Mercurial > hg > Aquinas

<html>
<head>
<title>Aquinas: John, Ch. 9</title>
</head>
<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote>
<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">9</span>
<p align=center><B>LECTURE I</B>
<BLOCKQUOTE><p>1 As he passed by, he saw a
man blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned,
this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was not
that this man sinned, or his parent, but that the works of God might be made
manifest in him. 4 We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day;
night comes, when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the
light of the world." 6 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of
the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay, 7 saying to him, "Go,
wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came
back seeing.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><b>[1]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>

<p>1293 After showing the
enlightening power of his teaching by his own words [cf. 1 118], our Lord
confirms this by his action, when he gives sight to one physically blind. In
regard to this three things are presented: first, the man's infirmity;
secondly, his healing (v 6); thirdly, a discussion among the Jews about this
health (v 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, the man's
infirmity is mentioned; secondly, we see an inquiry about its cause (v 2).

<p>1294 It should be noted in
regard to the first that Jesus hid himself and left the temple, and while
passing by he saw this blind man, as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his
birth. Three things are considered here. First, he passed by to avoid the anger
of the Jews: "Do not kindle the coals of a sinner lest you be burned in his
flaming fire" (Sir 8:10). Secondly, he wanted to try and soften their hardness
of heart by working a miracle: "If I had not done among them the works which no
one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24). Thirdly, he went on his way in
order to confirm his words by working a sign; for our Lord's works produce
faith in the things that he says: "He confirmed the message by the sign that
attended it" (Mk 16:20).

<p>In
the mystical sense, according to Augustine, this blind man is the human race.<a
href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>
Sin is a spiritual blindness: "Their wickedness blinded them" (Wis 2:21). The human race is blind from birth, because it contracted sin from his its
origin, for the blindness occurs through sin in the first man, from whom all of
us draw our origin. We read, "We were by nature," by natural origin, "children
of wrath" (Eph 2:3).

<p>1295 Then (v2), the cause of
this man's infirmity is discussed: first, the disciples ask about its cause;
secondly, Christ explains it.

<p>1296 In regard to the first,
three things are to be considered. The first is the reason for the disciples
questioning Christ. According to Chrysostom, this was because Jesus, leaving
the temple and seeing this blind man, looked at him intently, as though seeing
in him an opportunity to manifest his power. And so the disciples seeing him
look so intently at the blind man were impelled to question him.<a href="#_ftn3"
name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>

<p>Secondly,
we see the seriousness of the disciples, because they say, <b>Rabbi</b>,
calling him Teacher, to indicate that they are questioning him in order to
learn. Thirdly, we see why they asked, <b>who sinned?</b> when they inquire
into the reason for the man's blindness.

<p>It
must be said, according to Chrysostom, that because the Lord said to the
paralytic, when he healed him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing
worse befall you," the disciples thought that his infirmity was due to sin.<a
href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>
They also thought that every human illness arose from sin, as Eliphaz said:
"Think now, who that was innocent ever perished?" (Jb 4:7). Therefore, they
asked whether he had been born blind on account of his own sin or that of his
parents. It does not seem to have been on account of his own sin, because no
one sins before he is born, since souls do not exist before their bodies, nor
do they sin, as some mistakenly think: "Though they were not yet born and had
done nothing, either good or bad … not because of works but because of his
call, she was told 'The elder will served the younger'" (Rom 9:11). Nor does it
seem that he suffered on account of a sin of his parents, for we read: "The
fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be
put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16).

<p>Note
that people are punished with two kinds of punishment. One is spiritual and
concerns the soul; the other is bodily and concerns the body. A child is never
punished on account of his father with a spiritual punishment, because the soul
of a child is not from his father but from God: "All souls are mine," that is,
by creation, "the soul of the father as well as the soul of the child is mine:
the soul that sins shall be punished" [Ez 18:4]. Augustine also says this in
one of his letters.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a>
But a child is punished on account of his father with a bodily punishment,
since he is of his father as far as his body is concerned. This is expressly
shown in Genesis (c 19) where when Sodom was destroyed the children of the
inhabitants of Sodom were killed on account of the sins of their parents.
Again, the Lord very often threatened to destroy the children of the Jews on
account of the sins of their parents.

<p>1297 To understand why one
person is punished on account of the sins of another, we must realize that a
punishment has two aspects: it is an injury and a remedy. Sometimes a part of
the body is cut off to save the entire body. And a punishment of this kind
causes an injury insofar as a part is cut off, but it is a remedy insofar as it
saves the body itself. Still, a doctor never cuts off a superior member to save
one which is inferior, but the other way around. Now in human matters, the soul
is superior to the body, and the body is superior to external possessions. And
so it never happens that someone is punished in his soul for the sake of his
body, but rather he is punished in his body as a curing remedy for his soul.
Therefore, God sometimes imposes physical punishments, or difficulties in
external concerns, as a beneficial remedy for the soul. And then punishments of
this kind are not given just as injuries, but as healing remedies. Thus, the
killing of the children of Sodom was for the good of their souls: not because
they deserved it, but so they would not be punished more severely for
increasing their sins in a life spent in imitating their parents. And in this
way some are often punished for the sins of their parents.<a href="#_ftn6"
name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>

<p>1298 Then when he says, <b>Jesus
answered</b>, our Lord reveals the reason for the man's infirmity: first, he
excludes the reason they assumed; secondly, he mentions the real reason; and
thirdly, he explains it.

<p>1299 He excludes the reason
they assumed when he says, <b>it was not that this man sinned, or his parents</b>:
for the disciples had assumed that this was the reason for his infirmity, as
was said. But a contrary statement is found in Romans [3:23]: "All have sinned
and are in need of God's glory." And again we read that sin has passed into all
men from Adam. I answer to this that both the blind man and his parents did
contract original sin and even added other actual sins during their live, for
we read: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
in us" (1 Jn 1:8). But when the Lord says, <b>it was not that this man sinned,
or his parents</b>, he means that his blindness did not come as a result of
their sins.

<p>1300 He mentions the real
reason when he says, <b>but that the works of God might be made manifest in him</b>,
for through the works of God we are led to a knowledge of him: "his invisible
nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom
1:20); "The very works which my Father has given me to perform…they bear
witness to me" (5:36). But the knowledge of God is man's greatest good, since
his happiness consists in this: "This is eternal life, that they know thee the
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (17:3); "Let him who
glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me" (Jer 9:24). If,
therefore, an infirmity occurs in order that God's works be manifested, and God
is made known through this manifestation, it is clear that such bodily
infirmities occur for a good purpose.

<p>1301 It might seem that the
manifestation of God's works is not a sufficient reason for such an infirmity,
especially since neither he nor his parents sinned. Therefore, some say that
the words <b>but that </b>do not indicate the reason but merely the sequence of
events. The sense then being: the man was blind, and the works of God were
manifested in his cure. But this does not seem to be reasonable; and so it is
better to say that the reason is being given. For evil is twofold: the evil of
fault and the evil of punishment. Now God does not cause the evil of fault, but
permits it; yet he would not permit it unless he intended some good from it. So
Augustine says in his <i>Enchiridion</i>: "God is so good that he would never
permit any evil to occur, unless he was so powerful as to draw some good from
every evil."<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a>
Therefore, he allows certain sins to be committed because he intends some good;
in this way, he allows the rage of tyrants so that martyrs may be crowned. Much
more, therefore, should it be said that the evil of punishment, which he causes
- as Amos (3:6) says: "Does evil befall a city, unless the Lord has done it?" -
is never applied except for the good he intends. And among these goods the best
is that the works of God be manifested, and from them that God be known.
Therefore, it is not unfitting if he sends afflictions or allows sins to be
committed in order that some good come from them.<a href="#_ftn8"
name="_ftnref8">[8]</a>

<p>1302 It should be noted, as
Gregory says in <i>I Morals</i>, that God sends afflictions to men in five
ways.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a>
Sometimes they are the beginning of damnation, according to Jeremiah: "Strike
them with a double punishment." A sinner is struck with this kind of punishment
in this life so that without interruption or end he might be punished in the
other life. For example, Herod, who killed James, was punished in this life and
also in hell (Acts 12:23). Sometimes afflictions are sent as a correction, as
we read: "Your discipline will teach me" [Ps 17:36]. And sometimes a person is
afflicted not to correct past wrongs, but to preserve him from future ones, as
we read of Paul: "And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations,
a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep
me from being too elated" (2 Cor 12:7). Again, sometimes it is done to
encourage virtue: as when a person's past sins are not being corrected, nor
future ones hindered, but he is led to a stronger love by knowing the power of
the one who unexpectedly delivered him from some difficulty: "Virtue is made
perfect in infirmity" [2 Cor 12:9]; "Patience has a perfect work" [Jas 1:4].
And finally, sometimes afflictions are sent to manifest the divine glory; thus
we read here, <b>that the works of God might be made manifest in him</b>.

<p>1303 Next he explains the
true reason. And because he had mentioned God's works, first he states the
opportunity for manifesting God's works; secondly, the reason for this
opportunity or need, <b>night comes</b>; and thirdly, he explains this (v 5).

<p>1304 He says, therefore, this
man was born blind <b>that the works of God might be made manifest in him</b>.
And it was necessary that they be manifested, for <b>we must work the works of
him who sent me</b>, that is, the works entrusted to me by my Father: "I have
come to do the will of him who sent me" (6:38). And below he says: "Father, I
have accomplished the work you gave me to do" (17:4). Or, these words can refer
to Christ insofar as he is God; and then they indicate the equality of his
power with that of the Father. Then the meaning is, <b>we must work the works
of him who sent me</b>, that is, the works which I have from the Father. For
everything that the Son does, even according to his divine nature, he has from
his Father: "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees
the Father doing" (5:19).

<p>1305 I say we must work <b>while
it is day</b>. Our natural day is produced by the presence of the sun to the
earth. But the Sun of Justice or Righteousness is Christ, our God: "But for you
who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall rise" (Mal 4:2). Therefore, as
long as this Sun is present to us, the works of God can be done in us, for us,
and by us. At one time this Sun was physically present to us; and then it was
day: "This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in
it" (Ps 118:24). Therefore, it was fitting to do the works of God. He is also
present us by grace; and then it is the day of grace, when it is fitting to do
the works of God, <b>while it is day</b>; "The night is far gone, the day is at
hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light"
(Rom 13:12); "Those who sleep, sleep at night" (1 Thess 5:7).

<p>1306 If the presence of the
sun produces day, and its absence night, then, since the sun is always present
to itself, it is always day for the sun; and so for the sun, it is always the
time for acting and illuminating. But with regard to ourselves, to whom it is
sometimes present and at other times absent, it is not always acting and
illuminating. In the same way for Christ, the Sun of Justice, it is always day
and the time for acting; but not with respect to us, because we are not always
able to receive his grace due to some obstacle on our part.

<p>1307 He mentions why this is
our opportunity when he says, <b>night comes, when no one can work</b>. Just as
there are two kinds of day, so there are two kinds of night. One is by the
physical departure of the Sun of Justice, which is what the Apostles
experienced when they were demoralized at the time of the passion, when Christ
was physically taken from them: "you will all fall away because of me this
night" (Mt 26:31). Then it was not the time for acting, but for suffering.

<p>But
it is better to say that even when Christ was physically absent because of his
ascension, it was still day for the Apostles insofar as the Sun of Justice
shone on them, and it was a time for working. And so night in this passage
refers to that night which comes from the spiritual separation from the Sun of
Justice, that is, by the separation from grace. This night is of two kinds. One
is by the loss of actual grace through mortal sin: "Those who sleep, sleep at
night" (1 Thess 5:7). When this night comes, no one can perform works that
merit eternal life. The other night is total, when one is deprived not only of
actual grace by mortal sin, but even of the ability of obtaining grace because
of an eternal damnation in hell. Here there is a vast night for those to whom
it will be said: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire" (Mt
24:41). During this night no one can work, because it is not the time for
meriting, but for receiving according to one's merits. Therefore, while you are
living, do now what you will want to have done then: "Whatever your hand finds
to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought of knowledge or
wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going" (Eccl 9:10).

<p>1308 He gives the reason for
what he has just said, saying, <b>as long as I am in the world, I am the light
of the world</b>. This is like saying: If you want to know what is that day and
what is that night of which I speak, I say that <b>I am the light of the world</b>,
for my presence makes day, and my absence night; "I am the light of the world"
(8:12). <b>As long as I am in the world</b> by my bodily presence - "I came
forth from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the
world and going to the Father" (16:28) - <b>I am the light of the world</b>.
And thus this day lasted until the ascension of Christ. Or again, <b>as long as
I am in</b> <b>the world </b>spiritually by grace - "I am with you until the
consummation of the world" [Mt 28:20] - <b>I am the light of the world</b>. And
this day will last until the consummation of the world.

<p>1309 Next, when the
Evangelist says, <b>as he said this, he spat on the ground</b>, he describes
the healing of the blind man. Here five things were done by Christ. First, he
moistens the earth, <b>he spat on the ground</b>. Secondly, he made the clay,
as we read, he <b>made clay of the spittle</b>. Thirdly, Christ smeared the
man's eyes <b>and anointed the man's eyes</b>. Fourthly, he commands the man to
wash, with <b>go, wash in the pool of Siloam</b>. And fifthly, the man's sight
is restored, <b>and he came back seeing</b>. Each of these has both a literal
and a mystical explanation.

<p>1310 The literal meaning is
explained by Chrysostom in this way.<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>
Christ restored the man's sight by spittle in order to show that he
accomplished this by a power coming from himself, and that the miracle should
not be attributed to anything else: "Power came forth from him" (Lk 6:19).
Although our Lord could have performed all his miracles by his mere word,
because "he commanded and they were created" (Ps 148:5), he frequently used his
body in them to show that as an instrument of his divinity it held a definite
healing power. He made clay from his spittle to show that he who had formed the
entire first man can reshape the deficient members of a man. Thus, just as he
formed the first man from clay, so he made clay to re-form the eyes of the one
born blind.

<p>He
rubbed the clay on the eyes of the one born blind to show, by healing what is
most important in bodies, that he was the creator of bodies. For man is more
excellent than all other bodily substances; and among his members, the head is
the more excellent; and among the organs of the head, the eye is more excellent
than the others: "The eye is the lamp of the body" (Mt 6:22). Therefore, by
repairing the eye, which is more excellent than the other bodily members, he
showed that he was the creator of the entire man and of all corporeal nature.
He said, <b>go, wash in the pool of Siloam</b>, so that it would not seem that
the clay he rubbed on the eyes had the power to heal them. Thus, as long as he
had the clay on his eyes, the man did not see, but saw only after he washed.

<p>He
sent him some distance to wash, to the pool of Siloam, first, to overcome the
obstinacy of the Jews. For he had to cross the city, and so all would see the
blind man going with the clay on his eyes, and then returning with his sight
restored. Secondly, he did this to acclaim the obedience and faith of the blind
man; for perhaps he had frequently had clay put on his face, and had often
washed in the pool of Siloam, and yet had not seen. So he could have said: "Clay
usually makes me worse, and I have often washed in the pool but was never
helped," as we read of Naaman in 2 Kings (5:10). Yet he did not argue, but
simply obeyed. Thus it follows, <b>so he went and washed</b>. The reason why he
sent him to the pool of Siloam was because the Jewish people were signified by
that water: "Because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that flow
gently" (Is 8:6) Therefore, he sent him to Siloam to show that he still loved
the Jewish people.

<p>The
effect follows, because <b>he came back seeing</b>. This was predicted in
Isaiah (35:5): "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened."

<p>1311 Augustine gives the
mystical and allegorical explanation. He says that the spittle, which is saliva
that descends from the head, signifies the Word of God, who proceeds from the
Father, the head of all things: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High"
(Sir 24:3). Therefore, the Lord made clay from spittle and the earth when the
Word was made flesh. <a href="#_ftn11"
name="_ftnref11">[11]</a>
He anointed the eyes of the blind man, that is, of the human race. And the eyes
are the eyes of the heart, anointed by faith in the incarnation of Christ. But
the blind man did not yet see, because the anointing produced a catechumen, who
has faith but has not yet been baptized. So he sends him to the pool of Siloam
to wash and receive his sight, i.e., to be baptized, and in baptism to receive
full enlightenment. Thus, according to Dionysius, baptism is an enlightenment:
"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your
uncleanness" (Ezek 36:25).<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a>
And so this Gospel is appropriately read in Lent, on Holy Saturday, when those
about to be baptized are examined. Nor is it without reason that the Evangelist
adds the meaning of the pool, saying, <b>which means Sent</b>, because whoever
is baptized must be baptized in Christ, who was sent by the Father: "As many of
you as were baptized in Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). For if Christ
had not been sent, none of us would have been freed from sin.

<p>According
to Gregory, however, the spittle signifies the savor of intimate contemplation,
which flows from the head into the mouth, because due to the love of our
Creator we have been touched even in this life with the savor of revelation.<a
href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a>
Thus the Lord mixed spittle with earth and restored sight to the man born with
his contemplation, and heals our understanding from its original blindness.

<p align=center><B>LECTURE 2</B>

<BLOCKQUOTE><p>8 The neighbors and those
who had seen him before as a beggar, said, "Is not this the man who used to sit
and beg?" 9 Some said, "It is he"; others said, "No, but he is like him." He
said, "I am the man." 10 They said to him, "Then how were your eyes opened?" 11
He answered, "The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes an said to
me, 'Go to Siloam and wash'; so I went and washed and received my sight." 12
They said to him, "Where is he?" He said, "I do not know." 13 They brought to
the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. 14 Now it was a Sabbath day
when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. 15 The Pharisees again asked him
how he had received his sight. And he said to them, "He put clay on my eyes,
and I washed, and I see." 16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from
God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others said, "How can a man who is
a sinner do such signs?" There was a division among them. 17 So they again said
to the blind man, "What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?"
He said, "He is a prophet." 18 The Jews did not believe that he had been blind
and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had
received his sight, 19 and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born
blind? How then does he now see?" 20 His parents answered, "We know that this
is our son, and that he was born blind; 21 but how he now sees we do not know,
nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for
himself." 22 His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews
had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to
be put out of the synagogue. 23 Therefore his parents said, "He is of age, ask
him."<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14"><b>[14]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>

<p>1312 After the description of
the miraculous healing of the blind man, the Evangelist tells of the miracle
being examined. First, the miracle is examined by the people; secondly, by the
Pharisees (v 13); and thirdly, on account of his confession the blind man is
instructed and commended by Christ (v 35). In regard to the first, the
Evangelist mentions three things: first, we see an inquiry about the person who
received his sight; secondly, about the restoration itself (v 10); and thirdly
about the one who restored his sight (v 1). In regard to the first he does
three things: first, we have a question about the one who received his sight;
secondly, the different opinions about this are given; thirdly, the question is
settled.

<p>1313 The question is asked by
the people. He says, <b>the neighbors and those who had seen him before as a
beggar said: Is not this the man who used to sit and beg? </b>Here two things
are to be considered. One is that due to the greatness of the miracle, it was
considered incredible. So we read below: "Never since the world began has it
been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind" (9:32). This
fulfills for them what is said in Habakkuk (1:5), "I am doing a work in your
days that you would not believe if told." Secondly, we should note the
wonderful compassion of God, because our Lord performs miracles not only for
the powerful, but also for outcasts, since he healed, with great pity, those
who begged. This shows that he who came for our salvation rejected no one
because of their poverty: "Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world
to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?" (Jas 2:5). Thus they explicitly
say, <b>Is not this the man who used to sit and beg? </b>This is like saying:
He is an outcast and does not deserve to be cured. But Baruch says the
opposite: "The giants who were born there…God did not choose them" (3:26).

<p>1314 The opinions of the
people are presented when he says, <b>Some said</b>: It is he, the beggar,
because they had often seen him begging, and later hurrying through the town
when he went to the pool with the clay on his eyes. Thus they could not deny
that it was he. But others were on the contrary opinion, so they said, <b>No,
but it is like him</b>. The reason for this, as Augustine says, is that the
man's appearance changed when he regained his sight, for nothing is so
characteristic as the expression a person gets from his eyes: "A sensible man
is known by his face" (Sir 19:29).<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15">[15]</a>

<p>1315 The question is settled
by the blind man because <b>he said</b>, the blind man, <b>I am the man</b>,
the one who used to beg. His voice was grateful. For since he could not be
ungrateful for such a great favor and was unable to show any other sign of
gratitude than to constantly declare that he had been cured by Christ, he said,
<b>I am the man</b>, the one who was blind and begged; and now I see: "Praise
God and give thanks to him…for what he has done for you" (Tob 12:6).

<p>1316 Then (v 10), we see the
investigation of the act, which was the restoration of the man's sight. First,
we have the question asked by the Jews; secondly, the answer of the blind man
(v 11).

<p>1317 They continue: If you
are the blind man who used to beg, then tell us, <b>how were your eyes opened? </b>This
question came from their vain curiosity because neither the one who was cured
nor we ourselves know how it was done: "Do not meddle in what is beyond your
tasks" (Sir 3:23).

<p>1318 The blind man's answer
was remarkable; he says, <b>the man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes</b>…In
his answer he first points out the person who gave him his sight, saying <b>the
man called Jesus</b>. He was right in calling him a man; he knew that he was a
man, and he was a true man: "Born in the likeness of man" (Phil 2:7). For
although he had not seen Jesus, because he had left while still blind to go to
Siloam, he knew him from his voice and from the conversations of others about
him.

<p>Secondly,
he tells what was done, saying, <b>he made clay and anointed my eyes</b>. Here
he shows that he is truthful, not asserting what is not certain. For our Lord
had made clay from spittle, but he did not know this; yet through his sense of
touch he recognized the clay which was made and placed over his eyes. So he did
not say, "He made clay from spittle," but only, he <b>made clay and anointed my
eyes</b>: "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we
have looked upon and touched with our hands…we proclaim also to you" (1 Jn
1:1).

<p>Thirdly,
he mentions the command, saying, <b>and he said to me, Go to Siloam and wash</b>.
This was also necessary for us, for if we wish to be cleansed from our
blindness of heart, it is necessary that we be spiritually washed; "Wash
yourselves; make yourselves clean" (Is 1:16).

<p>Fourthly,
he shows his obedience, saying, <b>so I went and washed</b>. He is saying in
effect: Because I heard this command and desired to see, I obeyed. And it is no
wonder, because we read: "For the commandment," that is, when obeyed, "is a
lamp and the teaching a light" (Prov 6:23).

<p>Fifthly,
he mentions the good effect, saying, <b>and I received my sight</b>. It was
fitting that he be enlightened after obeying, because as it says in Acts
(5:32): "It is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him."
Notice the perseverance of the blind man. As Augustine says: "Look at him! He
became a preacher of grace. See him! He preaches and testifies to the Jews.
This blind man testified, and the hearts of the wicked were vexed, because they
did not have the light in their hearts which he had in his face."<a
href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16">[16]</a>

<p>1319 Next, we have the
inquiry about the person who restored his sight (v 12). First, there is the
question asked by the Jews, <b>Where is he? </b>They asked this maliciously, as
they were thinking of killing him; for they had already formed a conspiracy
against Christ: "But now you seek to kill me" (8:40).

<p>Secondly,
we have the answer of the blind man, <b>I do not know</b>. As Augustine says,
from these words it is clear that what was accomplished in him physically
represents what is accomplished spiritually at different stages.<a
href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17">[17]</a>
For at first, the blind man is anointed, and then sees after his washing. The
anointing represents the beginning of his physical health, and the washing
leads to complete health. In particular, an anointing produces a catechumen;
and the washing, that is, baptism, perfects and enlightens him. Thus we have a
representation of the difference in faith found at different stages. For when
he says, <b>I do not know</b>, this represents the imperfect faith of
catechumens: "You worship what you do not know" (4:22). This can also signify
our faith: "For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect" (1
Cor 13:9).

<p>1320 Then when he says, <b>they
brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind</b>, we see his
examination by the Pharisees. First, they question the man born blind;
secondly, his parents (v 18). He does three things with the first. First, we
see the person to be examined; secondly, he mentions the intention of the
examiners; and thirdly we have the interrogation itself.

<p>1321 The one to be examined,
the blind man, is led to the Pharisees by the people. <b>They brought</b>, that
is, the crowd, <b>to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind</b>.
They did this because the crowd was trying to find out from him where Jesus
was, so that if they found him they could bring him to the Pharisees and accuse
him of breaking the Sabbath. So because they did not have Christ they took the
blind man, so that by questioning him more roughly they might force him by fear
to make up something false about Christ: "I will go to the great, and will
speak to them; for they know the way of the Lord, the law of their God. But
they all alike had broken the yoke, they had burst the bonds" (Jer 5:5).

<p>1322 The Evangelist shows
that their intention was perverse, saying, <b>it was a Sabbath day when Jesus
made the clay</b>. He says this to show their evil intention and the reason why
they sought Jesus, that is, to find a charge against him and detract from his
miracle by his supposed violation of the law. Nevertheless, it should be said
that "The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Mt 12:8).

<p>1323 His examination is
conducted by the Pharisees, since it is said, <b>The Pharisees again asked him</b>.
First, they question him about what was done; secondly, about the person who
did it (v 16).

<p>1324 The Evangelist does two
things about the first: first, he presents their interrogation; secondly, the
blind man's answer. They ask him about the sign he received, <b>the Pharisees
again asked him</b>, not in order to learn, but to find a reason to accuse him
of lying. The blind man answers them, not contradicting what he said before,
nor deviating from the truth. <b>He</b>, that is, the blind man, <b>said to
them, He put clay on my eyes</b>. We must, first, admire the perseverance of
this blind man, for although it may not seem such a great thing to have spoken
the truth when he, without danger, was questioned by the crowd, he showed
remarkable perseverance when in greater danger before the Pharisees he neither
denied what he had said before nor changed his account: "I will also speak of
thy testimonies before kings, and shall not be put to shame" (Ps 119:46).
Secondly, we should admire his skill, for it is good practice to first relate
an event in detail and with all its circumstances, and then if it has to be
repeated, to speak more concisely. So here, he does not repeat the name of the
one who spoke to him, nor that he was told to go and wash. But without
hesitation he relays only the essential, and says, <b>He put clay on my eyes</b>.

<p>1325 Next (v 16), an inquiry
is made about the one who restored the man's sight. First, the different
opinions of the Pharisees concerning Christ are given; secondly, the opinion of
the blind man is sought (v 17). In regard to the first he does three things:
first, he presents the opinion of those who were blaspheming Christ; then, the
opinion of those who were commending him; thirdly, he concludes with the fact
that they were arguing and disagreeing among themselves.

<p>1326 We should note,
concerning the first, that those who act maliciously against someone keep
silent if they see anything good in his work, and they reveal the evil, if any
is seen, even turning what is good into evil, according to "Beware of a
scoundrel, for he devises evil, lest he give you a lasting blemish" (Sir
11:33). This is what they are doing here: for they do not mention what seemed
good, that is, the restoration of the blind man's sight, but stress what they
can against Christ, that is, his breaking of the Sabbath. Thus <b>some of the
Pharisees said</b>, that is, those who were malicious and corrupt, <b>this man
is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath</b>. But Christ did keep the
Sabbath, for when the Lord forbade work on the Sabbath he had in mind servile
work, which is a sin: "Every one who does sinful works on the Sabbath breaks
the Sabbath. So Christ, who was without sin, rather than they, kept the
Sabbath.

<p>1327 The opinion of those
commending him is presented when he reports them as saying, <b>How can a man
who is a sinner do such signs? </b>These others had some faith due to the signs
that Christ worked, but were still weak and imperfect; it was out of fear of
the Pharisees and the elders that they asked with hesitation, <b>How can a man
who</b> <b>is a sinner do such signs? </b>We read below that "Many even of the
authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess
it" (12:42). They should have shown how our Lord had not broken the Sabbath,
and have appropriately replied in defense of Jesus.

<p>1328 The difference of
opinion among them is mentioned when he says, <b>there was a division among
them</b>; and this division was also found in the people. This was a sign of
their destruction: "Their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt" (Hos
10:2); "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste" (Mt 12:25).

<p>1329 Next (v 17), they ask
the blind man for his opinion. And first we have the question the Pharisees
asked; secondly, the blind man's answer.

<p>They
question him, saying, <b>what do you say about him? </b>According to
Chrysostom, this question was not asked by those who were blaspheming Christ,
but by those favorably disposed.<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18">[18]</a>
This is clear from the way they questioned him; for they call his attention to
the gift he received, saying, <b>since he has opened your eyes</b>. If the
others had been doing the questioning, they would not have said this, but would
rather recall that Christ broke the Sabbath. But these remind him of the
benefit that he received to make him grateful and lead him to testify to
Christ.

<p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2>But according to
Augustine, this question was asked by Christ's enemies, who wanted to deprecate
this man who constantly professed the truth; or they were trying to get him to
change his opinion out of fear; or at least were attempting to exclude him from
the synagogue.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19">[19]</a>

<p>The
answer of the blind man remained the same, <b>he said, He is a prophet</b>.
Although up to this time, as though unanointed in heart, he did not yet profess
that Christ was the Son of God, he firmly expressed what he thought and did not
lie. For our Lord said of himself: "A prophet is not without honor except in
his own country" (Mt 13:57); "The Lord your God will raise up for you a
prophet…him shall you heed" (Dt 18:15).

<p>1330 Next (v 18), we see his
parents questioned. First, we have the reason why they were questioned;
secondly, the question itself (v 19); thirdly their answer (v 20); and
fourthly, the reason for this answer (v 22).

<p>1331 The reason for this
second questioning was the unbelief of the Pharisees. He says, <b>the Jews</b>,
that is, the Pharisees, <b>did not believe that he had been blind and had
received his sight, until they called the parents of the man</b>. They did this
in an attempt to nullify the miracle of Christ and to preserve their own glory:
"How can you believe, who receive glory from one another?" (Jn 5:44).

<p>1332 The Pharisees now
question his parents. Here they ask about three things. First, about their son,
saying <b>Is this your son? </b>Secondly, about his blindness; and so they add,
<b>who you say was born blind</b>. They did not say, "who at one time was
blind," but <b>who you say</b>, implying that they made this up. What father
would lie in such a way about his son? Yet they were trying to make him say he
did.

<p>Thirdly,
they ask how he had obtained his sight,<b> How then does he now see? </b>This
was like saying: Either it is false that he now sees, or that he was once
blind; but obviously the truth is that he sees; therefore it was false to say
that he had been blind: "The powerful man will test you through much talking,
and while he smiles he will be examining you" (Sir 13:11).

<p>1333 Then, the answer of his
parents is given (v 20). The Pharisees had asked about three things; they
answer firmly about two and in regard to the third they refer them to their
son. First, they admit the first, namely, that he is their son; so they say, <b>we
know that this is our son</b>. They also admit the second when they add, <b>and
that he was born blind</b>. This shows that the truth always conquers what is
false, as we read in the apocryphal 3 Esdras (3:13): "Truth conquers all." Yet
as to the third question, how their son sees, they <b>answer, but how he now
sees we do not know</b>.

<p>They
reply, secondly, about the person who gave him his sight, <b>now do we know who
opened his eyes</b>. They answer this way because the question was directed
against the one who gave sight to their son, and so they refer this to their
son, saying, <b>Ask him, he is of age</b>. This was like saying: He was born
blind, not mute; thus he can speak for himself in this matter. The testimony
about this miracle was from several sources so as to make it more believable:
the parents told what they knew, and their blind son confirmed that he had been
cured.

<p>1334 The reason for their
answer is given when he says, <b>his parents said this because they feared the
Jews</b>; for they were still imperfect and did not dare do what our Lord says:
"Do not fear those who kill the body" (Mt 10:28). The reason for their fear was
<b>that the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be
Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue</b>. "I have said all this to you
to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues" (Jn
16:11). As Augustine says, it was no longer an evil to be cast out of the
synagogue, for the ones they rejected Christ welcomed.<a href="#_ftn20"
name="_ftnref20">[20]</a>

<p align=center><B>LECTURE 3</B>

<BLOCKQUOTE><p>24 So for the second time
they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, "Give God the praise;
we know that this man is a sinner." 25 he answered, "Whether he is a sinner, I
do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, I now see." 26 They
said to him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" 27 He answered
them, "I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to
hear it again? Do you too want to become his disciples?" 28 And they reviled
him, saying, "You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know
that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he
comes from." 30 The man answered, "Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where
he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen
to sinners, but if any one is a worshipper of God and does his will, God
listens to him. 32 Never since the world began has it been heard that any one
opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could
do nothing." 34 They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you
teach us?" And they cast him out.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21"><b>[21]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>

<p>1335 After the questioning of
the blind man and his parents, an attempt is made to make him deny the truth
and affirm what is false. First, they attempt to make him deny the truth;
secondly, they revile him (v 28); and thirdly, they condemn him (v 34). The
Evangelist does two things about the first. First, he shows how they tried to
get the man born blind to deny the truth; secondly, how they continued to
question him in order to malign him (v 26). In regard to the first he does two
things: first, he shows their malice; and secondly, the steadfastness of the
man born blind (v 25). The malice of the Pharisees is shown by their attempt to
have him deny the truth, while the steadfastness of the blind man appears by
his resolute profession of the truth.

<p>1336 In regard to the first
he says, <b>for the second time they called the man who had been blind</b>, for
his parents had referred them to the blind man, <b>and said to him: Give God
the praise</b>. They say one thing but mean another. For they wish to force him
to say that his sight was not restored by Christ, or if they are unable to do
this, to force him to admit that he was cured by him through sorcery. They do
not say this openly, but implicitly, with an appearance of devotion. They attempt
this by saying, <b>Give God the praise</b>. As if to say: Your sight has been
given to you. But only God can do this. Therefore, you should not attribute
this to anyone but God, and not to this man, that is, Christ, because if you do
this you are indicating that you have not received the gift of your healing
from God, for the reason that God does not perform miracles through sinners.
Thus they add, <b>we know that this man is a sinner</b>. But, as Augustine
says, if he had done this, he would not be giving glory to God but rather,
being ungrateful, would be blaspheming.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"
title="">[22]</a>
But in truth, the Pharisees were lying when they said, <b>we know that this man
is a sinner</b>; for above (8:46), they could not convict him of sin, and he
said: "which of you convicts me of sin?" And no wonder, because "He committed
no sin; no guile was found on his lips" (1 Pet 2:22).

<p>1337 Here we see the
steadfastness of the blind man. For amazed at the hardness of the Pharisees,
and impatient with what they were saying, he says, in all truth, <b>Whether he
is a sinner, I do not know.</b>

<p>Yet
because he had said before that "He is a prophet," is he not now saying, <b>Whether
he is a sinner I do not know</b>, out of fear, as if he were doubtful? Not at
all! Rather, he is angry and mocking the Pharisees. He is saying in effect: You
say that he is a sinner; but I do not know that he is a sinner, and I am amazed
that you say this, because he accomplished a work which does not seem to be the
work of a sinner, because <b>though I was blind, now I see</b>, by his
kindness. According to Augustine, he said this in order not to be maligned nor
to conceal the truth. For perhaps if he had said, "I know that he is a just
man," which was true, they would have maligned him.<a href="#_ftn23"
name="_ftnref23">[23]</a>
But according to Chrysostom, he said this to give them a more impressive
testimony to the miracle, and to make his answer believable by calling
attention to the gift itself he received.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24"
title="">[24]</a>

<p>1338 They again question the
man born blind in order to malign him. First, we have the cunning interrogation
of the Pharisees; and secondly, the contemptuous reply of the blind man (v 27).

<p>1339 He says, with respect to
the first, <b>They said to him: What did he do to you? </b>The blind man had
said that he had received his sight from Christ, which the Pharisees had not
asked about. It was their intention to malign Christ, so they now ask rather
how he did it. So they did not ask "How is it that you see?" but <b>How did he
open your eyes? </b>It was like saying: "He did this by some trick or sorcery,
didn't he?" "Those who seek my hurt speak of ruin, and meditate treachery all
the day long" (Ps 38:12).

<p>1340 Now the man's answer is
given. The man born blind, because he really had received his sight, answers
them further, not timidly, but with boldness. He first belittles the repeated
questioning of the Pharisees, saying, <b>I have told you already and you would
not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? </b>This was like saying: I told
you once. Why do you want to hear it again? That's foolish! It looks like you
are not paying attention to what I am saying. So, I have nothing further to say
to you because your questioning is useless, and you want to cavil rather than
learn. "He who tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man; and at the end
he will say: 'What is it'" (Sir 22:8).

<p>Secondly,
he mocks the presumptuous intention of the Pharisees, saying, <b>Do you too
want to become his disciples? </b>When someone carefully investigates a matter,
he does so either with a good intention, to accept it, or with an evil
intention, to condemn it. Now because the Pharisees were carefully
investigating this, and because the man born blind did not dare impute an evil
intention to them, he takes the alternative, saying, <b>Do you too want to
become his disciples? </b>He means by this: If you are not investigating this
maliciously, you therefore wish to join him: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do
evil" (Jer 13:23). As Augustine says: The one who had received his sight gladly
desired to give them light.<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25">[25]</a>
Thus, he significantly says, <b>you too</b>, implying that he himself was a
disciple. He is saying in effect: <b>Do you want to become his disciples </b>as
I am? I already see, and do not envy your coming to the light. And as
Chrysostom says, from the steadfastness of the blind man we can see how strong
truth really is, for when it convinces the lowly, it makes them noble and
strong. And we can see how weak is a lie, which even if it is maintained by the
powerful, shows and makes them weak.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26">[26]</a>

<p>1341 Next, the Pharisees
revile the man born blind. First, we see them revile him; then, secondly, the
defense of the blind man (v 30). He does two things concerning the first:
first, he presents the revilement of the Pharisees; secondly, the reason behind
it (v 28b).

<p>1342 With respect to the
first he says, <b>and they reviled him, saying, You are his disciple</b>. This
is, indeed, scornful, if you consider their vicious hearts. But if you consider
their words, it is the greatest blessing. May we and our children be treated
with such scorn! "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples" (Jn
8:31). Still, the Evangelist stated that they reviled him by saying this
because what they said came from their evil hearts: "Like the glaze covering an
earthen vessel are smooth lips with an evil heart" (Prov 26:23). We read about
this revilement in the Psalm 109 (v 28): "let them curse, but do thou bless";
and in Matthew (5:11): "Blessed are you when men revile you."

<p>1343 He next adds the reason
for their reviling when he says,<b> we are disciples of Moses</b>.<b> </b>They
were thinking of how they were ridiculed by the man born blind when he asked if
they wanted to become Christ's disciples; for they took pride in being
disciples of Moses, whom they thought was greater. First, they set forth their
own situation, saying, <b>we are disciples of Moses</b>. But this pride of
theirs is false, because they neither followed Moses nor fulfilled his
commands: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me" (Jn 5:46); this was
like saying: You do not follow the servant [Moses], and later go against his
Lord.

<p>Secondly,
they praise the dignity of Moses when they say, <b>we know that God has spoken
to Moses</b>. Here they are telling the truth, for as we read: "The Lord used
to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Ex 33:11); and
"If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a
vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is
entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth" (Num 12:6). Thus
God spoke to Moses in a more excellent way than to the other prophets. And it
is about this that they are speaking. However, it is clear that since God spoke
his Word to Moses, the dignity of Moses came from the Word of God. And so the
Word of God is of greater dignity than Moses: "Yet Jesus has been counted
worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more
honor than the house" (Heb 3:3).

<p>Thirdly,
they hint at the dignity of Christ in a veiled manner when they say, <b>as for
this man</b>, Christ, <b>we do not know where he comes from</b>. This is true,
but not the way they understood it: for they did not know the Father, and
Christ was from the Father: "you know neither me nor my Father" (8:19). But
their statement is false as they understood it, for when they said, we do <b>not
know where he comes from</b>, they meant he had no authority and was
unverified, so that is was not clear whether or not he came from God. They seem
to be applying to him the words of Jeremiah: "I did not send you prophets, yet
they ran" (23:21).

<p>1344 Now, the blind man's
argument against the Pharisees is presented. First, he is amazed at their
harness of heart; secondly, he refutes their false opinion (v 31).

<p>1345 Concerning the first, we
must recall that we are not amazed at what happens frequently, and in the usual
way; but we are amazed at what is unusual and great, whether this be good or
evil. We are struck by unusual and great good: "you are wonderful, my Lord, and
your countenance is full of grace," as we read in Esther [15:17]. We are also amazed
at great evil: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this…for my people have committed
two evils" (Jer 2:12). In line with this, the blind man says in answer, <b>Why
this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from</b>. He is saying in
effect: It would not be remarkable if you regarded someone insignificant and
like me as having no authority. But it is extremely amazing that you can see an
explicit and evident sign of divine power in Christ and say that you do not
know where he comes from, especially because he did open my eyes.

<p>1346 The man born blind
refutes their false opinion by saying, <b>we know that God does not listen to
sinners</b>. He is reasoning this way: Whomever God hears is from God; but God
heard Christ; therefore, Christ is from God. He first states his main premise;
then the minor premise (v 32); and thirdly, he draws his conclusion (v 33). He
does two things abut the first: first, he mentions those whom God does not
hear; secondly, those he does hear (v 31b).

<p>1347 God does not hear
sinners. In regard to this he says, <b>we know that God does not hear sinners</b>.
He is saying: Both you and I agree that sinners are not heard by God. Thus a
Psalm says, "They cried to the Lord and he did not hear them"; and again, "Then
they will call upon me, but I will not answer" (Prov 1:28). But there are
statements which contradict this: "If they sin against thee - for there is no
man who does not sin - but later repent with all their heart, then hear thou
from heaven and forgive thy people" [2 Chron 6:36-39]; and in Luke (18:14) we
read that the tax collector "went down to his house justified."

<p>Because
of this Augustine says that this blind man is speaking as one who has not been
anointed, as one who does not yet have complete knowledge. For God does hear
sinners, otherwise it would have been futile for the tax collector to have
prayed: "God, be merciful to me a sinner." Accordingly, if we wish to save the
statement of the blind man we must say that God does not hear those sinners who
persist in their sinning; but he does hear those sinners who are sorry for
their sins, and who should be regarded more as repentant than as sinners. <a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27">[27]</a>

<p>1348 Yet there is a
difficulty here. It is clear that miracles are not accomplished by us due to
our own power, but through prayer. But sinners often perform miracles: "Lord,
Lord, did we not prophesy in your name…and do many might works in your name?"
(Mt 7:22); and yet God did not know them. Thus, what the blind man said does
not seems to be true, namely, <b>we know that God does not listen to sinners</b>.

<p>There
are two answers to this. The first is general. Prayer has two characteristics,
that is, it can obtain [what it asks for] and it can merit. Thus, sometimes it
obtains what it asks, and does not merit; at other times, it merits and does
not obtain. And so nothing prevents the prayer of a sinner from obtaining what
it asks although it does not merit. This is the way that God hears sinners; not
as a matter of merit, but they obtain what they ask from the divine power,
which they acknowledge. The other answer is special and applies to this
particular case, when the miracle that was done makes known the person of
Christ.

<p>&nbsp;

<p>1349 It should be mentioned
that every miracle is a sort of testimony. Sometimes, a miracle is accomplished
as a testimony to the truth that is being preached; at other times, it is a
testimony to the person performing it. We must also realize that no true
miracle happens except by the divine power, and that God is never a witness to
a lie. I say, therefore, that whenever a miracle is performed in testimony to a
doctrine that is being preached, that doctrine must be true, even if the person
who is preaching it is not good. And when it is performed in testimony to the
person, it is also necessary that the person be good. Now it is evident that
the miracles of Christ were performed in testimony to his person: "The works
which the Father has granted me to accomplish…bear me witness that the Father
has sent me" (5:36). It was with this meaning that the blind man said that <b>God
does not listen to sinners</b>, that is, so that they could perform miracles as
a testimony to their supposed holiness. <a
href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28">[28]</a>

<p>1350 Then when he says, <b>but
if any one is a worshiper of God</b>…he shows that God hears the just through
merit. We must realize that the performing of miracles is attributed to faith:
"If you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will be
done" (Mt 21:21). The reason for this is that miracles are accomplished by the
omnipotence of God, on which faith relies. Therefore, whoever wishes to obtain
something from God has to have faith: "Let him ask in faith" (Jas 1:6).
However, if he wishes to obtain it through merit, he must do God's will. And
these two conditions are mentioned here. As to the first, he says, <b>If any
one is a worshipper of God</b> by sacrifices and offerings: "They will worship
him with sacrifice and burnt offering" (Is 19:21). These belong to the worship
of <i>latria</i>, which attests to one's faith. As to the second he says, <b>and
does his will</b> by obeying his commandments, <b>God listens to him</b>.

<p>1351 Here he takes the minor
premise of his argument. He is saying: Because of what Christ did, which no man
has ever done, it is obvious that he did this by the action of God, and that he
has been heard by God: "If I had not done among them the works which no one
else did, they would not have sin" (Jn 15:24).

<p>1352 Next, he draws his
conclusion. He is saying, in effect: From the kind of works that Christ does,
it is obvious that he is from God. For <b>if this man were not from God, he
could do nothing</b>, that is, freely, often and truly, because "apart from me
you can do nothing" (15:5).

<p>1353 Here the Pharisees
condemn the blind man. In this condemnation they fall into three defects or
sins, namely, untruth, pride, and injustice. They fall into untruth in reviling
the blind man, <b>saying, you were born in utter sin</b>. Here it should be
noted that the Jews were of the opinion that all infirmities and temporal
adversities beset us on account of our previous sins. This was the opinion
given by Eliphaz: "Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where
were the upright cut off? As I have seen those who plow iniquity and sow
trouble reap the same. By the breath of God they perish" (Job 4:7). The reason
for this opinion is that in the Old Law temporal goods were promised to the
good, and temporal punishment to the evil: "If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land" (Is 1:19). Therefore, seeing that this man
had been born blind, they believed that this happened on account of his sins, and
so they say, <b>you were born in utter sin</b>. But they were wrong, because
the Lord said: "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents."

<p>They
say <b>in utter sin </b>to show that he is defiled by sins not only in his
soul, insofar as all of us are born sinners, but even as regards the traces of
sin which appear in his body, as blindness. Or according to Chrysostom, <b>in
utter sin</b> means that he was in sin all his life, from his earliest years.<a
href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29">[29]</a>

<p>They
are guilty of pride by rejecting what the man born blind was teaching, when
they say, <b>Would you teach us? </b>This was like saying: You are not worthy.
This makes their pride clear: for no person, no matter however wise, ought to
reject being taught by any inferior. Thus the Apostle teaches (1 Cor 14:30)
that if something is revealed to one who is inferior, those who are greater
should keep silent and listen. In Daniel we read that all the people, and the
elders, listened to the judgment of a young boy, Daniel, whose spirit has been
raised up by God.

<p>They
are guilty of injustice by unjustly casting him out. Thus we read, <b>and they
cast him out</b>, that is, because he spoke the truth. However, in this man
born blind there is already fulfilled what our Lord had said: "Blessed are you
when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your
name as evil, on account of the Son of man!" (Lk 6:22).

<p align=center><B>LECTURE 4</B>

<BLOCKQUOTE><p>35 Jesus heard that they
had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of
God?" 36 He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?" 37 Jesus
said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you." 38 He said,
"Lord, I believe"; and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said, "For judgment I came
into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may
become blind." 40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to
him, "Are we also blind?" 41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would
have no guilt; but now that you say, 'we see', your guilt remains."<a
href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30"><b>[30]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>

<p>1354 After the Evangelist
showed how the Jews cast out the man born blind because he persisted in the
truth, he here shows how Jesus received him and taught him. First, we see
Christ teaching him; secondly, the devotion of the man born blind (v 38);
thirdly, the approval of his devotion (v 39). He does three things about the
first. First, he shows the eagerness of Christ to teach him; secondly, we see
the desire of the man born blind to believe (v 36); and thirdly, the teaching
of the faith is given to perfect him (v 37).

<p>1355 Christ's eagerness to
teach is described in three ways. First, by his attentive consideration to what
was done to the man born blind. For just as a trainer carefully considers what
his athlete undergoes for his sake, so Christ attentively considered what the
man born blind underwent for the sake of the truth and because of his
assertions. And so he says that <b>Jesus heard</b>, attentively considered,
that the Pharisees <b>had cast him out</b>, of the temple: "Give heed to me, O
Lord, and to the voices of my adversaries" [Jer 18:19].

<p>Secondly,
we see Christ's eagerness from his efforts in searching for him, for the
Evangelist says, <b>and having found him</b>; for we are said to find what we
diligently seek: "She seeks diligently, until she finds it" (Lk 15:8). It is
clear from this that Christ was looking for him alone, because he found more
faith in him alone that in all the others. And we can see from this that God
loves one just person more than ten thousand sinners: "I will make men more
rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir" (Is 13:12). And in
Genesis we read that God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of ten just
men.

<p>Thirdly,
our Lord's eagerness is seen from the seriousness of his question; he said, <b>Do
you believe in the Son of God?</b> The blind man was an image of those to be
baptized. Thus the custom arose in the Church of questioning those to be
baptized about their faith: "Baptism…now saves you, not as a removal of dirt
from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clean conscience" (1 Pet 3:21). When
asked about his faith he does not say, "Do you believe in Christ?" but <b>Do
you believe in the Son of God?</b> He does this, as Hilary says, because it
would develop that some would profess Christ, and yet deny that he was the Son
of God and God, as Arius erred.<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31">[31]</a>
These words clearly exclude this error: for if Christ were not God, we would
not have to believe in him, since God alone is the object of faith, which rests
on the first truth. Thus he significantly says, <b>in the Son </b>(<i>in Filium</i>);
for I am certainly able to believe some creature, such as Peter and Paul (<i>credere
Petro et Paulo</i>), yet I do not believe in Peter (<i>credere in Petrum</i>),
but in God (<i>in Deum</i>) alone as the object of faith [cf. no. 901]. Thus it
is clear that the Son of God is not a creature: "You believe in God, believe
also in me" (Jn 14:1).

<p>1356 Next he mentions the
desire of the man born blind to believe. We have to recall that this man had
not yet physically seen Christ: for he had not seen him when Christ anointed
his eyes and sent him to the pool of Siloam, and when he wanted to go back to
him he was detained by the Pharisees and the Jews. However, although he had not
physically seen Jesus, he believed that the one who opened his eyes was the Son
of God. And so he breaks out in words of desire and intense longing, and says, <b>And
who is he, sir</b>, namely, the Son of God, who opened my eyes, <b>that I may
believe in him? </b>It is clear from this that he knew something about Jesus,
and did not know other things about him. For if he had not known him, he would
not have argued so firmly on his behalf; and if he had not been ignorant of
other things, he certainly would not have said, <b>Who is he, sir? </b>"My soul
yearns for you in the night," that is, the night of ignorance (Is 26:9).

<p>1357 Because, as we read in
Wisdom (6:16), "She," that is, Wisdom, "goes about seeking those worthy of
her," Christ reveals himself to the man born blind, who desired her, when he
says, <b>You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you</b>. Here Christ is
giving him a teaching of faith. First, he mentions the gift he received, saying
<b>you have seen him</b>, that is, you, who did not see before, have now seen
him. He is saying in effect that the man born blind received the ability to see
from him: "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see" (Lk 10:23); "Lord, now
let your servant depart in peace…for my eyes have seen your salvation" [Lk
2:29]. Secondly, the teaching itself is given when he says, <b>It is he who
speaks to you</b>: "In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb 1:2).

<p>These
words refute the error of Nestorius, who said that in Christ the <i>suppositum </i>[or
person] of the Son of God is different from the <i>suppositum</i> of the Son of
man. They refute it because the one who spoke these words was born from Mary
and was the son of man, and the very same one is the Son of God, as our Lord
says. Therefore, there are two <i>supposita</i> [persons] in Christ, although
the natures [the divine and the human] are not the same.<a href="#_ftn32"
name="_ftnref32">[32]</a>

<p>1358 Then when the Evangelist
says, <b>he said, Lord, I believe</b>, we see the devout faith of the man born
blind. And first, he professes with his lips the faith in his heart, saying, <b>Lord,
I believe</b>: "Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he
confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10:10). Secondly, he shows it in
his conduct, <b>and he worshipped him</b>. This shows that he believes in the
divine nature of Christ, because those whose consciences have been cleansed
know Christ not only as the son of man, which was externally obvious, but as
the Son of God, who had taken flesh: for adoration is due to God alone: "You
will adore the Lord, your God" [Dt 6:13].

<p>1359 Next (v 39), the
devotion of the man born blind is commended: first, his devotion is commended;
secondly, we see the grumbling of the Jews (v 40); and then they are answered
(v 41).

<p>1360 The man born blind is
commended for his faith. We read,<b> for judgment I came into this world</b>.
But on the other hand, we also read: "God sent the Son into the world, not to
judge the world" [Jn 3:17]. My answer is this: In the second statement [3:17]
he is speaking of the judgment of condemnation, about which we read: "Those who
have done evil [will rise] to the resurrection of judgment" (Jn 5:29), that is,
to a judgment of condemnation. And God did not send his Son for this purpose at
his first coming; he was sent to save us. But here in the present statement
[9:39], he is speaking of the judgment of distinction, about which we read:
"Vindicate me, O Lord, and distinguish my cause" [Ps 43:1]. For Jesus came to
distinguish the good from the evil. The words which follow show this: <b>that
those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.</b>

<p>According
to Augustine, those who think they see do not see, and those who do not think
they see, see. Now, we are said to be blind, spiritually, insofar as we sin:
"Their wickedness blinded them" (Wis 2:21).<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33"
title="">[33]</a>
Thus, the one who does not recognize his own sins regards himself as seeing;
while one who recognizes himself as a sinner regards himself as not seeing. The
first is characteristic of the proud; the second, of the humble. So the meaning
is this: I have come to distinguish the humble from the proud, so that the
humble, <b>who do not see</b>, that is, who regard themselves as sinners, <b>may
see</b>, having been illuminated by faith, <b>and that those who see</b>, that
is, the proud, <b>may become blind</b>, that is, may remain in the darkness.

<p>1361 Chrysostom understands
this passage in terms of the judgment of condemnation, so that the statement, <b>for
judgment I came into this world</b> is not understood in a causal sense, but it
indicates the sequence of events.<a href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34">[34]</a>
It is like saying: After my coming into the world, there follows for some the
judgment of condemnation increases in them. In Luke (2:23) we find something
similar: "This child is set for the falling and rising of many in Israel," not because Christ is the cause of their fall, but because this follows his
coming. He adds, <b>that those who do not see</b>, that is, the Gentiles, who
lacked the light of divine knowledge, <b>may see</b>, i.e., be admitted to the
knowledge of God: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light"
(Is 9:2); <b>and that those who see</b>, the Jews, who did have a knowledge of
God - "In Judah God is known" (Ps 76:1) - <b>may become blind</b>, fall away
from the knowledge of God. The Apostle explicitly mentions this: "The Gentiles
who did not pursue righteousness have attained it" (Rom 9:30).

<p>1362 Now we see the grumbling
of the Jews. They had understood our Lord's words in a bodily sense because
they had seen the man born blind physically restored to sight, and had thought
that our Lord was concerned only with the light in his eyes rather than in his
mind. And so they believed that he was warning and threatening them with
physical blindness when he said <b>may become blind</b>. Therefore, the
Evangelist says, <b>some of the Pharisees near him heard this</b>, the above
words. He says who were <b>near him</b>, to show their vacillation: for
sometimes they were with him because of some miracles which they saw, and then
would leave when the truth was made known to them: "They believe for a while,
and in time of tribulation fall away" (Lk 8:13). <b>And they said to him, Are
we also blind</b>, i.e., physically? Yet they were spiritually blind: "Let them
alone; they are blind guides" (Mt 15:14).

<p>1363 Next, we see the Jews
silenced. According to Augustine, this shows the meaning of the previous
passage, that is, that our Lord was referring to spiritual blindness.<a
href="#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35">[35]</a>
He says, <b>If you were blind, you would have no guilt</b>, because you would
be running to the remedy. For sin is taken away by grace, which is given only
to the humble: "God gives grace to the humble" (Jas 4:6). <b>But now that you
say, We see</b>, i.e., proudly thinking that you do see, you do not recognize
that you are sinners, <b>your guilt remains</b>, i.e., is not taken away: "God
opposes the proud" (Jas 4:6).

<p>Chrysostom understands this
passage as referring to physical blindness.<a href="#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36"
title="">[36]</a>
The meaning is then: <b>If you were blind</b>,<b> </b>physically, you would
have no guilt, because since blindness is a physical defect, it does not have
the nature of sin. <b>But now that you say, We see</b>, your sin is clear,
because while seeing the miracles that I do, you do not believe me: "Blind the
heart of this people" [Is 6:10].

<p>Here
is another explanation. <b>If you were blind</b>,<b> </b>i.e.,<b> </b>ignorant
of the judgments of God and of the sacraments of the law; <b>you would have no
guilt</b>, i.e., so much. As if to say: If you were sinning out of ignorance,
your sin would not be so serious. <b>But now that you say, We see</b>, i.e.,
arrogate to yourselves an understanding of the law and a knowledge of God, and
still sin, then <b>your guilt remains</b>, i.e., becomes greater: "That servant
who knew is master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will,
shall receive a severe beating" (Lk 12:47).
<BR><BR><BR>
<hr align=left size=1 width="33%">

<div id=ftn1>

<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>
<span>St. Thomas refers to Jn 9:3 in the <i>Summa Theologiae</i>:
I-II, q. 87, a. 7, obj. 1; III, q. 40, a. 4, ad 1; Jn 9:4: <i>ST</i> III, q.
35, a. 8, obj. 3; q. 83, a. 2, ad 4; Jn 5: <i>ST</i> III, q. 46, a. 9, obj. 4;
q. 83, a. 2, ad 4; Jn 9:6: <i>ST</i> III, q. 44, a. 3, ad 2.

</div>

<div id=ftn2>

<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">
[2]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>., 44, ch. 1, col. 1713; cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:1-7.

</div>

<div id=ftn3>

<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> <i>In
Ioannem hom</i>., 56, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 305; cf.
<i>Catena Aurea, </i>8:1-7.

</div>

<div id=ftn4>

<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">
[4]</a> Ibid;
cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>8:1-7.

</div>

<div id=ftn5>

<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a>
Augustine, <i>Epistola XLIV</i>, ch. V no. 12, PL 33,
col. 179.

</div>

<div id=ftn6>

<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">
[6]</a>
summa-punishment as a corrective.

</div>

<div id=ftn7>

<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">
[7]</a> cf.
Augustine, <i>Epistola CLV</i>, ch. I, no. 3; PL 33, col. 668

</div>

<div id=ftn8>

<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">
[8]</a>
Summa-evil of fault and evil of punishment

</div>

<div id=ftn9>

<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">
[9]</a> <i>Moralia</i>, Praefatio, ch. 5 no. 12; PL 75, col. 523A, B; cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:1-7.

</div>

<div id=ftn10>

<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">
[10]</a> <i>In
Ioannem hom</i>., 57, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 311; cf.
<i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:1-7.

</div>

<div id=ftn11>

<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">
[11]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>., 44, ch. 2, col. 1714; cf. <i>Catena
Aurea, </i>9:1-7.

</div>

<div id=ftn12>

<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">
[12]</a>
Dionysius.

</div>

<div id=ftn13>

<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">
[13]</a> <i>Moralia</i>,
Lib. 8, ch. 30, no. 49; PL 75. col. 832 C; cf.
<i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:1-7.

</div>

<div id=ftn14>

<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14">[14]</a>
<span>St. Thomas refers to Jn 9:16 in the <i>Summa
Theologiae</i>: I-II, q. 107, a. 2, obj. 3; III, q. 40, a. 4, ad 1.

</div>

<div id=ftn15>

<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15">
[15]</a><i>
Tract. in Io</i>., 44, ch. 8, col. 1716; cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:8-17.

</div>

<div id=ftn16>

<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16">
[16]</a> Ibid.,
8; cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:8-17.

</div>

<div id=ftn17>

<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17">
[17]</a> See <i>Tract
in Io</i>, 44, ch. 8, col. 1716-17.

</div>

<div id=ftn18>

<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18">
[18]</a><i>In
Ioannem hom</i>., 58, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 58;
cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:8-17.

</div>

<div id=ftn19>

<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19">
[19]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>., 44, ch. 9, col. 1717; cf. <i>Catena
Aurea, </i>9:8-17.

</div>

<div id=ftn20>

<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20">
[20]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>., 44, 10, col. 1717; cf. <i>Catena
Aurea, </i>9:18-23.

</div>

<div id=ftn21>

<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21">[21]</a>
<span>St. Thomas refers to Jn 9:31 in the <i>Summa
Theologiae</i>: II-II, q. 83, a. 16, obj. 1; q. 178, a. 2, obj. 1; III, q. 64,
a. 1, obj. 2; Jn 9:32: <i>ST </i>III, q. 43, a. 4.<i> </i>

</div>

<div id=ftn22>

<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22">[22]</a>
<i>Tract. in Io</i>.,
44, ch. 11, col. 1718; cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:24-34.

</div>

<div id=ftn23>

<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23">
[23]</a> Augustine-this is not in <i>Tract in Io</i>. (so far as I
could tell)

</div>

<div id=ftn24>

<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24">
[24]</a> <i>In
Ioannem hom</i>., 58, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 317; cf.
<i>Catena Aurea,</i> 9:24-34.

</div>

<div id=ftn25>

<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25">
[25]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>, 44, ch. 11, col. 1718.

</div>

<div id=ftn26>

<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26">
[26]</a> <i>In
Ioannem hom</i>., 58, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 318; cf.
<i>Catena Aurea</i>, <span style='color:#339966'>9:24-34.

</div>

<div id=ftn27>

<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27">
[27]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>., 44, ch. 13, col. 1718; cf. <i>Catena
Aurea, </i>9:24-34.

</div>

<div id=ftn28>

<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28">
[28]</a>
Summa-sc 138-139 way in which God hears the prayers of sinners; miracles can
testify to a doctrine or to a person.

</div>

<div id=ftn29>

<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29">[29]</a>
<i>In Ioannem hom</i>.,
58, ch. 3; PG 59, col., 319; cf. <i>Catena
Aurea,</i> 9:24-34.

</div>

<div id=ftn30>

<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30">[30]</a>
  <span>St. Thomas<span> refers to
Jn 9:39 in the <i>Summa Theologiae</i>: III, q. 51, a. 2, obj. 2; Jn 9:41: <i>ST</i>
II-II, q. 15, a. 1, obj. 1.

</div>

<div id=ftn31>

<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31">[31]</a> <i>De Trinitate</i>, 6 ch. 48; PL 10, col. 196B; cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>9:35-41.

</div>

<div id=ftn32>

<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32">
[32]</a> Ought
this to be concluding that there are two persons in Christ?

</div>

<div id=ftn33>

<p><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33">
[33]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>., 44, 16, col. 1719; cf. <i>Catena
Aurea, </i>9:35-41.

</div>

<div id=ftn34>

<p><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34">
[34]</a> <i>In
Ioannem hom</i>., 59, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 323; cf.
<i>Catena </i><i><span style='color:#339966'>Aurea</i><span style='color:#339966'>, 9:35-41.

</div>

<div id=ftn35>

<p><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35">
[35]</a> <i>Tract.
in Io</i>., 44, ch. 17, col. 1719; cf. <i>Catena
Aurea, </i>9:35-41.

</div>

<div id=ftn36>

<p><a href="#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36">
[36]</a><i> In
Ioannem hom</i>., 59, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 323;
cf. <i>Catena </i><i><span style='color:#339966'>Aurea</i><span style='color:#339966'>, 9:35-41.

</body></html>
author	ht
date	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000
parents
children	178aed5d2c3c