Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.

“(Hom. lix. 1) For there is a twofold vision, and a twofold blindness; viz. that of sense, and that of the understanding. But they were intent only on sensible things, and were ashamed only of sensible blindness: wherefore He shews them that it would be better for them to be blind, than seeing so: If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; your punishment would be easier; But now ye say, We see.”

“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."”

“If ye were blind - If ye had not had sufficient opportunities to have acquainted yourselves with my Divine nature, by the unparalleled miracles which I have wrought before you? and the holy doctrine which I have preached, then your rejecting me could not be imputed to you as sin; but because ye say, we see - we are perfectly capable of judging between a true and false prophet, and can from the Scriptures point out the Messiah by his works - on this account you are guilty, and your sin is of no common nature, it remaineth, i.e. it shall not be expiated: as ye have rejected the Lord from being your deliverer, so the Lord has rejected you from being his people. When the Scripture speaks of sin remaining, it is always put in opposition to pardon; for pardon is termed the taking away of sin, Joh 1:29; Psa 32:5. And this is the proper import of the phrase, αφεσις των ἁμαρτιων, which occurs so frequently in the sacred writings. 1. The history of the man who was born blind and cured by our Lord is, in every point of view, instructive. His simplicity, his courage, his constancy, and his gratitude are all so many subjects worthy of attention and emulation. He certainly confessed the truth at the most imminent risk of his life; and therefore, as Stephen was the first martyr for Christianity, this man was the first confessor. The power and influence of Truth, in supporting its friends and confounding its adversaries, are well exemplified in him; and not less so, that providence of God by which he was preserved from the malice of these bad men. The whole story is related with inimitable simplicity, and cannot be read by the most cold-hearted without extorting the exclamation, How forcible are right words? 2. It has already been remarked that, since the world began, there is no evidence that any man born blind was ever restored to sight by surgical means, till the days of Mr. Cheselden, who was a celebrated surgeon at St. Thomas's Hospital, London. For though, even before the Christian era, there is reason to believe that both the Greek and Roman physicians performed operations to remove blindness occasioned by the cataract, yet we know of none of these ever attempted on the eyes of those who had been born blind, much less of any such persons being restored to sight. The cure before us must have been wholly miraculous - no appropriate means were used to effect it. What was done had rather a tendency to prevent and destroy sight than to help or restore it. The blindness in question was probably occasioned by a morbid structure of the organs of sight; and our Lord, by his sovereign power, instantaneously restored them to perfect soundness, without the intervention of any healing process. In this case there could be neither deception nor collusion.”

“If ye were blind--wanted light to discern My claims, and only waited to receive it. ye should have no sin--none of the guilt of shutting out the light. ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth--Your claim to possess light, while rejecting Me, is that which seals you up in the guilt of unbelief. Next: John Chapter 10”