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.