Saint John - Chapter 9
 |
| The blind man tells his story to the Jews. J-J Tissot |
They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.
Then again called they the man, &c. To give God the glory, is a form of obtestation or oath among the Jews (see Josh. 7:19). Confess that this man is a sinner, and so wilt thou by this confession of the truth give glory to God, who is the chief and eternal truth. “To give glory to God” (says the Gloss) “is to speak the truth as in the presence of God.” They wished to persuade him under the pretext of religion (says S. Chrysostom), to deny that he was cured by Christ, or if he were, it was by magic and sleight of hand. “Deny,” says the Interlinear Gloss, “the benefit thou hast received by Christ. But this were to blaspheme, and not to give glory to God.”
[25] Dixit ergo eis ille : si peccator est, nescio; unum scio, quia caecus cum essem, modo video.
He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.
Whether He be a sinner. “He answers prudently and cautiously, neither laying himself open to the charge, nor yet concealing the truth,” says the Interlinear Gloss. But S. Chrysostom objects, “How was it that just before he called Him a Prophet, and now he says, ‘Whether he be a sinner I know not?’ ” He does not say this by way of assertion, or through fear, but because he wished Jesus to be acquitted of the charges by the evidence of the fact. “I do not wish to argue the point with you. But I know for certain, that though once blind, now I see.”
[26] Dixerunt ergo illi : Quid fecit tibi? quomodo aperuit tibi oculos?
They said then to him: What did he to thee? How did he open thy eyes?
How opened He thine eyes? Just like hounds, says S. Chrysostom, who track their prey now here, now there.
[27] Respondit eis : Dixi vobis jam, et audistis : quod iterum vultis audire? numquid et vos vultis discipuli ejus fieri?
He answered them: I have told you already, and you have heard: why would you hear it again? will you also become his disciples?
Wherefore would ye hear it again? “Ye do not wish to learn, but merely to cavil,” says S. Chrysostom.
Will ye also be His disciples? “As I now see and envy not,” says the Gloss, “nay, I profess myself to be Jesus’ disciple, even so I wish you to become His disciples also.” “He speaks thus,” says S. Augustine, “as indignant at the hardness of the Jews, and as having been restored to sight, not enduring those who were blind (in heart).” Note here the heroic constancy and nobleness of the blind man in defending Jesus before the Pharisees, His sworn enemies. And hence he deserved to be taken up and exalted by Christ.
[28] Maledixerunt ergo ei, et dixerunt : Tu discipulus illius sis : nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus.
They reviled him therefore, and said: Be thou his disciple; but we are the disciples of Moses.
They then reviled him, &c. They cursed him, saying, Be thou accursed, or at all events heaped maledictions and reproaches upon him. But their curse was without effect, and was turned by Christ into a blessing. For it is an honour to the godly, to be cursed by the wicked. Whence S. Augustine says, “It is a curse if thou look into the heart of the speakers, but not if thou weighest the words themselves. May such a curse be on us, and on our children.”
[29] Nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus; hunc autem nescimus unde sit.
We know that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we know not from whence he is.
But we know not this man whence he is, whether sent by God, as was Moses, or by the devil. So Euthymius.
[30] Respondit ille homo, et dixit eis : In hoc enim mirabile est quia vos nescitis unde sit, et aperuit meos oculos :
The man answered, and said to them: Why, herein is a wonderful thing, that you know not from whence he is, and he hath opened my eyes.
The man answered, &c. It was your business, as doctors and learned in the Law, to know that Jesus, who works so many miracles, must have been sent by God only. For it is God who works miracles by Him. “He brings in everywhere the miracle of his recovery of sight,” says S. Chrysostom, “because they could not gainsay that, but were convinced thereby.”
[31] scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit : sed si quis Dei cultor est, et voluntatem ejus facit, hunc exaudit.
Now we know that God doth not hear sinners: but if a man be a server of God, and doth his will, him he heareth.
Now we know, &c. How can this be? For if sinners penitently ask pardon God vouchsafes it, and frequently bestows on sinners temporal blessings, and spiritual blessings also, if they ask for them. But I reply (1.) God ordinarily does not hear sinners; sinners, I mean, persisting in their sin. Yet sometimes, though rarely, He hears even them. So Jansen. This is plain from Scripture (see Ps. 59:1, 2; Prov. 28:9; Ps. 50:16; Mal. 2:2). But of the just it is said, “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers” (Ps. 32:6). And, “The eyes of the Lord are on them that fear Him” (Ecclus. 15:20).
(2.) Secondly, and more befittingly to the case in point, He hears not sinners, so as to work miracles to establish their sanctity as He did by Jesus, to testify that He was the Messiah. So Maldonatus on this passage. (See also Suarez, tom. ii. de Relig., lib. de Orat. cap. xxv.) “God heareth not sinners if they pray with an evil intention,” as e.g., to confirm their hypocrisy or lies.
(3.) S. Augustine (De Bapt. contr. Don. iii. 20) replies that this blind man spoke only generally, being still a catechumen, and not yet sufficiently instructed in the Faith. For generally it is not true, nor the view of Scripture, which in this place only states what was said by the blind man.
Hear S. Augustine, “He speaks as one not yet anointed (i.e., a catechumen). For God does hear sinners also. For else the publican would say in vain, ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner,’ from which confession he obtained justification, as this blind man obtained enlightenment.”
From this passage S. Cyprian (Ep. 64 and 80) and the Donatists who followed his teaching inferred that Baptism by an heretical minister was invalid, and ought to be repeated; because a heretic is a great sinner whom God hears not. But quite wrongly. For in like manner, Baptism administered by a Catholic Priest living in sin would be void, and would require to be repeated. I say therefore that the efficacy of the Sacrament is one thing, the efficacy of prayer is another. For a sacrament derives its efficacy ex opere operato, but prayer ex opere operantis, from the sanctity and character of him who prays. And therefore if a sinner (a heretic, e.g.) baptizes, this sacrament is valid, and derives its efficacy from the institution of Christ, who confers grace by the Sacrament. For Christ is the original author of Baptism, who baptizes by His ministers as by instruments. Besides, though God hears not the prayers of a sinner, as a private person, yet He hears the prayers of the same person, in his public capacity, because he is a minister of the Church. For the Church is holy, as having Christ as its holy Head, and as having many faithful and holy members, to whose prayers God hearkens.
[32] A saeculo non est auditum quia quis aperuit oculos caeci nati.
From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind.
Since the world began, &c. Granted that Moses and the Prophets wrought many miracles, yet they never restored sight to one who was born blind. Jesus who has restored my sight must needs be a greater Prophet than they. He retorted the words of the Pharisees on themselves, “Ye prefer Moses to Christ, but I prefer Christ. Ye choose to be Moses’ disciples, I am Christ’s.”
[33] Nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam.
Unless this man were of God, he could not do any thing.
If this man were not of God, He could do nothing, i.e., for curing my blindness. “He says this freely, stedfastly, and truly” (S. Augustine), “for to enlighten the blind is supernatural work, and specially belongs to God.”
[34] Responderunt, et dixerunt ei : In peccatis natus es totus, et tu doces nos? Et ejecerunt eum foras.
They answered, and said to him: Thou wast wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
They answered, &c., in sins, both in mind and body, for thou wast born blind by reason of thy sin. For they held the tenet of Pythagoras that the soul existed before the body, and that it was in consequence of its sins thrust down into a deformed (i.e., a blind) body. So Cyril, Leontius, and others. Maldonatus explains, “Thou hast done nothing but sin from thy birth.” So S. Chrysostom and Theophylact. And dost thou teach us? Thou blind sinner, wilt thou teach us who have our sight, and are wise and righteous?
And they cast him out of the private house in which they were, as not deserving to be disputed with by such just teachers, says Maldonatus. Or out of the temple, as says S. Chrysostom, and consequently out of the synagogue, adds Leontius. That is, they excommunicated him. “But the Lord of the temple found him,” says Chrysostom, “and took him up.” Both statements are credible: that they drove him out of the house, and also excommunicated him, for this latter they had decided to do. As if they said, “Begone, thou apostate, and go to thine own Jesus.” But this leads us to suppose that all this took place in the House of Judgment, a public place (see on verse 31). And that he was expelled from the synagogue appears more plainly from our Lord’s own words in the next chapter, I am the door.
[35] Audivit Jesus quia ejecerunt eum foras : et cum invenisset eum, dixit ei : Tu credis in Filium Dei?
Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, &c. Christ received him kindly, and rewards his constancy. Having given sight to his body, He now enlightens his mind. In giving him bodily sight, He had cast in some scattered seeds of faith, which He now particularly forms into perfect shape: so as to make him believe, that He whom he looked upon as a mere prophet, for having given him sight, was God also, and the Son of God. The Gloss says, “The blind man had already a heart prepared to believe, but knew not in whom he had to believe.” This, in answer to his question, he learns from Christ.
Christ took trouble to find him in the place, where He knew he was. It is the part of a good shepherd to seek for a wandering sheep, who cannot by itself come back into the right way. “They expel,” says S. Augustine (in loc.), “the Lord receives, and he becomes a Christian, even the more because he was expelled.”
Believest thou? Christ did not demand faith from the blind man for the healing of his body, but He does for the healing of his soul: for, as S. Augustine says (Serm. xv. de Verb. Apost.), “He who made thee without thyself, doth not justify thee without thyself: He made thee without thy knowledge, He justifies thee through thy will.”
[36] Respondit ille, et dixit : Quis est, Domine, ut credam in eum?
He answered, and said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?
[37] Et dixit ei Jesus : Et vidisti eum, et qui loquitur tecum, ipse est.
And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee.
And Jesus said, &c. Thou seest him now for the first time, for he had been healed in the pool of Siloam, when Christ was not there. Christ therefore points out to him that it was He who restored his sight. He recalls his healing to his remembrance, says Theophylact, and that he had received the gift of sight from Him, so as to make him believe that He was not only the Son of man, but the Son of God.
[38] At ille ait : Credo, Domine. Et procidens adoravit eum.
And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him.
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him, as the Son of God, and very God, to be worshipped as God with the worship due to Him (latria). Moreover, the blind man, inwardly enlightened (and moved to it by Christ), by saying, “I believe,” brought out acts of hope, contrition, charity, devotion, and adoration towards Christ, and was by them cleansed from his sins and justified. He consequently became a holy and apostolic man. He was said to have been one of the seventy disciples, and to have become Bishop of Aix, in Provence, where he died and was buried by the side of Maximinus, to whom he had been coadjutor (see Peter de Natalis in Cat. Sanctorum, lib. v. cap. 102).
[39] Et dixit Jesus : In judicium ego in hunc mundum veni : ut qui non vident videant, et qui vident caeci fiant.
And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind.
And Jesus said (not to him but to the Pharisees), for judgment, &c. “That is for condemnation,” says S. Cyril, “to convict and condemn the proud and worldly Pharisees of blindness who seem in their own sight to be wise.”
But others explain it better, not of condemnation, but of inquiry and discrimination. I have come into the world to discriminate and separate believers from unbelievers, good from evil, godly from ungodly; in order that the people, who before had lived in ignorance of God and of salvation, and in darkness of mind, like this blind man, might by believing in Me be enlightened with the knowledge of God, and of things which concern their salvation; and that I might suffer the proud who refuse to believe in Me (like the Pharisees who are puffed up by their knowledge of the law) to be blinded, and might convict them of their blindness.
(2.) But judgment might possibly here mean the secret counsel and mysterious decree of God, determined and fixed by His righteous decree, whereby God ordained that the Gentiles who knew not God, and consequently were blind, might behold the Light of Faith in Christ, and humbly and eagerly accept it; while the Scribes and Pharisees and wise men of the world, puffed up by their own knowledge, might become darkened in unbelief, and reject the faith and enlightenment of Christ. Humility, therefore, enlightened by faith the unlearned Gentiles, who submitted themselves to Christ, while pride darkened with unbelief the learned Scribes who rejected Him. So S. Cyril, or rather Clictoveus, who filled up what was wanting in his commentary. (See Rom. 11:33.) “His judgments are a great deep.” Theodoret applies this to Paul and Judas. For S. Paul having been blind received his sight, and Judas, after seeing, became blind. The words “that,” “therefore,” &c., frequently signify not the cause, but the result or consequence. For Christ came not in order that the Scribes should be made blind; but their blindness was a result of Christ’s preaching, not from anything on His part, but from their own pride and fault. So Cyril and others.
[40] Et audierunt quidam ex pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant, et dixerunt ei : Numquid et nos caeci sumus?
And some of the Pharisees, who were with him, heard: and they said unto him: Are we also blind?
And some of the Pharisees, &c. The Pharisees felt themselves sharply touched by our Lord’s words, which they understood to speak not of the blindness of the body, but of the mind. They knew that they were not bodily blind, and therefore if He had said this, they would have hooted Him down as a fool. They said, Are we blind also? Hast thou come to give sight to those who are blind in body, and to make out that we who spiritually see, and are doctors of the law, are blind and foolish? Show us our blindness and foolishness.
[41] Dixit eis Jesus : Si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum. Nunc vero dicitis, Quia videmus : peccatum vestrum manet.
Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.
Jesus said to them, &c. (1.) S. Chrysostom. Theophylact, and Euthymius explain this of bodily blindness; meaning, If ye were blind in your bodies, ye would be less proud and sinful. For bodily blindness would humble your mind. (2.) S. Augustine (in loc.) is more to the point. If ye were blind in your own opinion, if ye would acknowledge yourselves to be blind (i.e., ignorant and foolish) in things which concern your salvation, ye would not have sin, for ye would seek a remedy for it, and would obtain it from Me.
(3.) Accurately and scholastically, If ye were blind through ignorance of Scripture and the law of nature, ye would not have sin, by acting according to this ignorance and not acknowledging Me as your Messiah. That is to say, If your ignorance were clearly without blame and invincible, ye would have some sin, but one which was less serious, and more excusable, and therefore ye might easily be enlightened and cured by Me, since My doctrine would dispel your ignorance. But now ye say to yourselves, “We see,” that is,ye think ye see, and are so wise as to be excellent judges of Christ’s advent and person. And therefore ye from your arrogant and evil thoughts continue in the sin of unbelief against Me; ye obstinately set your mind against Me, and thus refuse to believe in Me as the Messiah, though I have demonstrated that I am by very many signs and miracles. And therefore, ye cannot by any possibility be enlightened and healed by Me, because ye obstinately refuse to hear Me. So Jansen and others.
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