Saint John - Chapter 9
 |
| He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing. J-J Tissot |
And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth:
And as Jesus passed by, &c. Passing through the midst of His enemies and the crowd of the people. This signifies (though some deny it) that this cure took place immediately after Christ had withdrawn from the temple. As soon as He had escaped His enemies, He became visible again, and His disciples followed Him. “He mitigated their anger by His withdrawal, and softened their hardness by working a miracle” says S. Chrysostom.
He looked upon him tenderly and fixedly, as pitying him, and intending to restore his sight. And this intent look caused the disciples to inquire the cause of his blindness. “He Himself” (says S. Chrysostom) “saw that he was blind. The blind man did not come to Him, but He looked on him so stedfastly, that the disciples asked the question which follows.” Mystically, sinners and unbelievers are blind, and are thus unable to see and seek for Christ. So that Christ must needs look on them first and enlighten them with the eyes of His grace.
His blindness was congenital and incurable. If it had been accidental, surgeons could have cured it. But when a man is cured who is blind from his birth, “it is not a matter of skill,” says S. Ambrose, “but of power. The Lord gave him soundness, but not by the exercise of the medicinal art. The Lord healed those whom none could cure.” His name is said to have been Cedonius or Celedonius (see ver. 38).
Mystically, this man is a type of mankind, blinded by original sin, which Jesus, “passing along the road of our mortality” (says the Gloss), “looked upon, pitied and enlightened.” “For blindness befel the first man through sin, and as we spring from him, the human race is blind from its birth.” And Bede, “The way of Christ is His descent from heaven to earth. But He beheld the blind man, when He beheld mankind with pity.” Again: “This blind man denotes the Gentiles born and brought up in the darkness of unbelief and idolatry, to whom Christ passed over, when expelled from the hearts of the Jews, and enlightened them with the light of faith and His Gospel,” says Bede. And Christ wished to designate this in type by the enlightenment of this blind man. So S. Cyril, Rupert, and Bede.
[2] et interrogaverunt eum discipuli ejus : Rabbi, quis peccavit, hic, aut parentes ejus, ut caecus nasceretur?
And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?
And His disciples, &c. This question sprang out of the opinion of the ignorant multitude, who think that diseases are the punishments of sin, and, as S. Ambrose says, “They ascribe weaknesses of body to the deserts of their sins.” But they are wrong in this; for though it is often the case, yet not always. For Job, though innocent, was afflicted in order to try his patience, as Tobias also, and many others. S. Chrysostom and Theophylact say that this question was out of place and absurd.
Others think that the disciples were led to ask this question by what Christ said (v. 14), “Sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to thee.”
A man’s own fault, and not that of another, seems to be the cause of his own blindness, by way of punishment. Original sin is in truth the cause of all the evils and punishments which befal us in this life, and of the diseases of infants especially as S. Augustine teaches us (Contr. Julian iii. 4). But this was not the special reason why this man, above all other infants, was born blind. Whence S. Augustine says, “This man could not have been born without original sin; nor yet have added nothing to it by his life. He therefore and his parents had sin, but the sin was not the cause of his being born blind.”
S. Cyril supposes that the disciples were imbued with the error of Pythagoras and Plato, who thought that souls existed before their bodies, and that for their sins they were thrust down into bodies, as Origen afterwards held. But Leontius considers that the disciples did not speak of the sin of the blind man which took place before his birth, but after it. As if God, foreseeing what would happen punished him beforehand with blindness. But whatever might be the opinion of the disciples (and it is hard to conjecture), it is certain they were wrong. For souls did not exist before their bodies, and God only punishes past and not future sins. God, it is true, punishes the sins of parents in the persons of their children. And children are frequently born weak, blind, and deformed, &c., or soon die, in consequence of the vices of their parent (see 2 Sam. 12:14, and Exod. 20:5).
[3] Respondit Jesus : Neque hic peccavit, neque parentes ejus : sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo.
Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
Jesus answered, &c. Christ denies not that he and his parents had sinned both by original and actual sin. But He denies that he was condemned to blindness for these sins, beyond other people, who had committed the same and even greater sins. So S. Augustine. In vain therefore do the Pelagians misuse this passage to do away with original sin.
The reason why God inflicted blindness on this man was that the miraculous power of Christ should be made manifest in his case, and thus Christ be acknowledged as the true Messiah. So the Fathers quoted above. The Gloss gives the mystical meaning, that it was to signify what Christ would do in enlightening mankind in like manner by His grace, and the doctrine of the Gospel. And accordingly the man himself was enlightened not only in his body, but in his mind, as will be seen below. And therefore he suffered no wrong, but gained a benefit by his blindness (says S. Chrysostom), for in consequence of it he beheld with the eyes of his mind, Him who from nothing brought him into being, and received from Him enlightenment both in body and in mind.
[4] Me oportet operari opera ejus qui misit me, donec dies est : venit nox, quando nemo potest operari:
I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
I must work, &c. S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others understand by the word “day” the present life, and by “night” the future life. But this is what is common to all men. But Christ speaks of this day as specially relating to Himself and His own work. And therefore S. Augustine, Cyril, and Bede put a better and closer meaning on the word day, as speaking of the life of Christ on earth, and night as referring to His absence, meaning by this, that just as men cannot work at night on account of the darkness, so after death shall I no longer work as I do now for the salvation and redemption of men. “My day” (8:56) means in like manner My birth and My life amongst men. He says this, as preparing the way for the healing of the blind man. “I am sent into the world to do good to men: this blind man presents himself and I will restore his sight.”
Symbolically: Night, says the Interlinear Gloss, is the persecution of the Apostles, especially by antichrist.
Tropologically: The time of life given to every one to gain eternal glory is his “day.” Night is his death (see Eccles. 9:10). And S. Augustine (in loc.) says, “Night is that of which it is said, ‘Cast him into outer darkness.’ Then will be the night, when no man can work, but only receive for what he hath wrought. Work while thou art alive, lest thou be prevented by that night.” It was common among poets and philosophers to call life day, and death night, and many instances and authorities are given from Pagan writers to this purpose. But to take some Christian ones, Messodamus, a very holy man, was once asked by a friend to dine with him on the morrow. “I have had no morrow,” he replied, “for many years: every day have I looked for the coming of death.” And this is what S. Anthony (apud S. Athanasius) and Barlaam advised every devout and “religious” man to do. S. Jerome wisely says, “One who is ever thinking that he will die, easily makes light of everything,” for he regards each day as his last.
“Fixed is the day of death alike to all,
Brief life’s short hours soon pass beyond recal.”
—Virg. Æn. x.
[5] quamdiu sum in mundo, lux sum mundi.
As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
As long as I am in the world, &c. And therefore I will give light to this blind man, to show that I am the Light of this world.
[6] Haec cum dixisset, exspuit in terram, et fecit lutum ex sputo, et linivit lutum super oculos ejus,
When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay on his eyes,
And when He had thus said, &c. He used clay, which naturally closes up the eyes, to show that He healed the man supernaturally. The symbolical reason was (S. Chrysostom says) to signify that He was the self-same (God) who formed man out of clay, and that it was His work to form and fashion again (by restoring his sight) a man who was formed by Him, but deformed by blindness. He showed thus that He was the Lord of all things, and of the Sabbath also, so as to work His cure on that day whatever outcry the Pharisees might make. So Cyril, Leontius, Theophylact. Accordingly the Interlinear Gloss says, “See, here is the eye-salve with which mankind is anointed, the thought, namely, of its own vileness, as being made of clay, so as to be cured of the pride which had blinded it. According to the saying, ‘Remember, O man, that thou art dust, and into dust thou wilt return.’ ” Christ used His spittle, says Cyril, to show that even His Flesh had a supernatural power of healing. (2.) Because spittle is a symbol of recuperative power (several derivations of “saliva” are here suggested which are of no value, and several instances of cures by its use). (3.) He used it that no virtue should be ascribed to the pool of Siloam, but to the power of His own mouth from whence it came; for by the bidding of His own mouth He drove away the blindness. (4.) That thus this miracle might be the more fully attested. (5.) To test the faith and obedience of the blind man (see S. Chrysostom). Why did He send him to Siloam, that all men might see him going with the clay on his eyes? But there was no reason to fear that the cure would be attributed to Siloam, because many had washed there without being cured. But the faith of the blind man was shown by his not saying a word or having a thought against it, but he simply obeyed.
Allegorically. S. Augustine says, “Christ made clay of the spittle because the Word was made flesh.” He anointed the eyes of the blind man, but yet he did not see, for when He anointed him He most likely made him a catechumen. He sends him to the pool of Siloam. For being baptized in Christ he is illuminated. The Gloss says, “The spittle is the wisdom which came forth from the mouth of the Most High; the earth is the flesh of Christ, to anoint the eyes is to make a catechumen. He that believeth in the Word made flesh is sent to wash, that is to be baptized in Siloam, that is in Him that was sent, i.e., in Christ. But he who is baptized receives the light of the mind through faith, hope, and charity, which are infused into him by God in baptism.”
[7] et dixit ei : Vade, lava in natatoria Siloe ( quod interpretatur Missus). Abiit ergo, et lavit, et venit videns.
And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing.
And said unto Him, &c. Siloam is a stream at the foot of Mount Sion, which does not flow continuously, but at uncertain times of the day; it bursts forth (says S. Jerome) with a loud noise, and is then silent. It hides itself under the earth, and by channels runs into the pool of Siloam, and hence is conveyed silently and gently into the royal gardens, which it waters. (See S. Jerome on Is. 8) Epiphanius thus gives its history. “God made the fount of Siloam at the request of the Prophet (Isaiah), who shortly before his death prayed that He would grant the waters to flow from that place, and He immediately poured down from heaven living waters; whence the place obtained the name Siloam, which means sent down. And under king Hezekiah, before he built the pool, a small stream sprang up at the prayers of Isaiah (for they were hard pressed by the enemy), that the people might not perish for lack of water. The soldiers searched everywhere for water and could not tell where to find it. But when the poor Jews went to seek water it burst out for them in a stream. But strangers could not find it, for the water withdrew itself. And even up to the present time it bursts forth secretly, thus signifying a mystery.” Epiphanius records this in his life of the Prophet. Baronius compares it to a stream in Palestine called Sabbaticus, because it flowed only on the Sabbath. (See Baronius A.D. 33, cap. xxvi., and Josephus, de Bello Jud. cap. xiv.) S. Irenæus (iv. 19) says that Siloam effected its cures very frequently on the Sabbath.
(2.) From Siloam, flowing as it did at intervals, and in a country where there was a want of water, the water was drawn gently and noiselessly into the pool, or bath, and thence passed into the gardens. From this letting in and letting out of the waters it was called Siloam from the root schalach.
But why did Christ send the blind man to this particular pool? (1.) Because it was a type of Himself, who was sent into the world, to enlighten it. (See S. Chrysostom and S. Irenæus, iv. 19.) (2.) Because Christ was meek and gentle like its waters, and because He was secretly and silently sent forth by the Father, as God in heaven, and on earth by His birth from the Virgin. He is also, like Siloam, a fountain of water, “springing up into eternal life.” (3.) He is the Fount of graces, who distributes His gifts to the faithful by channels. (See Is. 12:3, and Zech. 13:1, and notes thereon.) And Isaiah, who was an express type of Christ both in his life and martyrdom, caused this pool to be built. (4.) Solomon was anointed to be king near the spot. Hence the waters of Siloam signify the royal race of David. And Christ sent the blind man there to show that He was the Son of David. (5.) He sent the blind man to Siloam to recall the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. 49:10), as indicating that he was the messenger and ambassador sent from the Father. (6.) Siloam was the type of Christian Baptism, whereby we are spiritually enlightened. Baptism is called in Greek φωτισμὸς, (See S. Ambrose, Epist. lxxv., and S. Augustine in loc.) And hence S. Irenæus (v. 15) thinks that this man was enlightened both in body and mind by the waters of Siloam. (7.) There is great affinity between water and light, ablution and illumination. The Hebrew word ain signifies both a fountain and light. Cicero and Quinctilian speak of the lights of wisdom, and floods of oratory, &c. And even the Psalmist uses both terms, “For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy Light shall we see light.” And here too Christ connects light with a fountain. For after having said, “I am the Light of the world,” He sent the blind man to Siloam to recover his sight. Water washes away the noxious humours of the eyes, and thus gives them light.
Adrichomius describes Siloam and the virtue of its waters, speaking of the value Saracens and Turks put upon them, especially for restoring the sight. And no wonder. For as Christ, by being baptized in Jordan, sanctified the waters, and gave them the power of washing away sins in baptism; in like manner by giving sight to the blind man by the waters of Siloam, He seemed to have conferred on them a somewhat similar power of giving sight to others, and accordingly S. Helena (says Nicephorus, 8:30) erected some magnificent works about the pool. S. Chrysostom (in loc.) says that in Siloam was the virtue of Christ which cured the blind man. For as the apostles called Christ “a spiritual door,” so was He a spiritual Siloam. (So too S. Cyril, and S. Basil on Isaiah 8:6, and Eusebius, Demonst. Evang. vii. 2.)
Which is by interpretation. “Sent,” because it was a type of the Messiah, whose name was Siloach (i.e., sent, or to be sent, by God). For unless He had been sent, none of us (says S. Augustine) would have been delivered from his guilt.
He went therefore, &c. Not by the virtue of the waters of Siloam, but by that of Christ, who used these waters for the enlightenment of the blind man, as He uses the waters of Baptism for the purification and enlightenment of the soul. “In Siloam,” says S. Chrysostom, “was the virtue of Christ, which cured the blind man.” But the faith and obedience of the blind man merited this, not of condignity, but of congruity. For he believed that he would recover his sight by washing away in the waters of Siloam the clay which Christ had put on his eyes. For had he not believed this, he would not have kept the clay on his eyes, to the ridicule of those who saw him; nor would he have gone to Siloam, nor have there washed away the clay from his eyes. The Gloss says with less truth, “How was this man healed without faith, when nobody is said to have been healed outwardly by Christ without being healed within?” This is said of those who were sick on account of their sins, but he was suffering for the glory of God; for as I have shown, his faith and obedience were great, and by them was he alike justified, as we shall hear at the end of the chapter. So Elisha cleansed from his leprosy Naaman the Syrian by means of the waters of Jordan. And he also made sweet the bitter waters by the salt which was thrown into them. S. Augustine remarks that Christ was “the day who divided the light from the darkness, when He took away his blindness and restored him his sight.”
[8] Itaque vicini, et qui viderant eum prius quia mendicus erat, dicebant : Nonne hic est qui sedebat, et mendicabat? Alii dicebant : Quia hic est.
The neighbours therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said: This is he.
[9] Alii autem : Nequaquam, sed similis est ei. Ille vero dicebat : Quia ego sum.
But others said: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he.
The neighbours therefore, &c., and they that saw him, that he was a beggar, &c. (Vulg.) “The greatness of the deed brought about incredulity,” says S. Chrysostom. “And the opening of the eyes had changed the appearance of the blind man,” says S. Augustine, “so that looking on him they doubted whether he who saw was the one who aforetime was blind; but carefully watching him as he walked along the long way, they acknowledged him to be the same, and that it could not be denied.” So S. Chrysostom.
The wondrous mercy of God healed most carefully those who were beggars, counting those who were mean of birth to be worthy of His providential care; for He came for the healing of all. Thus many poor people and of slender means obtain of the Blessed Virgin miracles of healing, at her shrines at Loretto and Sichem, both because they are in greater need than the rich, and are more innocent in their lives, also exhibit greater faith and devotion, and because she specially cares for them, as being destitute; just as it is said, “The poor committeth himself to Thee [is left to Thy care]; Thou art the helper of the orphan” (Ps. 10:14).
[10] Dicebant ergo ei : Quomodo aperti sunt tibi oculi?
They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened?
Therefore said they unto him, &c. “The man,” says Euthymius and Theophylact, “knew not as yet that Jesus was God.” The blind man had learned the name of Jesus from common report, or from asking the bystanders. That he called Him not Rabbi, must be ascribed partly to his simplicity and candour, and partly to his truthfulness. For in order that he might not give any weight to his own opinion respecting Christ, he spake only the bare truth, and merely called Him Jesus. Perhaps he did it, likewise, in order not to excite the Jews, who were opposed to Christ, the more against Him.
[11] Respondit : Ille homo qui dicitur Jesus, lutum fecit : et unxit oculos meos, et dixit mihi : Vade ad natatoria Siloe, et lava. Et abii, et lavi, et video.
He answered: That man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see.
[12] Et dixerunt ei : Ubi est ille? Ait : Nescio.
And they said to him: Where is he? He saith: I know not.
And they said to him, Where is He? He said, I know not. For Jesus had withdrawn Himself, as shrinking from praise; for He did not, says S. Chrysostom, “seek for glory, or self-display.”
[13] Adducunt eum ad pharisaeos, qui caecus fuerat.
They bring him that had been blind to the Pharisees.
They brought to the Pharisees, &c. They brought him to the Pharisees, that they might examine the matter. This was done by the purpose of God, that the miracle might be fully attested and made widely known, so that the Pharisees could not deny it. Whence S. Augustine says, “The blind man confessed, the heart of the wicked was broken.” “They bring him to the Pharisees, as being judges, and therefore assembled in their house of judgment.” This house seems to have been a synagogue, close to the temple; for a question of religion and belief was at stake, which the Pharisees had to decide by examining the miracle, and to judge accordingly whether He who wrought it was the Messiah or not.
It was the Sabbath day. This is added to show their evil disposition; for they sought occasion against Jesus, and wished to detract from the miracle in consequence of its seeming violation of the law. For in truth to make clay in order to give sight to the blind, is not a breaking but a sanctification of the Sabbath.
[14] Erat autem sabbatum quando lutum fecit Jesus, et aperuit oculos ejus.
Now it was the sabbath, when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
[15] Iterum ergo interrogabant eum pharisaei quomodo vidisset. Ille autem dixit eis : Lutum mihi posuit super oculos, et lavi, et video.
Again therefore the Pharisees asked him, how he had received his sight. But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see.
[16] Dicebant ergo ex pharisaeis quidam : Non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit. Alii autem dicebant : Quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere? Et schisma erat inter eos.
Some therefore of the Pharisees said: This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath. But others said: How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
[17] Dicunt ergo caeco iterum : Tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? Ille autem dixit : Quia propheta est.
They say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of him that hath opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a prophet.
They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him who hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a Prophet. That is a specially holy man, a wonder-worker. So Abraham (Gen 20:7) is called a Prophet (see what is said on 1 Cor. 14 ad rem, and Ecclus. 48:12, on the various meanings of the word Prophet). “Being at present not anointed in heart, he did not confess Christ to be the Son of God. But yet he did not speak falsely of Him. For the Lord said of Himself, “A prophet is not without honour, save in His own country.”
They asked the blind man the same question again and again, out of bitter hatred of Christ, and also to involve him in the same guilt with Christ. They wished also to elicit something out of his mouth to make him contradict himself, that so they might convict him of a lie. But God caught them in their own craftiness. For by this frequent examination, the consistent confession of the blind man, and consequently the glory of Christ, shone forth. S. Chrysostom wisely says, “It is the nature of truth to become stronger by the snares laid against it.” And that was now the case, for the parents are brought forward, who fully acknowledged their son, and confirmed his words.
[18] Non crediderunt ergo Judaei de illo, quia caecus fuisset et vidisset, donec vocaverunt parentes ejus, qui viderat :
The Jews then did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight,
But the Jews did not believe, &c. They hoped to elicit something from them to refute either the blind man or Christ, “by finding that he was not born blind,” says S. Chrysostom, or was not quite blind but dim-sighted, or that he regained his sight by magic, and not by the miracle wrought by Christ. “They sought,” says S. Augustine, “how they might accuse him, that they might cast him out of the synagogue,” as they shortly afterwards did. Theophylact states that this was their dilemma. It is either false that your son now sees, or that he was blind at first. But it is admitted that he sees, it was therefore false that he was, as he says, previously blind. His parents reply cautiously. They knew him to be their son, and that he was born blind. But how he gained his sight they knew not. They speak with prudence so as not to deny the truth, nor yet incur the peril of excommunication. And hence they say, “He is of age,” meaning, says S. Augustine, “we should justly be compelled to speak for an infant, for it could not speak for itself. But he is a man who can speak for himself, therefore (say they) ask him.”
[19] et interrogaverunt eos, dicentes : Hic est filius vester, quem vos dicitis quia caecus natus est? quomodo ergo nunc videt?
And asked them, saying: Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then doth he now see?
[20] Responderunt eis parentes ejus, et dixerunt : Scimus quia hic est filius noster, et quia caecus natus est :
His parents answered them, and said: We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
[21] quomodo autem nunc videat, nescimus : aut quis ejus aperuit oculos, nos nescimus; ipsum interrogate : aetatem habet, ipse de se loquatur.
But how he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: ask himself: he is of age, let him speak for himself.
[22] Haec dixerunt parentes ejus, quoniam timebant Judaeos : jam enim conspiraverunt Judaei, ut si quis eum confiteretur esse Christum, extra synagogam fieret.
These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
For the Jews, &c. “But it was no evil to be put out of the synagogue,” says S. Augustine, “for they expelled, but Christ received him.” “But the parents said this, because they were less firm than their son, who stood forth as an intrepid witness of the truth,” says Theophylact.
[23] Propterea parentes ejus dixerunt : Quia aetatem habet, ipsum interrogate.
Therefore did his parents say: He is of age, ask himself.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam
Ad Jesum per Mariam
No comments:
Post a Comment