. Christ, therefore, who was without sin, kept the sabbath rather than they did. The opinion of those commending him, moreover, is set down, when it adds "how can a man who is a sinner do these signs?" These men had indeed conceived some faith from the signs, and were disposed imperfectly and weakly; because out of fear of the Pharisees and the rulers, they propose it as though under doubt, saying "how can a man who is a sinner do these signs?" Further on, 12:42, it is said that "many of the rulers believed in him, but on account of the Pharisees they did not confess it." Yet they ought rather to have shown how he did not break the sabbath, and to have answered fittingly on behalf of Jesus. The dissension, moreover, he concludes to have been among them, saying "and there was a schism among them": namely, which had also been among the people; and this was a sign of their ruin; Hosea 10:2: "their heart is divided, now they shall perish"; Matthew 12:25: "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate."

Consequently they seek the opinion from the blind man, and say "you, what do you say of him who opened your eyes?" And first the questioning of the Pharisees is set down; second the response of the blind man. They question, indeed, when they say "you, what do you say of him?" This questioning, indeed, according to Chrysostom, is not that of those who were blaspheming Christ, but of those who were commending him. And this appears from the manner of questioning. Whence they remind him of the benefit received, saying "you, what do you say of him who opened your eyes?" Otherwise, if the others had questioned him, they would not have said this, but rather, "him who broke the sabbath." They call to mind the benefit, therefore, so that, making him grateful, they might induce him to the preaching of Christ. According to Augustine, however, it is the questioning of adversaries, wishing to accuse falsely the man who was constantly confessing the truth, either that out of fear he might change his opinion, or at least that they might cast him out of the synagogue. The constant response of the blind man, moreover, is set down: whence it adds "but he said: he is a prophet." For although as yet, as one only anointed in the heart, he did not yet confess the Son of God, he nevertheless constantly expressed what he perceived, yet he did not lie. For the Lord himself said of himself, Mark 6:4 and Matthew 13:57: "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country"; Deuteronomy 18:15: "God will raise up a prophet for you, him you shall hear."

Consequently, when it says "the Jews therefore did not believe concerning him," there is treated the inquiry from the parents, and first the cause of the inquiry is set down; second the questioning is added, where it says "and they asked"; third the response is applied, where it says "they answered them therefore"; fourth the reason for the response is assigned, where it says "his parents said this." The cause of the second inquiry, moreover, was the unbelief of the Pharisees. And this is what it says: "they did not believe therefore concerning him," namely the Pharisees, that he had been born blind, and had seen, until they called his parents, namely of the blind man, who had seen. This indeed they do, wishing to annul the miracle of Christ, lest they lose their own glory; above, 5:44: "how can you believe, who receive glory from one another?"

The inquiry, moreover, is set down as made by the Pharisees to the parents: where they propose three things. First concerning the person of the son, saying "is this your son?" As if they were saying: is this indeed he? Second concerning his blindness: whence they add "whom you say was born blind?" They do not say, who was at some time blind, but "whom you say"; as if they were saying: this you have fabricated. Is this indeed true? But, O defiled ones. What father would choose to lie thus about his son? For by this they attempt to lead them to a denial. Third they ask concerning the manner of the vision obtained, saying "how then does he now see?" As if they were saying: either this is false, that he now sees, or the first thing was false, that he had been blind; but it is agreed that this is true, that he sees: false, therefore, was it that they used to say he was blind; Ecclesiasticus 13:14: "for by much talk he will tempt you, and smiling he will question you about your secrets."

The response of the parents is consequently set down, when it says "his parents answered them," etc. Concerning three things, moreover, had the Pharisees questioned; but concerning two they answer constantly, and concerning the third they refer it to the son. First indeed they confess the first point, namely that he is their son: whence they say "we know that this is our son." Likewise they confess the second, when they add "and that he was born blind." In which it is clear that truth always conquers falsehood. Whence in the apocryphal books of Esdras it is said that "truth conquers above all things." The third, however, namely how he now sees, they say "but how he now sees, we do not know."

Second, concerning the person of the one illumining, they add "or who opened his eyes, we do not know." This they say because the inquiry was being made against the person of the one illumining. And therefore they refer it to the son, saying "ask him: he has age, let him speak for himself"; as if they were saying: although we begot him blind, yet not mute; whence he can speak for himself in the matter. This indeed was done by dispensation, so that, while the parents confess what they know, and the blind man, who was cured, confirms it, the truth of the miracle might appear the more. The reason for the response, moreover, is set down, when it adds "his parents said this," because they feared the Jews: for as yet they were imperfect, nor did they dare to fulfill what the Lord says, Matthew 10:28: "do not fear those who kill the body." The cause of their fear, moreover, was that already the Jews had conspired, that if anyone should confess him to be the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Below, 16:1: "these things I have spoken to you, that you may not be scandalized: they will put you out of the synagogues." And, as Augustine says, it was now no longer an evil to be put out of the synagogue: for those whom they rejected, Christ received.

Having above set forth the investigation of the matter, namely by the blind man and his parents, here they urge him to deny the truth and to bring forward falsehood; and first they urge the denial of the truth; second, they inflict a curse; third, they bring in condemnation. The second is at "they cursed him therefore"; the third at "they answered and said to him: thou wast wholly born in sins." Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows how they urge him to deny the truth; second, how they question him again, that they may bring in a calumny, at "they said to him therefore: what did he do to thee?" Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth their malice; second, the blind man's constancy, at "he said therefore." The malice of the Pharisees is shown in their urging him to deny the truth. The blind man's constancy appears in his firm confession of the truth.

He says therefore, as to the first, "they called again therefore" — namely the Pharisees — "the man who had been blind": for the parents, when questioned, had sent them back to the blind man, and had said to him, "give glory to God." They say one thing but intend another. For they intend to force him to say that he had not been given sight by Christ, or, if they cannot obtain this, at least that he confess that he had been cured by some sorcery. Yet they do not say this openly, but covertly, and under the pretext of religion. For to this end they wish to induce him, saying "give glory to God"; as if they said: thou hast been given sight, but this is from none but God: therefore attribute this to none other than God, and not to this man, namely Christ, because if thou dost so, thou showest that thou hast not received the benefit of thy cure from God, since God does not work miracles through sinners. Hence they add, "we know that this man is a sinner"; as if they said: confess that this man has done nothing, deny what thou hast received. But, as Augustine says, if he had done this, he would not have given glory to God, but rather, being ungrateful, would have blasphemed. But truly the pen of the Pharisees spoke a lie in saying, "we know that this man is a sinner"; for above, John 8:46, they were not able to convict him of sin, when he said, "Which of you shall convict me of sin?" Nor is this to be wondered at, since it is said in 1 Peter 2:22: "He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."

Here the blind man's constancy is set forth: for, indignant at the hardness of the Pharisees, and impatient at their words, he says, with an assertion of the truth, "if he be a sinner, I know not." But since he had said above that he is a prophet, does he now, as it were doubting out of fear, say "if he be a sinner, I know not"? By no means; rather he speaks as one indignant, mocking the Pharisees. As if he said: you assert that he is a sinner; but I do not know this, that he is a sinner, and I marvel that you assert this, since he has done a work which does not seem to be that of a sinner, because whereas I was blind, now I see, by his benefit. According to Augustine, he says this so that he might neither suffer calumny nor conceal the truth. For perhaps, if he had said, "I know that he is just," which was true, they would have brought calumny against him. But according to Chrysostom, he said this in order to give them a greater testimony, namely of the miraculous work itself, and to make his own answer worthy of belief, coming from one who had received the benefit.

Here they question him again, in order to bring in a calumny; and first the deceitful questioning of the Pharisees is set forth; second, the derision of the blind man in reply, at "he answered them," etc. He says therefore, as to the first, "they said to him therefore: what did he do to thee?" For since the blind man had confessed that he had received sight from Christ — which was not what they were seeking — they intended rather, in respect of the very manner of doing it, to bring in a calumny against Christ. Therefore they do not say, "how didst thou see?" but "how did he open thine eyes?" As if they said: did he perhaps do this by some trick or sorcery? According to Psalm 37:13: "they that sought evils to me spoke vain things, and studied deceits all the day long."

Here the answer is given: for since the blind man had, as it were, now seen, he therefore speaks to them concerning the rest not remissly but boldly. Hence first he mocks the Pharisees' repeated questioning, saying, "I have told you already, and you have heard: why would you hear it again?" As if he said: since I have already told you once, why do you wish to hear it again? For this is the mark of a foolish man. For it seems that you do not attend to what is said. Hence there is no need to answer you further, who question in vain, and who wish rather to quibble than to learn; Ecclesiasticus 22:9: "he that telleth a wise word to a fool, speaketh to one that is asleep; and at the end of the discourse he saith: Who is this?"

Second, he derides the presumptuous intention of the Pharisees, saying, "do you also wish to become his disciples?" For when someone inquires diligently, he does so either with a good intention, namely that he may cleave to him, or with an evil one, that he may condemn him. Since, therefore, these men were inquiring diligently, and the blind man did not dare to impute to them that they were inquiring with an evil intention, he turns to the other side, saying, "do you also wish to become his disciples?" As if he said: if you are not inquiring with malice, then you wish to cleave to him; Jeremiah 13:23: "if the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots; you also may be able to do well." And, as Augustine says, he who had been given light gladly wished to give light to these men. Hence he pointedly says "you also," as it were hinting that he himself is a disciple; as if he said: do you also wish, as I too am, to become his disciples? I already see, I do not begrudge you your illumination. And, as Chrysostom says, from this constancy of the blind man it appears how strong a thing truth is, which, if it takes hold of the despised, makes them illustrious and strong; and how feeble a thing falsehood is, which, even if it be with the strong, shows them to be feeble and renders them so.

Here a curse is inflicted upon the blind man by the Pharisees; and first the Pharisees' curse against the blind man is set forth; second, the blind man's refutation of the Pharisees, at "he answered." Concerning the first he does two things. First the Pharisees' curse is set forth; second, the occasion of the curse, at "but we are the disciples of Moses." He says therefore, as to the first: "they cursed him" — namely the Pharisees cursed the blind man — "and said: be thou his disciple." This indeed is a curse, if you examine their wicked heart, but not if you weigh the words; rather it is the highest blessing. And let such a curse be upon us and upon our children; above, John 8:31: "you shall be my disciples indeed, if you continue in my word." Yet the Evangelist said "they cursed," because it proceeded from their evil heart; Proverbs 26:23: "as if thou wouldst adorn an earthen vessel with base silver, so are swelling lips joined with a most wicked heart." And of this curse it is said in Psalm 108:28: "they will curse, and thou wilt bless"; and Matthew 5:11: "blessed shall you be when they shall curse you," etc.

He subjoins next the cause of the curse when he says, "but we are the disciples of Moses." For they reckoned it a curse that the blind man had told them that they would become disciples of Christ, since they themselves gloried in being disciples of Moses, whom they reckoned the greater. And so first they set forth their own condition, saying, "but we are the disciples of Moses"; Ecclesiasticus 24:33: "Moses commanded a law in the firstfruits of justices," etc. But their glorying is false, for they neither followed him nor fulfilled his precepts; above, John 5:46: "if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also"; as if he said: you do not even follow the servant, and yet you set yourselves down against the master.

Second, they extol the dignity of Moses, when they say, "we know that God spoke to Moses." In this they speak truly, for, as is said in Exodus 33:11, "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend"; and in Numbers 12:6 the Lord says: "if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream. But it is not so with my servant Moses, who is most faithful in all my house: for I speak to him mouth to mouth." Hence he spoke with him in a more excellent manner than with the other prophets. And it is of this speaking that they themselves here speak. Now it is clear that, since God spoke his Word to Moses, the dignity of Moses is from the Word of God. And thus the Word is of greater dignity than Moses; Hebrews 3:3: "this man," namely Christ, "was counted worthy of greater glory than Moses, by so much as he that hath built the house hath greater honor than the house."

Third, they unwittingly insinuate the dignity of Christ, when he says, "but as to this man," namely Christ, "we know not whence he is": which indeed is true, though not according to their intention. For they did not know the Father, whence Christ was; above, John 8:19: "you neither know me, nor my Father." But it is false as regards their intention. For they said, "but as to this man, we know not whence he is"; as if they said: he is of no authority, and, as it were, apocryphal, such that it is not established of him whether he came from God; by which they seemed to impute to him that saying of Jeremiah 23:21: "I did not send them, and they ran."

Here is set forth the blind man's argument against the Pharisees; and first he marvels at their hardness; second, he refutes their falsehood, at "now we know that God doth not hear sinners." It is to be known, concerning the first, that we do not marvel at those things which happen frequently and in the common way, but we marvel at things unusual and arduous, whether they be good or evil. For we marvel at unusual and arduous goods, according to that saying of Esther 15:17: "for thou art greatly to be wondered at, lord, and thy face is full of graces." We also marvel at arduous evils, according to that saying of Jeremiah 2:12: "be astonished, O ye heavens, at this... for my people have done two evils." According to this, then, the blind man, answering, said to them, "in this it is a marvelous thing that you know not whence he is"; as if he said: if you did not reckon some small man similar to us to be of any authority, it would not be a matter for wonder; but since you see an express and evident sign of divine power in Christ, and you say that you know not whence he is, it is a very marvelous thing, especially since he opened my eyes.

He refutes their falsehood, saying, "now we know that God doth not hear sinners." He uses an argument of this form: whomever God hears is from God; but God has heard Christ; therefore he is from God. First, then, he sets forth the major premise; second, he assumes the minor, at "from the beginning of the world it hath not been heard," etc.; and third, he draws the conclusion, at "if this man were not from God, he could not do anything." Concerning the first he does two things. First he suggests whom God does not hear; second, he shows whom God does hear, at "but if a man be a server of God... him he heareth."

Now God does not hear sinners; and as to this he says, "we know that God doth not hear sinners," as if he said: in this opinion I and you agree, that sinners are not heard by God. Hence in Psalm 17:42: "they cried to the Lord, and he heard them not"; Proverbs 1:28: "then shall they call upon me, and I will not hear." But on the other hand: 2 Chronicles 6:36: "if they sin against thee — for there is no man that sinneth not — ... and they return to thee with their whole heart... let thy eyes, I beseech thee, be opened, and let thy ears be attentive to the prayer that is made in this place." Of the publican it is said in Luke 18:14 that he "went down into his house justified." And on account of this Augustine says that this blind man still speaks as one but newly anointed, not yet knowing perfectly. For God does hear sinners too; otherwise the publican would in vain have said, "Lord God, be merciful to me a sinner." But if we wish to save the blind man's statement, it must be said that God did not hear sinners persisting in their sins; yet he did hear sinners repenting of their sins, who are rather to be counted in the number of the penitent than of sinners.

But a doubt arises. For it is clear that miracles are not worked by men by their own power, but through prayer. Yet sinners frequently work miracles, according to that saying of Matthew 7:22: "have we not prophesied in thy name... and wrought many miracles?" And yet God did not know them. It does not seem true, then, what the blind man says, "we know that God doth not hear sinners." To this there is a twofold response. One is common. For prayer has two effects, namely that it obtains, and that it merits: sometimes, then, it obtains, and does not merit; sometimes it merits, and does not obtain. And thus nothing prevents the prayer of a sinner from obtaining what it asks, without its meriting it. In this way, then, God hears sinners, not by way of merit, but insofar as, by the divine power which they proclaim, they obtain what they ask.

The other response is special, applying to this case in which he was speaking, namely when a miracle worked made known the person of Christ. Now it is to be known that every miracle worked is a kind of testimony. Sometimes, then, a miracle is worked in testimony of the truth preached; sometimes, however, in testimony of the person of the one working it. But it is to be noted that no true miracle is worked except by divine power, and that God is never a witness to a lie. I say, therefore, that whenever a miracle is worked in testimony of the doctrine preached, it is necessary that that doctrine be true, even if the person preaching it is not good. But when it is also worked in testimony of the person, it is likewise necessary that that person be good. Now it is clear that the miracles of Christ were worked in testimony of his person; above, John 5:36: "the works which the Father hath given me to perfect, the same works... give testimony of me." In this way of speaking, then, the blind man said that God never hears sinners, that is, that they work miracles attesting to the holiness of sinners.

Next, when he says, "but if a man be a server of God... him he heareth," he shows that the just are heard by God, and by way of merit as well. Here it is to be known that the working of miracles is attributed to faith; Matthew 21:21: "if you shall say to this mountain, take up and cast thyself into the sea, it shall be done." The reason for this is that miracles are worked by the omnipotence of God, on which faith rests: he, therefore, who wishes to obtain something from God must have faith; James 1:6: "but let him ask in faith." But if he wishes to obtain by meriting, it is necessary that he do the will of God. And these two things are set down here. As to the first he says, "but if a man be a server of God," through sacrifices and victims; Isaiah 19:21: "they shall worship him with sacrifices," etc.; for in these consists the worship of latria, which attests to faith. As to the second he says, "and doth his will," by fulfilling his command, "him he heareth" — understand, God does.

Here he assumes the minor of his argument; as if he said: from his very work, which no man has yet done, it is manifest that he did this by the working of God, and that he was heard by God; below, John 15:24: "if I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." Here he draws the conclusion; as if he said: since he works such works, it is manifest that he is from God. For, "unless this man were from God, he could not do anything" — namely, freely, steadfastly, and truthfully — since, as is said below, John 15:5: "without me you can do nothing."

Here the Pharisees condemn the blind man. In this condemnation they fall into a threefold defect or sin, namely of lying, of pride, and of injustice. Of lying, indeed, in reproaching him with his blindness; hence they say, "thou wast wholly born in sins." Here it is to be known that the Jews held this opinion, that all bodily infirmities and temporal adversities came upon men on account of their preceding sins; which opinion indeed Eliphaz asserts, saying in Job 4:7: "remember, I pray thee, who ever perished being innocent? or when were the just destroyed? Rather have I seen those who work iniquity and sow deceits, and reap them, God blowing upon them, perish."

The reason for this opinion indeed is that, in the Old Law, temporal rewards were promised for good deeds, and temporal punishments for evil ones; Isaiah 1:19: "if you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land." Seeing, therefore, that this man had been born blind, they believed that this had happened to him on account of his sins; and so they say, "thou wast wholly born in sins." But they speak falsely, for above, in the same chapter, the Lord says, "neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents"; Ecclesiasticus 19:28: "there is a correction that is false, in the anger of an injurious man." They add, moreover, "wholly," in order to show that he is not only stained with sins as to his soul, according to the manner in which all are born sinners, but also that the traces of sins appear in his body through his blindness. Or, according to Chrysostom, "wholly," that is, for the whole time of thy life, and from thy earliest age thou hast been in sins.

They fall, moreover, into the defect of pride, by despising the blind man's teaching, when they say, "dost thou teach us?" As if they said: thou art not worthy. In which their pride appears: for no man, however wise, ought to reject teaching from anyone, however small; hence the Apostle teaches, 1 Corinthians 14:30, that if something be revealed to a lesser one, then the greater ought to be silent and hear him. In Daniel 13:60 it is said that the whole people and the elders heard the judgment of a younger boy, namely Daniel, whose spirit the Lord had stirred up. They fall, moreover, into the defect of injustice, by unjustly casting him out; hence it is said that "they cast him out," namely on account of his confession of the truth. In the blind man, indeed, is already fulfilled what the Lord had said, Luke 6:22: "blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake."

After the Evangelist showed how the Jews cast out the blind man who persisted in the truth, here he shows how Jesus received him and instructed him. And first Christ's instruction is set forth; second, the blind man's devotion, at the words "And he said: I believe, Lord"; third, the commendation of his devotion, at the words "Jesus said to him: For judgment I have come into this world."

Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth Christ's zeal to instruct; second, the blind man's desire to believe, at the words "He answered and said: Who is he, Lord?"; third, the teaching of faith to bring it to completion, at the words "Jesus said to him: You have both seen him."

Now Christ's zeal to instruct is described from three things. First, from his diligent consideration of the things that were being done concerning the blind man. For just as a prince diligently considers the things which his athlete suffers on his behalf, so too Christ diligently attended to the things which the blind man was suffering for the truth and for the confession of him. And therefore he says that Jesus heard — that is, diligently attended — that the Pharisees had cast him out, namely, out of the temple; Jeremiah 18:19: "Attend, O Lord, to me, and to the voices of my adversaries."

Second, from his diligent seeking; hence he adds: "And when he had found him, he said to him," and so on. For that is said to be found which is diligently sought; Luke 15:8: "She seeks diligently until she finds it." From which it appears that Christ sought him alone, because in him alone he found more of faith than in all the others. Hence it is gathered that one just man is loved more by God than ten thousand sinners; Isaiah 13:12: "A man shall be more precious than gold, and man than the purest gold." And in Genesis 17, the Lord was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of ten just men.

Third, from his earnest questioning; hence he said to him: "Do you believe in the Son of God?" This blind man bore the type of those about to be baptized. Hence too the custom grew up in the Church that those about to be baptized are questioned concerning the faith; 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism... saves us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience toward God." Now in questioning about faith he does not say, "Do you believe in Christ?" but "in the Son of God"; because, as Hilary says, it was to come to pass that some would confess Christ, and yet deny that he was the Son of God and God — which Arius afterward devised. Hence by this his error is manifestly excluded. For if Christ were not God, one ought not to believe in him, since God alone is the object of faith, which rests in the first truth. Hence too he says pointedly, "in the Son": for I can indeed believe some creature, for instance Peter and Paul; yet not believe in Peter, but in God alone as the object. Hence it is clear that the Son of God is not a creature; John 14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in me."

Here the blind man's desire to believe is set down. Now it must be known concerning this, that this blind man had not yet seen Christ bodily: for when Christ anointed his eyes and sent him to the pool of Siloam, he had not yet seen him; and before he could return to him, after he had washed and seen, he was detained by the Pharisees and the Jews. But although he had not seen him bodily, he nevertheless believed that the one who had opened his eyes was the Son of God. And therefore he breaks out into the words of a soul desiring and earnestly inquiring, saying: "Who is he, Lord?" — namely, the Son of God who opened my eyes — "that I may believe in him?" From which it appears here that he knew him in part, and was ignorant of him in part. For if he had not known him, he would not have argued so constantly on his behalf; and if he had not been ignorant, he certainly would not have said, "Who is he, Lord?" Isaiah 26:9: "My soul has desired you in the night" — namely, of ignorance. But because, as is said in Wisdom 6:14: "she" — that is, wisdom — "anticipates those who desire her," therefore she shows herself to the blind man who desires her, when he says: "You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you" — in which is set down the teaching of faith, by which Christ instructs him.

And first he reminds him of the benefit he has received, saying "and you have seen him" — namely, bodily, you who before saw nothing. As if to say: from him you have received the power of seeing; Luke 10:23: "Blessed are the eyes that see the things which you see"; and Luke 2:29-30: "Now you dismiss your servant, Lord... for my eyes have seen your salvation." Second, the teaching is set down when he says: "and he who speaks with you, it is he"; Hebrews 1:2: "In these last days he has spoken to us in his Son." From these words, therefore, the error of Nestorius is refuted, who said that there is one supposit in Christ of the Son of God, and another of the son of man. For the one who was speaking was born of Mary, and was the son of man; and that very same one who speaks is the Son of God, as the Lord says. There is not, therefore, one and another, although the nature of each is not the same.

Consequently, when he says "And he said: I believe, Lord," the devotion of faith in the blind man is set down. And first, the faith which he believes with the heart, he confesses with the mouth, saying "I believe, Lord"; Romans 10:10: "With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Second, he professes it in deed; hence, falling down, he worshiped him — by which he shows that he believes in his divine nature, because with conscience cleansed he recognizes him to be not only the son of man, which appeared outwardly, but the Son of God, who had taken on flesh: for worship is owed to God alone; Deuteronomy 6:13: "You shall worship the Lord your God."

Consequently, when he says "And Jesus said to him," etc., the blind man's devotion is commended; and first the commendation of the blind man's devotion is set down; second, the murmuring of the Jews, at the words "Some of the Pharisees heard"; third, the refutation of those murmuring, at the words "Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you would not have sin."

Now the blind man is commended from the illumination of faith; hence he says: "For judgment I have come into this world." An objection: above, 3:17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world," and so on. I respond: there he speaks of the judgment of condemnation, of which it is said above, 5:29: "Those who have done evil shall go into the resurrection of judgment" — that is, of condemnation; unto which God did not send his Son in his first coming, but rather to save. But here he speaks of the judgment of discernment, of which it is said in Psalm 42:1: "Judge me, O God, and discern my cause," and so on. For he came for this, that he might discern the good from the evil; and the following words show this, namely: "that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind." For according to Augustine, those do not see who think themselves to see, while those who think themselves not to see, do see. Now men are called blind spiritually insofar as they have sins; Wisdom 2:21: "Their own malice has blinded them." He, therefore, thinks himself to see, who does not recognize his own sins; but he thinks himself not to see, who recognizes himself a sinner. The first is proper to the proud; the second, to the humble. The sense, therefore, is: "I have come for judgment, that those who do not see may see" — that I may discern the humble from the proud. For he was a day discerning between light and darkness, namely so that the humble — who do not see, that is, who think themselves sinners — may see, illumined through faith; and those who see, that is, the proud, may become blind, that is, may remain in darkness.

According to Chrysostom, it is expounded of the judgment of condemnation, yet in such a way that what he says, "For judgment I have come into this world," is not to be taken causally, but consequentially; as if he were to say: by my coming into the world, it has followed in certain persons that judgment of condemnation, insofar as in some the cause of condemnation grew greater. A like thing is said in Luke 2:34: "Behold, he is set for the fall and for the rising of many" — not that he himself is the cause of the fall, but because this follows from his coming. And it is added: "that those who do not see" — namely, the Gentiles, lacking the light of divine knowledge — "may see," that is, may be admitted to the knowledge of God; Isaiah 9:2: "The people that walked in darkness has seen a great light"; "and those who see" — namely, the Jews, having the knowledge of God, Psalm 75:2: "God is known in Judea" — "may become blind," that is, may fall away from that very knowledge of God. And this the Apostle expressly touches on, Romans 9:30: "The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have laid hold of righteousness."

Here the murmuring of the Jews is set down: for since they understood the Lord's words in a carnal manner, seeing the blind man bodily illumined, and understanding that the Lord was commending in him only the light of the face and not of the mind, they believed likewise that he was threatening them with bodily blindness, and reproaching them, when he said "may become blind"; and therefore he says that certain of the Pharisees who were with him heard the aforesaid words. Now he says "who were with him" in order to show their instability: because at times they are with him on account of certain miracles which they see, yet nevertheless they withdraw from him when the truth is opened to them; Luke 8:13: "They believe for a while, and in time of temptation they fall away." And they said to him: "Are we also blind?" — namely, bodily; although they were blind spiritually; Matthew 15:14: "Let them be: they are blind, and leaders of the blind."

Here the refutation of the Jews is set down; where, according to the exposition of Augustine, the intention of the preceding words is made manifest, namely so that it may be shown of which blindness the Lord speaks — that it is of the spiritual. He says, therefore: "If you were blind" — that is, if you accounted yourselves blind, recognizing through humility your sin — "you would not have sin," because you would run to the remedy. For sin is remitted through grace, which is given only to the humble; James 4:6: "But to the humble he gives grace." "But now you say, We see" — that is, proudly thinking yourselves to see, you do not recognize yourselves as sinners. "Your sin remains" — that is, is not remitted; James 4:6: "God resists the proud."

According to Chrysostom, it is expounded of bodily blindness, so that the sense is: "If you were blind" bodily, "you would not have sin" on account of your being blind, because, since it is a bodily defect, it does not have the character of sin. "But now, because you say, We see," your sin is the more convicted; because, seeing with your bodily eyes the miracles which I do, you do not believe me; Isaiah 6:10: "Blind the heart of this people." Or otherwise: "if you were blind," that is, ignorant of the judgments of God and of the sacraments of the law, "you would not have sin" — supply: to such a degree. As if to say: if you sinned out of ignorance, your sin would not be so grave. "But now, because you say, We see" — that is, you arrogate to yourselves the knowledge of the law and the knowledge of God, and yet you sin — therefore "your sin remains," that is, is aggravated; Luke 12:47: "The servant who knew the will of his lord, and did not act according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."